Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started

THE RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION By Alexander Dugin

Orginal edition can by found here https://web.archive.org/web/20040815085600/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6824/rcrusse.htm

1 Conservative-Revolutionary Russia.

The authors who studied the German Conservative Revolution or the Conservative Revolution itself (Armine Mohler, Alain de Benoist, Luc Pauwels, Robert Steuckers etc.) always emphasized the role of Russia in the process of the becoming of conservative-revolutionary thought and even in the original use of this term .– Youry Samarine “Revolutionary conservatism”. One cannot also doubt “Ostorientirung” and certain quasi obligatory Russophilia of this intellectual current of the young conservatives until national-German Bolsheviks while passing by the geo-politicians of the school of Haushofer.

But the serious and sufficiently documented study in this field remains to be done to appreciate all the intellectual and geo-political value of the RC thinking of the Russian authors themselves. This task is extremely difficult due to the absence of translations of the writings of representatives of Russian CR thought to European languages. On the other hand, this current remains almost entirely ignored even in Russia itself, because the communists of yesterday officially considered this movement as “petty-bourgeois” and “nationalist” and the democrats of today think that these are the ‘chauvinists’, the patriots and the anti-Semites, or even the ‘Nazis’. Nevertheless, the interest in relation to the Russian authors of the RC trend in Russia is growing more and more, and we can hope that his works and his ideas will be rediscovered and rethought by the Russian intelligentsia which begins to wake up from a long ideological slumber. It can already be noticed that the intellectual process of discovering the national heritage in the domain of culture even today in Russia bears several conservative-revolutionary features, although this often happens in a spontaneous, unconscious and natural way. One can even dare to say that Russia itself, in its essence, is naturally conservative-revolutionary, openly or secretly according to external circumstances. It can already be noticed that the intellectual process of discovering the national heritage in the domain of culture even today in Russia bears several conservative-revolutionary features, although this often happens in a spontaneous, unconscious and natural way. One can even dare to say that Russia itself, in its essence, is naturally conservative-revolutionary, openly or secretly according to external circumstances. 

2 The precursors of RC current in Russia

a) Russian macons

If we look at the history of Russian thought over the last few centuries it will undoubtedly be seen that almost all of the more prominent Russian writers, philosophers and publishers have some conservative-revolutionary traits. From the Russian macons of the circle of Novikov, Schwarz and Lopouchine one sees in the Russian intellectual movements always the combination of the conservative motives with the revolutionary motives.

The Russian Macons or Russian Rosicrucians, as they are more often called, wanted in the second half of the 18th century to counterbalance the purely secular and essentially atheistic tendencies of the Russian Court which became a spell of obligatory ideology under the Czarina Catherine, through traditionalist, spiritual and “conservative” research in the mystical and theological sense. But the reliogisity and mysticism of the first Russian macons had as a counterpart certain accents placed on the side of social justice and certain vague features of socialism. If we can speak here of a certain “utopianism” which united the Russian macons with their European “brothers”, they were all the same very different from them in all that it was a question of the conscience of the national roots, of the keen sense of Russian and imperial identity. Their utopianism was rooted and identitarian. It is not by chance that the Russian macons were mainly linked with the German mother lodges where, in contrast with England and France, the nationalist and imperial spirit reigned, apart from the Illumines of Baviere whose membership in regular Masonry was also denied by serious and qualified authors such as Rene Guenon. Be that as it may, the writings of Lopuchin and Novikov are full of allusions to the mystical values of the people and of the Russian soul understood as spiritual and enigmatic reality. Like the Prussian and Protestant masonry of the same period,

Slavophiles – A.Chomyakov, P.Kirievsky, Aksakov etc.

But the more direct precursors of Russian RC were the 19th century Slavophiles. This current which has strongly inflamed all the Russian intellectual life of the last two centuries was not, as one very often thinks, the only conservative, patriarchal, archaic and reactionary movement. As almost always in Russian history (and even in the whole history of counter-revolutionary thought, I dare say) the more radical intellectuals of the Right have evolved to this ideological position by starting with the opposite pole, that of modernism, of progressivism, of revolution. The first Slavophiles (those of the first generation as they say) like A.Chomyakov, P.Kirievsky, the Aksakov brothers etc. have all passed through the attraction of the ideas of the French Revolution, but after having lost the illusions of youth, they ended up with the exaltation of radically anti-revolutionary values – those of the soil, those of the people understood as organic, qualitative, historical unity, those of the spiritual and geopolitical identity of Russia, those of its religious and imperial destiny. But everywhere in the writings of the first Slavophiles one finds traces of the “revolutionary” spirit – they severely criticize the Russian Monarchy from Peter the Great, whom they accused of being the destroyer of the spiritual synthesis between the Russian people and the Russian state. Peter the Great was “the demon” for the Slavophiles and for this reason their attitude towards the Romanovs Monarchy was rather ambiguous. We must also underline the fact that the Slavophiles were watched by the Tsarist police and several of its texts were banned by censorship, despite its obvious “reaccionarity”. It was Slavophiles (Y.Samarine) who used the term RC.

c) “the zapadnikis” – P. Tchaadaev

The more radical opponent of the Slavophiles – P. Tchaadaev who is often presented as the first author of the “pro-Western” orientation (that of the “zapadnikis”) which meant “progressive”, “rationalist” and “ enciclopediste ”- he too was marked by the unmistakable spirit of RC. We can at least mention this fact that he was the direct disciple of Josef de Maistre with whom he was in the relations of friendship. Tchaadaev opposed to the Slavophiles the ideas of “open conservatism” of a European style. He denied the mystical mission of Russia as an inconsistent and meaningless utopia, he mocked the archaism of the Orhodox Church, he regarded Russian history as absurdity and barbarity, but at the same time he wanted to restore theocratic, Catholic and anti-modern civilization in the medieval spirit. So he was more the European counter-revolutionary than the Russian counter-revolutionary. His writings (“Philosophical Letters”) contain many geopolitical considerations that could be interpreted in the “eurasist” sense. Towards the end of his life Tchaadaev became almost Russophile. Quote “When we look at her face – undeniably endowed with the clearer and more insightful intelligence of her time – one does not find in her anything “modern”, “progressive” or “rationalist”. rather, he was the isolated and non-conformist romanticist. “When we look at her face – undeniably endowed with the clearer and more insightful intelligence of he time – one does not find in her anything “modern”, “progressive” or “rationalist”. rather, she was the isolated and non-conformist romanticist. 

d) “the young slavophiles” – “the potchvennikis” and K. Leontyev,

N. Danilevsky

The Slavophiles of the second and especially of the third generation – of which the most famous are the philosophers K. Leontiev and N. Danilevsky (true precursor of the conceptions of Oswald Spengler and Toynbe), the writer Fedor Dostoevsky, the philosophers A.Grigoriev , N. Strachov etc.

– can be seen as the typical conservative revolutionaries. They “necessarily” pass through socialist and anarchist circles to rediscover, following traumatic experiences, the deep truths of the Orthodox Religion, of the mystical soul of the Russian people, the mysteries of imperial soil, of the qualitative laws of geopolitics. Eurasian.

The “potchvennikis” – from the Russian word “potchva”, “the ground”, Boden, – defended the idea of ​​the providential unity of the Russian people with the traditional and religious elite. They were stealing from transforming Russia into an organic, religious state based on the idea of ​​Divine Justice which for them was the same as Russian Justice (“russkaya pravda”, “the Russian truth”). They rejected the history of the West – especially after the French Revolution – as anti-organic, artificial and almost satanic history. The “potchvennikis” rejected capitalism and insisted on the particular Russian path of economic, industrial and social development, which should above all be in harmony with the organic and natural interiuer with the sacred and providential mission of Russia and its mystical people.

The other brilliant author who considerably developed the conservative-revolutionary tendencies of the salvophiles was Konstantin Leontiev. Leontiev created his famous doctrine of the Asian, Turkish-Slavic identity of the Russian people which he regarded as the unique phenomenon of racial, cultural and geo-political synthesis. Leontiev stressed the necessity of the total struggle against the modern spirit and he considered the Muslim peoples (and especially the Turkish) as the natural and sure allies of the Orthodox Russians in their fight against the modern and anti-traditional West. Leontiev developed the geo-political theses that we already find among the first Slavophiles (A.Chomyakov, I.Kirievsky etc.) Certain ideas of Leontiev are strangely close to the ideas of Rene Guenon. Leontiev was the absolute enemy of all capitalism and free trade. Some of his proposals could be interpreted in the sense of “Christian-Orthodox, Russian and Eurasist socialism”. He created a great continental project which was centered in the intensification of cultural, economic and geopolitical relations between Russia and the Eastern peoples, while rejecting at the same time the capitalist, Western and especially Anglo-Saxon way. (The only exception for him was Austria and Prussia which he considered the traditional and “eastern” countries.) economic and geopolitical between Russia and the Eastern peoples, while rejecting at the same time the capitalist, Western and especially Anglo-Saxon way. (The only exception for him was Austria and Prussia which he considered the traditional and “eastern” countries.) economic and geopolitical between Russia and the Eastern peoples, while rejecting at the same time the capitalist, Western and especially Anglo-Saxon way. (The only exception for him was Austria and Prussia which he considered the traditional and “eastern” countries.)

N. Danilevsky for his part proposed the vision of multiple civilizations, each of which has its own cyclical development. He was thinking in terms of the synchronicity of civilizations. According to him the Russian civilization was the unique case where the balance was established between the opposing tendencies geo-political, cultural, ethnic and religious. In contrast to K. Leontiev N. Danilevsky rejected the eastern orientation as the western orientation. He believed that Russian civilization should be preserved as such, isolated and withdrawn.

d) nationalist anarchists – Mr Bakunin

Even in the Russian leftist and revolutionary movements of XIX – beginning of XX centuries one can easily find forms as one might consider to have certain features of RC. Mr Bakunin himself, being the ideologist and the practice of more radical and atheistic revolutionary anarchism, sometimes expressed theses which were hardly reconcilable with the internationalist and clearly cosmopolitan spirit of his movement. We know his hatred of the Jews. His project of the union of all Slavic peoples, his ideas of “Slavic and even pan-Slavist socialism” can be seen as the prefiguring forms of certain branches of the RC of the XX-th century and more exactly those of National Bolshevism. German or Russian. The theory of M. Bakunin (let us remember that he was the personal friend of Proudhon) knew the new type of revolutionary – ascetic, Spartan and almost Superman – whicubwas shared then developed by G. Sorel, E. Niekish and J. Thirart

e) the “narodnikis” – from A.Gerzen to V.Tchernova

For even more obvious reasons in the RC current belonged the “narodnikis” (from the Russian word “narod” – “people”) and certain “socialist-revolutionaries” – the political movements of the socialist and sometimes terrorist extreme left.

The “Narodnikis” can be seen as the paroxysmal form of Slavophile thought in combination with the tendency to establish social “Justice”. They appeared in Russian ideological life in the 50-60s of the XIX century. The “narodnikis” rejected the Marxist doctrine and its theoretical constructions. They believed that socialism should be concrete, with “the Russian face”, rooted and “traditionalist”. Their main idea was the thesis that “social development through capitalism is Absolute Evil” (N. Michailovsky, P.Lavrov, and especially V. Voronzov and N. Danielson). They criticized the Monarchy as the mask of capitalism directed against the people and their spiritual, economic and religious needs. Among them most were Orthodox Christians. They exalted “the values of the soil”. Their most famous organizations were “La Tierre et le Vouloir” and “Le Vouloir du Peuple”. From the fathers of the “narodnikis” movement – A. Gerzen and N. Tchernychevsky – until the last generation – V. Chernov and L. Chichko – we see among them the permanent motivation for the need for social, economic and social development. industrialist in strict conformity with the national peculiarity of the people and with their traditions. The “Narodnikis” were drawn to individualistic terrorism and the ideal of a type of “absolute revolutionary”, a “superman in the service of the people”. Some of them “went to the people” and professed the concept of “small acts” and “peaceful resistance”. The trend of “narodnikis” was shared by the famous Russian writer Lev Tolstoy.

f) the Social Revolutionaries

The Social Revolutionaries (especially those known as “of the right”) were the anti-bourgeois and anti-monarchist extremists and terrorists who, in contrast with the Bolsheviks, placed the emphasis on the role of the peasants in the revolutionary movement and not on that of the proletarians. They followed the course of the “narodnikis” – more archaic and more patriarchal than themselves – but without their Christianity and their abdication of direct political struggle.

g) anti-Semitic Bolsheviks and Patriotic- Bolshevik visionaries – S. Esenin, Klyuev etc.

Even among the Bolsheviks themselves some conservative-revolutionary traits can be pointed out – at least among the ordinary representatives of the communist movement who sometimes acted as the reactionaries of the “black sotnia” – the anti-semitic pogrommes of the Bolsheviks was the very thing. widespread during the years 1904-1905 (the first Russian revolution) and in the years 1917 – 1920. The amount of crimes committed against the Jews especially in Ukraine among the soldiers of the Red Army was almost equal to the “pogroms” carried out by the “whites” and the anarchist bands. Among the Bolsheviks we find writers, poets and philosophers with a distinctly conservative-revolutionary tendency – the novels of A. Platonov, the poetry of Serge Esenin and Kliuev (the nationalist and patriotic mystics), the writings of V.

This short review makes it clear to us that characteristic aspects of CR can be found in most of the intellectual and political tendencies of Russia in the second half of the 18th century – the beginning of the 20th century. It goes without saying that the in-depth study of each of these movements and of the more characteristic authors remains to be done to further clarify the paradoxical and fascinating history of the formation and genesis of Russian conservative-revolutionary thought.

3 The Conservative Revolution of Baron Ungern-Sternberg

The extraordinary figure of “the mad baron” Roman Fedorovich Ungern-Sternberg fits well within the framework of the Russian RC. He was the radical and practical Eurasist. He realized his political convictions through his heroic and desperate struggle. Ungern-Sternberg was hated not only by his Bolshevik enemies with whom he fought in the tiers of Siberia and Mongolia. The whites themselves (eg General Kolchak) rejected the baron for his extremism and his absolute negation of humanist values. Ungern who was for a time the dictator of Mongolia despised the West as the decadent civilization which lost the values of honor, of heroism, of masculine and solar values. He wanted to create a new knighthood from Asian peoples more traditional and more spiritual than the Europeans and thanks to this knighthood he wanted to organize the Crusade of the traditional East against the humanist West. For Ungern -Sternberg Bolshevism was the extreme form of the degeneration of civilization which opened up all the fraud that was hiding behind the encyclopedist, humanist and capitalist theses. He hoped that the Asian peoples will mobilize in the face of the red threat and organize the planetary opposition. One cannot understand the logic of the life and the fight of this “last knight of Eurasia” except in the perspective of the ideology of the Third Way or the Conservative Revolution. His case was the individual and paroxysmal form of the personal and heroic realization of the conservative-revolutionary project. It is very characteristic that the figure of Baron Ungern-Sternberg caught the attention of Julius Evola and also of Rene Guenon.

4 “Smena Vech” and the Eurasists

a) ideologies of white immigration

The Russian RC proper, in the strictest sense of the term, emerged after the October Revolution in the circles of Russian immigrants – obviously white. The conservative-revolutionary tendencies in Bolshevik Russia did not have the possibility of expressing themselves in direct language in the situation of the ideological Marxist and internationalist dictatorship. These tendencies existed de facto and were even quite strong, but the quiet reflection and formulation of the principles of Russian RC was the privilege of immigrants and former enemies of the Reds.

It should be remembered that the first Russian emigrateds was originally made up of two quite different white political families. These were staunch, nostalgic and archaic monarchists (who incidentally represented a political minority) and liberal-democrats of all stripes with a certain vague nationalism and hatred of communists as their political rivals who won the day. political battle for power. Among the last were the representatives of non-Bolshevik or at least non-Leninist social democracy. These two poles can be defined as the classic and ordinary Right and Left. Both refused to recognize the October Revolution as something lasting and important, thinking that it was a popular revolt and a temporary crisis. Their analysis of the ideological roots of Bolshevism was superficial and insufficient. It is in the controversy with these two politico-ideological fields that the Russian RC began to form and to define its ideological positions. This gave birth to the Third Russian Way, crystallized in two important ideological branches the “smeno-vechovtsys” and the “eurasists”.

b) 3 “Vechi” and “Smena Vech”

To understand the ideological concept of “Smena vech” (“change of direction”) – this was the name of the collection of articles published in July 1921 in Prague and qualifies as the manifesto of Russian “national-Bolsheviks” – it is necessary to recall briefly the Russian ideological history of the first decades of the XX-th century.

At the dawn of this century it was thought that in order to be the “progressive” and fashionable philosopher it was necessary to be a Marxist, an internationalist, a leftist and a “zapadnik” (“pro-Occidenatal”). But the situation changed after the failure of the first Russian revolution (1905) with the appearance in 1909 of the collection of articles by the group of fashion intellectuals – obviously Marxists, leftists and “zapadniks” – who denied their “ disease of youth ”and which affirmed its new course – nationalist, patriarchal, traditionalist, religious and Slavophilic. The collection was called “Orientations” – “Vechi” in Russian. (Among the most famous authors were N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, P. Trouve, S. Frank etc.) This was the moment when right-wing intellectuals, idealists and nationalists came into fashion. But this tendency of “Vechi” cannot be qualified as RC, despite the fact that it undoubtedly had certain rather similar features. “Vechi” was “the orientations” of the intellectuals of the right and not of the Third Way itself. In this context, the name “Smena Vech” – (“The Change of Orientations” literally) among white Bolshevik nationals signified a break with conservative, utopian and idealistic thinking that operated with categories that were too vague and too abstract (“l ‘absolute universality of the absolute Good’, ‘moral imperative of the creation of the theocratic state’ etc.) and transgression to geo-political, geo-economic, ethnic and social categories. 

The national-Bolsheviks of “Smena Vech”, whose leader was Prof.Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov accused the rights and the Liberal Democrats of being “the dreamers”, “the utopians” and “the traitors of the Russian people and of the Russian history ”. (Cf. N. Oustryalov “Patriotic ” in “Smena Vech” etc.) They saw in Bolshevism the uprising of Russian, popular, traditional energies which revolt against the counter-natural capitalist tendencies and the weak and inconsistent Monarchy resolutely incapable of to preserve its people from the capitalist threat which was destroying its collective and imperial soul. Against the liberals of integration, the National Bolsheviks defended the socialist and imperial totalitarianism which, according to them, was more natural for the Russians than economic liberalism, material inequality and the resulting individualism. Against the rights and especially against the anti-Semites they affirmed the thesis (Y. Kluchnikov, S. Loukianov etc.) that the October Revolution was Russian despite the gigantic participation of the Jews and the representatives of other nations (the Latvians, the Czech etc.) By rejecting Marxism as the utopian and abstract ideology, the authors of “Smena Vech” recognized the Russian racial, geo-political and imperial character of the young Soviet state in which they saw the legitimate continuation of the organic Russian state. and natural. The national-Bolsheviks also exalted the human type of the revolutionary, devoted to his cause without hesitation and with absolute devotion, which contrasted so much with the indecisive, timid and uncertain struggle of the White Army which possessed no strong ideas, no coherent ideology, no serious social, economic and ethical patriotic doctrine. The authors of “Smena Vech” have greatly influenced white emigrants and certain circles in Soviet Russia itself. The Communist leaders welcomed this ideological movement very well and Professor Ustryalov returned to Moscow in 1926. Stalin was somewhat critical of the “excessive Chauvinism ” of the national-Bolsheviks and only a radical Russophobe Boucharin described them as “cesarists under the revolutionary mask”.

It is not possible not to ask the question here: did the German national-Bolsheviks – Otto Weininger Arthur Mueller van den Bruck and above all Ernst Nikisch – know the ideas of “Smena Vech”? This question is extremely important because the theses of the German National Bolsheviks seem almost identical in all respects to the theses of “Smena Vech” and of the Russian National Bolsheviks. We must also realize that the Russian National Bolsheviks went through the traumatic experience of the civil war against the Bolsheviks and their “change of direction” was a heavy and difficult choice. Maybe, on the basis of the expirience of the “smenovekhovtsys” of prague the german national-bolsheviks drew this unshakeable certainty from the Russian character of the October revolution and the soviet state. But it remains a hypothesis that I cannot prove or reject without sufficient information and hystorical documentation.

c) eurasainists

Among all the forms of Russian RC, the Eurasist school remains the most conservative-revolutionary to such an extent that one could identify Russian RC with the Eurasist movement. As in the case of Germany, or the young conservatives, the revolutionary nationals and national-Bolsheviks of the 20-30s of the twentieth century gave the more complete and complete paradigm of the ideology of RC in general, starting from from which one could henceforth define the preceding retrospectives or the more or less close ideologies, one can say the same of the Russian eurasists who were the purer exponents of the Russian RC as in the historical sense as in the ideological sense. It is possible, in my opinion,

The case of the Eurasainists is a little better known than that of the “smeno-vechovtsy”. Here we can fix the unmistakable link between his ideas and the conservative-revolutionary environment, especially in what is the geo-political school of Karl Haushofer. (One of the Eurasian journals “The Eurasian Chronicle” was published in Berlin). The analysis of the thought of the eurasainists can be found in the first issues of Haushofer’s famous review “Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik”. Apart from that, several eurasainists collaborated with the German conservative-revolutionaries and some even entered the SS under the National Socialist regime. The reciprocal and deep influence between the Russian Eurasists and the representatives of the German RC is therefore beyond doubt.

The Eurasist movement began in the same year as the “smeno-vekhovtsys” movement – 1921. In this year the group of white immigrants published to Sophie the collection of articles “Exodus vers Orient” with the subtitle “The Manifesto of the Eurasists ”. It was the starting point for the development of the whole Russian Third Way ideology in a well-founded, deep and complete way. It is characteristic that the liberal emigres baptized them “the fascists”, the monarchists and right-wingers – “the communists”, but his more common epitet was “the futurist slavophiles”. After “Exodus to the Orient” appeared the magazines “Evrasiysky vremennik” and “Evraziyskaya chronika”, published in Berlin, Paris and Prague.

The essence of the Eurasist conception in general features was as follows:

1) Following Mackkinder’s thesis they thought that the economic and cultural development of the nation is defined by geo-political limits and by the quality of the controlled space. They spoke in terms of “great space”. But they insisted on the necessity of the geo-economic autorcie of the Eurasian continent in relation to the maritime powers. So for the eurasists the whole economic, cultural, military, strategic and even psychological problem had to be considered only and above all in the continental perspective. They proposed the thesis radically different from that of Count Coudenov-Calergy who wanted to unify Europe against Asia. The idea of ​​the Eurasists was to unify the Eurasian continent against the West, against the thalassocratic powers and bearers of materialist culture,

2) The question of the October Revolution, its roots and its meaning was of fundamental importance to the eurasists. They did not accept the revolution with the exception of certain personal cases and despite the ideological agreement concluded with the national-Bolsheviks of “Smena Vech”. But they saw the main root of the Russian tragedy, “the Russian fall of Europe” (to use the expression of the head of this school, count N.Troubetskoy) in the non-organic structure of “European and Russian” Russia. capitalized ”after the reforms of Peter the Great. They questioned the quality of the religious, state, national, economic and social values ​​of Russia of the last 3 centuries, by accusing the Romanovs dynasty of having betrayed the mystical and social hopes of the Russian people (Eurasian) and especially its unique civilization, extremely rich on a spiritual level and destined to preserve its identity in front of the materialist, atheistic, artificial and capitalist West. This attitude provoked the ambivalent appreciation of the October Revolution: on the one hand the Eurasists saw in it the anti-capitalist revolt of the Russian soul, coming from the depths of Eurasian civilization, on the other hand they recognized the fact that Marxist and communist utopianism was the ideological fraud which offered to the people, instinctively rejecting the capitalist and Western model of development, the other model as Western and also anti-national and anti-traditional. Eurasists saw clearly the “nationalist” and “identity” aspects of the October Revolution, but they did not agree to accept communism for patriotic reasons. Even so, the White Right accused them of being communists, above all for the reason that the Eurasists still refused to see the Jews as “the scapegoats” of the Revolution and to regard the pre-revolutionary Monarchy as the ideal and irreproachable model. The slogan of the Eurasists was “neither white nor red” (I. Stepanov).

3) The doctrine of the eurasists underlined the importance of the economy or rather of the geo-economy. It was the only alternative movement (with respect to communism) which dealt very seriously with economic questions and which proposed the model of the continental autorcie (“the autorcy of the great spaces”) non-capitalist and non-Marxist. . Eurasists have devised a model for the expotation of Russia’s natural resources that may be sufficient to support the tellurocratic economy on a continental scale.

4) In religious matters the Eurasists were the partisans of the “conservative revolution” within the Orthodox Church which they wanted to purify from decadent Western humanism and moralism and from the archaism and superstititions of the lower people. They rejected the abstract and fantasist speculations of “academic” intellectuals like S. Soloviev, S. Bulgakov, P. Florensky and in return proposed a return to strict but internalized and therefore creative Byzantian theology. It is no accident that the deeper and more brilliant Russian Orthodox Christian theologian of recent centuries – Father George Florovsky – participated in the Eurasist movement and even was one of its inspirers (along with Count Troubetskoy). Note that this author is excellent,

5) The ethnic question was resolved by the eurasists in a very interesting way. They have questioned the truth so far out of suspicion in the field of Slavophiles concerning the harmfulness of the invasion of the Tartars and the domination of the Mongols over Russia. Eurasists recognized the tellurocratic mission of the geopolitical expansion of the Turkish and Mongolian peoples.  Genghis Khan was for them “the first of the Eurasists” and the Turks were considered as the ethnic group, or rather the Eurasian race young and full of creative and imperial powers. But it was in combination with the Slavic genius (therefore Indo-European, Aryan) that the Turkish race succeeded in establishing the Eurasian balance. The Russians, for the Eurasists, represented the particular Slavo-Turkish race endowed with two main qualities – the energy of expansion over large spaces proper to the Turks (“horizontal”) and the energy of concentration, metaphysical and “vertical”, specific to the Slavs . This racial synthesis was for the Eurasists the key to the cultural history of Russia. The race of Europe was seen by them as the old race, impotent and having the geo-political consciousness of the population of the “rimlands”, therefore incapable of the super-efforts necessary to organize the Empire, “the great autonomous space”. .

6) At the political level the Eurasists proposed the system of a centralized, poliethnic state of an imperial type. Some of them were for the re-sacralized Monarchy and returned to its mystical sources, others (G.Vernadsky, N.Alexeev etc.) shared the thesis of “Eurasaitic socialism”. Count N.Troubetskoy worked out the theory of “ideocracy” therefore of political power concentrated in the hands of the traditional, intellectual and religious elite, placed in chief of the “eurasist party”, a fate of the Order.

The eurasist movement was in effect from 1921 until the 1930s when the impossibility of influencing the political life of Russian emigration, and for even stronger reasons that of Soviet Russia, gave rise to the feeling of despair. Some went so far as to collaborate with the KGB out of nostalgia and hatred for the democratic countries where they were forced to live (P. Savizky). The others – like Father G. Florovsky and Count N. Troubetskoy himself – locked themselves in religious and historical research. Still others joined the German National Socialist movement with some Russian far-right aristocrats – such as General Biskupsky, Avalov-Bermondt, Talberg, von der Golz, and Skoropadsky.

The Eurasists laid out the basis for the dotrine of the Russian RC, but they were forgotten because their homeland was in the ideological pincers of Marxist utopianism and the intellectuals of Europe showed no interest in it. the thought of the immigrants of distant and barabar Russia as for all its messianic and eschatological hopes and all its dreams of Asian revenge.

Be that as it may, the eurasist movement, its predictions and its doctrines are to be discovered and they get new their actuality when one begins to seek everywhere in the world the New Path of planetary geo-political and cultural development.

5 The Eurasianist Mission and Soviet Russia – Stalin and

Brezhnev

The eurasist idea, intellectually and politically marginal, was nevertheless partially realized under the communist regime and especially from the time of Stalinism. The Eurasists themselves, especially George Vernadsky (the author of the famous “History of Russia” translated into Eurupeen languages), saw in Stalinist imperialism a form of the natural development of the Russian state, accompanied by industrialization. , centralization and expansion necessary for the entry of Russia into the new phase of geo-political and geo-economic development. From the second half of the 1930s and especially after 1937 the Stalinist regime obtained many of the national, patriotic and imperialist aspects which were lacking in the post-revolutionary period. Stalin annihilated all the representatives of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, internationalist and utopian (mostly Jews). Revolutionary anarchism and amoralism have been resolutely traded against the primacy of Order and of creative and ascetic morals. It is no accident that even the leader of Harbin’s “Russian fascists”, Rodzaevsky, came to recognize Stalin’s (de facto) “fascist” mission as the Russian Volksfuhrer.

The other step in the conservative-revolutionary sense was taken, according to some Russian historicians (like A.Dikiy etc.), just after the end of the Second World War. We sometimes even speak of “the invisible revolution of Marshal Zhukov”). The Russian military has received certain geo-political and ideological energies from its enemies and the war, too, has awakened the internal forces of nationalism and a clearer awareness of continental interests. The very aesthetic of the 1940s in the USSR – nationalist, Russophile, sometimes even Chauvinist and xenophobic – is much closer to the style of the Third Reich than to the avangardist, internationalist and “proletarian” forms of the 20 years. During the era of Stalinism it was rather the motivated stateist, imperialist, nationalist and anti-bourgeois who was dominant and not the abstract scholasticism of pure Marxists. But Stalin’s Soviet nationalism was not Russian in the ethnic sense, it was rather “imperial”, Eurasian, continental, which made him the model quite close to that which the Eurasists themselves proposed. Towards the end of the 1940s Stalin stopped aggressive anti-Christian propaganda and manifested to the fathers of the Russian Orthodox Church, if not open sympathy, at least tolerance and understanding. The organization of “militant atheists” (under the patronage of a nefarious Jew Emelyan Yaroslavsky, alias Goubelman) was dissolved and its leader was sent to Gulag. The conservative-revolutionary tendencies were stopped with the death of Stalin at the time when his imperialism, eurasism and anti-semitism reached its extreme. (He was in the process of sending all the Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Republic of Birabidjan in the far east of Siberia to make apartide in relation to the Jews more radical than Hitler wanted to do.) Neither cannot recognize that the tandances indicated above are very little compatible as with the Marxist theory in its virginal state and as well with the revolutionary pathos of 1917 and that of the 20s.

Khrushchev shook the gigantic construction of Stalin by denouncing the “cult of the personality” that the gloom of doubt threw on all his historical work. Under Khrushchev the tendencies of a return “to Marxism perverted by Stalinism” began in the circles of the Soviet intelligentsia. Khrushchev has renewed the attacks against the Church, revived the internationalist spirit. Eurasian tandances in his time were the least for all of Soviet history. He is much more interested in “oceanic” geopolitics – Cuba, Latin America, Africa were at the center of the attention of the Khrushchevite state. It was during Khrushchev’s reign when the first nouyau (nucleus) of pro-Westernist and almost entirely “Atlanticist” dissent was formed.

Brezhnev returned to the Stalinist (thus virtually Eurasianist) model, but in its senile, retualized and enthropic form. The participation of the Brezhnevian USSR in the Eurasian conflicts (Vietnam, the Middle East etc.) and especially the continental war in Afganistan were the speaking signs of geopolitical consciousness. The Marxism of the Brezhnev era was completely “ritualistic”, “nominal” and extremely superficial. Behind Brezhnevism we could clearly distinguish the ideological and geopolitical inertia of “Eurasian Stalinism”.

The elements that could be described strictly as “Eurasianist” and therefore in a certain sense “conservative-revolutionary” still existed in Soviet history from the October Revolution until Perestroika, but Stalin’s time is more characteristic and richer in its obvious signs than any other period. All the same, we must always realize that these were factic phenomena which did not find any intellectual, ideological or philosophical crystallizations. The great geo-political and even ideological revolutions which were taking place behind the scenes of the Kremlin were manifested outside by the infinitesimal nuances of the accents placed on such and such historical event or such or such scientific hypothesis. “Kremlinology” was the true conspirological science based on almost invisible details and symptoms. For this reason we can reconstruct the history of the development of “conservative-revolutionary” tendencies in the USSR only by the complex and difficult study of the secret ideological life of the leaders of the last Eurasian Empire that was until the recent transformation of the USSR. . So one can speak here only of factical “conservative-revolutionary” tendencies without any theoretical formulation. But anyway, these tendencies were very real and very important, because it was about the (parallel) ideology of the groups of Soviet leaders whose political power was within the country almost absolute and at the same time. extremely large exterior.

We can add that the strategic military doctrines of the USSR were always eurasainist in character, because the main ideological enemy of the Soviets was the United States, therefore the thalassocratic and oceanic power par excellence. The Warsaw Pact itself had distinctly continental and Eurasian features in contrast to NATO, which centers on the maritime powers – EEUU and England. More than that, it was the Anglo-Saxon countries which are the examples of purer and stronger capitalism and it was precisely against capitalism that all forms of the Conservative Revolution were oriented and the Russian RC does not. the exception.

6 the neo-eurasist movement – the “neo-potchvennikis” writers, L. Goumelev.

By the 1970s in the USSR certain aspects of the RC manifested themselves in a more open, though still veiled, manner. It was the time of the formation of the new generation of Soviet writers who revolved around Mr. Sholokhov, the author of the famous novel “The Don Tranquil”. These writers – the best known of which are V. Rasputin, V. Belov, V. Astafiev etc. – defended nationalist, ecological and Slavophile theses. They sang about the Russian peasantry, its customs, its beliefs. Their writings also had an obvious ecological character. Their ideology can be roughly characterized as National-Bolshevism or National-Leninism, but this should be seen more as a feature of their conformism than a declaration of their reflected ideological convictions. (Today, when we can express ourselves more freely, most of them became monarchist, orthodox Christians and conventional right wingers – which their National-Bolshevism testifies to was the conformist mask and nothing more). The cases when the “neo-potchvennikis” writers were well aware of its ideological kinship with the eurasists or “smeno-vechovtsy” were quite rare, but their ideas were nonetheless very similar.

The “neo-potchvennikis” of the 70-80 created the patriotic, nationalist and objectively Eurasist intellectual milieu, which manifested itself fully in certain nationalist renaissance at the time of perestroika as the alternative tendency to the Westernist, “Atlanticist” and clearly capitalist democratic lobby – Gorbachev, Yakovlev, Yeltsin, Chevarnadze etc. But here we must note an extremely important ideological detail: the conceptions of the “neo-potchvennikis” writers at the time of Brezhnev were formally much closer to the spirit and to the terminology of CR than the theses of the same people and of his disciples which they are proposing today. Under Brezhnev the “neo-potchvennikis” were forced by the reasons of conformism to add the themes of socialism, anti-capitalism, Leninism etc. to its nationalist and identity ideas (sometimes overtly anti-Jewish). So their theses had the character of “Terrierism” despite themselves. When this need disappeared, the “neo-potchvennikis” left the “socialist” and “anti-capitalist” side of its doctrines and became traditional representatives of the ordinary, archaic, monarchist, Judophobic and nostalgic Right. So the pathos of CR and Eurasianism became cloudy for them.  

As the only consistent and conscious eurasist among the Soviet writers of the 70’s and 80’s, we must name the historian Lev Gumilyov, the son of an aristocratic poet N. Gumilyov, shot by the reds and a famous poetess Anna Achmatova. L. Goumelev wrote some brilliant historical works on the history of Eurasian peoples – Turks, Mongols, Hunnes etc. His major work – “Etnogenesis and the biosphere” was placed in Brezhnev’s time in the closed area of the Moscow Library of Social Sciences, perceives that he was considered “ideologically dangerous”. In this book the author has developed the organic doctrine of ethnogenesis and he has formulated the conceptions of “the dynamic inequality of ethnic groups”, outlining the cyclical laws which govern the hystorical and biological existence of each ethnic group. THE. Goumelev defended the thesis that the Eurasian peoples – especially the Russians and the Turks – are the young peoples whose cycle has just passed its peak. By this, Goumelev affirms that the more normal and healthier civilization today would be the Eurasian civilization of an imperial type. Goumelev coined the special term to designate the most important and more organic factor in the development of the ethnicity – “passionarity” understood as the concentration of creative, biological and psychological energy at the same time, which could characterize entire peoples. as well as separate individuals. “Passionarity”, at the human level, is according to L. Gumilyov “the capacity to cut through the instinct of survival”, “the overcoming of biological entropy”, “creative impetus” (especially imperial). The theses of L. Gumilyov have a lot in common with the conceptions of Lorenz, H. Gunter, Gabineau, the geopoliticians of the Haushofer school and especially with the ideas of the French New Right. His attitude towards history is essentially pagan. His conception of the “ethnic-chymeres” – that is to say, of the very old degenerated ethnic groups which have completely lost their “passion” – is universally known in Russia. Some anti-semites have developed from this conception of “ethnie-chymeres” the whole Judophobic theory, but it is rather the aberration and excessive limitation of his thought. Gumilyov, still being the non-conformist author, was little touched by perestroika and his eurasist, biological- realist and conservative-revolutionary theses in many ways remain the same.

These represent the intellectual crisis of the tendencies of the RC which still existed under Sovietism in a virtual, latent and semi-conscious state. By strange logic this awareness is accompanied by the disappearance of the Soviet internal and external policy of the last anti-capitalist and anti-Atlanticist remains, therefore Eurasist and typologically conservative-revolutionary.

7 The conclusion

Conservative-revolutionary thought is rediscovered today in Germany, where it becomes extremely topical thanks to the grandiose changes taking place in this country which is moreover naturally conservative-revolutionary like Russia. Thanks to the immense efforts of New Right intellectuals, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Europe are rediscovering this invaluable part of its ideological heritage of great value. More than that, the ideas of the RC are today the only alternative to the capitalist nightmare and to the American “Atlanticist” expansion. The slogan “neither communism nor capitalism” loses its meaning with the disappearance of communism (did it really exist?). It is the RC in all its forms which remains the only operational and realistic possibility to assert against the invasion of the other continent – physical and ideological. RC becomes the Second Way, the only Alternative Way. So it’s time to discover all the branches of RC, study them, rethink them, update them and relive them. In this context we need to turn our eyes to the Continent-Russia, to this enigmatic land which occupies the central place of this gigantic island that is Eurasia, our universal Homeland, our blessed land, our most precious imperial heritage. This time we must all together – including the Russians themselves – discover not the distant continent, the maritime colony, the spiritual desert that is America, but the cradle of the Indo-Eropean peoples, our ancestors, the great creators of heroic and superhuman values ​​- the Continent-Russia. This discovery should be above all the spiritual, intellectual, ideological discovery – that of Russian values, those of the Russian Way, that of Russian Ideology which can be nothing other than the Ideology of the Absolute Conservative Revolution.

Advertisement

2 thoughts on “THE RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION By Alexander Dugin

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: