Design a site like this with
Get started

Americanism and Comfortism By Ernst Niekisch

Original Russian and German text can be found here:

( from : Ernst Niekisch: European Balance Sheet,Potsdam: Rütten & Loening 1951)

The unconditional bourgeois economics of young America, unencumbered by any feudal tradition, soon allied itself with the aristocratic intellectual type of engineer; the types of priest and philosopher it adopted only as rudimentary appendages. The economic drive to conquer the world merged with the technical drive to overpower nature; the result was an economic and political momentum of unprecedented victoriousness. There was not a thing for which the price could not be found , there was no difficulty for which the necessary means and ways could not be found. One was in each respect the country of unlimited possibilities and what seemed impossible became possible. Old Europe always had a feeling for borders and the individuality woven into its own borders, that is, for qualities. Young America knows no borders, qualities are of no interest, they are outdated junk, consolation for those who immerse themselves in small things and have to discover charms in small things. Where there are no borders, you only have an eye for quantities, behind the vastness there is something else that lures, behind the big the huge, the gigantic. The small and the narrow are contemptible; one proves one’s healthy strength by not being crushed to the ground by any monstrosity.

This young Americanism proved its worth in the management of space on the one hand and in industrialization on the other. The businessman and the engineer work hand in hand; one finances and the other constructs, and where the prospect of a new job opens up, the technician also has a new constructive idea ready. Since there is no tendency to stand still, there is no rooting anywhere; the peasant is no more tied to the soil than is the industrial producer. The financier, the pure plutocrat seizes the reins; he’s pounding industries out of the ground where the location favors them and relocates them as soon as a better location beckons. The financial bourgeoisie that is emerging is rising to incredible power. She doesn’t flaunt her wealth, she doesn’t challenge it; she dresses simply; it involves the masses in the business through high wages. In addition, it forms a very special system of mass bribery, which represents a kind of earthly distribution of salvation goods and happiness in this world: it is comfortism.

Comfortism is the most obvious and probably also the most honest form of realization of democratic liberalism. He pays the bills that promised heaven on earth for all. Every citizen should have his own home with a vacuum cleaner, an electric cooker, a bathroom and all the necessities of modern times; the hygiene precautions are taken to the extreme in all factories, in bakeries, slaughterhouses and dairies; every job, including household chores, is done by machine. But above all: everyone has their car, their cheap fuel; the smallest employee becomes the ruler of the American expanse. comfort is all; the amount of comfort one enjoys is a measure of the culture one possesses. The comfort of external living creates paradise; the inner personality values ​​have sunk to nonvaluable, after which nobody asks any more.

You are a personality if you bathe and change your linen every day, observe all hygiene regulations and drive in your own car. Any social insincerity is smothered in the sea of ​​comfortism. Revolutionary is he who has nothing to lose but his chains. Those who live in comfort are careful not to be radical; as long as one has comforts one prefers to make oneself comfortable.

Comfortism is a powerful substitute for religion; he moderates dispositions by making happy. It is an effective reinsurance for the existing state of society; it creates a community of all those who benefit from comfort against those who question it.

It was no coincidence that comfortism, a means of mass appeasement and bribery, thrived in America; comfortism presupposed the abundance of natural riches that the “blessed” country has at its disposal and at the same time the intensity of the technical-industrial development that was expended here. Technology contributes the tremendous amount of labor that, in addition to natural wealth, produces the additional artificially-industrially conjured wealth that is necessary and must be mobilized to carry out the wholesale mass bribery on which the hitherto unshakeable American democracy rests. Genuine liberal pride in how gloriously far one has come is fed by comfortism: whoever the automatic escalator carries up, towards all peoples and people who cannot come up with such progress? One is a higher human being insofar as one has comfort: that is roughly the concept of culture in Americanism.



Translated by Mr. Z

His Telgram channel can be found here


Before determining the principles that will be used to determine the socio-political, economic and cultural development of the Turkic peoples of Asia and Europe in our time, we will need to briefly dwell on the methodology of our views on this issue, even if it is a short one. In order to eliminate any disputes and ambiguities, we must make it clear from the very beginning that we are approaching this issue (like all other issues) from the point of view of the materialist worldview and materialist philosophy. In addition, we attach importance to the more radical branch of this school of revolutionary philosophy, which is called historical or dialectical materialism. In our opinion, this branch of materialistic philosophy is the most accurate and scientifically sound system of ideas for the understanding of its important elements. Because only with its help it is possible to analyze the causes of (social) life events more clearly and realistically and to predict their consequences in advance. But, let’s also say in advance that we belong to the school of dialectical, or rather, energetic materialism; this does not mean that we blindly imitate the Western European representatives of this school (the so-called marxists or communists) and blindly copy everything that they know or present as a product of this school.

We do not do this for the following reasons:

1) In our opinion, materialistic philosophy is not an ‘exclusive commodity’ of Western European science. Because this type of philosophy, as a certain system of thinking, is formed in one way or another (Persian, Arab, Chinese, Turkish, Mongolian, etc. it has also been observed in many other peoples, moreover, long before the emergence of modern Western European culture.

2) Many of us, then before the Russian Revolution, had an energetic materialistic worldview. While this opinion was not artificially injected into our midst from the outside this is also as a natural result of the severe conditions of the cruel economic, political and cultural pressures of Russian nationalism and Russian statehood on us that decimated us.

3) Our adherence to the adherents of historical materialism absolutely does not require us to accept any intellectual object that they declare, as well as any intellectual object presented by the Russian and European monopolists of dialectical materialism, as something ‘sacred’, as if it were something ‘sacred’. A person can declare himself a thousand times a materialist, marxist, communist, or Leninist with the expression that is now fashionable in Russia. He can connect this with his strength and voice for the whole world. Hundreds and thousands of volumes of books can be written on hundreds and thousands of topics in this field. But still, even at a minimum, it may not have anything to do with real materialism and communism.

Let’s also give up their attitudes and actions, there may be no real revolutionism in their views and conclusions. For this reason, we dare to discuss the rights of monopolism over dialectical materialism, contrary to all expectations, although we do not take any obligations to them.

For example, the first is the issue of colonies… The second is communism, in other words, the methods of realizing a classless society where no one exploits anyone… The Russian communists and the Western European communists who follow them make obvious mistakes on these two issues… -not the liberation of humanity from the oppression of anarchy and turmoil–there will be plunder, poverty and death. When they criticize and vilify European capitalism and robber European imperialism, we agree with them, but not always and on all points. We are also in agreement when they raise the reactionaryism agenda of contemporary European capitalist culture. However, we certainly do not agree on the conclusions they draw from all these considerations and the prescriptions they offer.

In our opinion, the prescription they offer – that instead of the dictatorship of one class of European society (the bourgeoisie) on the world, is the dictatorship of its opposite class (the proletariat), which will not bring any significant change to the social life of the oppressed part of humanity. In any case, although there will be an objective change, this change will not be in the direction of improvement, but in the direction of worsening. It simply means replacing a less powerful and less organized dictatorship with a common dictatorship over the rest of the world of all the European-integrated powers of the same capitalist Europe (which must include America) over the rest of the world.

We present a different thesis against this. That is, the creation of the material basis of the restructuring of humanity is only possible through the dictatorship of colonies and semi-colonies over metropolises. For only this road can provide a real guarantee for the liberation and breakthrough of the productive forces of the earth, which are in chains by Western Imperialism. Based on this methodology, we create a certain system of questions, the answers to which will enable our main issue to be resolved correctly. These questions include the following topics:

1) How does the Turkic World as a socio-economic organism look in the economic and political system of the contemporary world?

2) What internal and external conditions are needed for the normal economic, political and cultural development of the Turkic peoples, all together and as separate branches?

3) In what ways can these conditions be achieved? Through evolution or revolutionary breakthroughs?

4) What should be the concrete methods of the work to be done in this or the other direction:

a) In terms of strategy and tactics?

b) In terms of organizational forms?


We believe that the place and role of the contemporary Turkic World in the economic and political systematics of today’s world is a very important issue. We can draw the solutions for the socio-political, economic and cultural development of the Asian and European Turkic peoples from this point of view.

Within the scope of the social and legal relations of the world, we cannot determine what and who we should be without understanding who and what we are and the content of these relations.

We can start the analysis of the subject from the second part, in other words, by considering the social, legal, economic, political and cultural systematics of the contemporary world:


The analysis of social and legal relations among the peoples of the globe reveals one point: The nations that make up modern humanity are divided into two hostile camps that are unequal in number, social and legal aspects. In one of these camps, there are peoples who make up only 20 to 30 percent of humanity and have taken over the entire globe, with all its dead and living riches below and above it. On the other hand, there are peoples who make up four-fifths of humanity and who belong to the first camp, groaning under the economic, political and cultural domination and slavery of the ‘master’ peoples.

The peoples belonging to the first camp, so called ‘civilized’ in their own civilized language, were assigned to save humanity from slavery, ignorance and misery… The peoples belonging to the second group are defined with ‘wild’, ‘native’ and such phrases in their language. According to the ‘scientific’ views of the former; “They were created to serve the interests of the lord peoples!” The natives and savages, on the other hand, could not come up with special terms to describe ‘civilized’ peoples due to the poverty of their vocabulary or lack of science, and chose to describe them only by using ‘dogs’, ‘bandits’, ‘executioners’ or similar obscene and incomprehensible adjectives.

The ‘civilized’ peoples of Europe and America, which extend to other parts of the globe and are generally called the ‘Western Peoples’, belong to the first category. The peoples of Asia, Africa, and the indigenous peoples of Australia and America, which were colonized by Europeans, also fall into the second category.

By examining the relations between these two groups, we have determined the following point: The relations of the Western peoples (metropolitans) with colonial or semi-colonial peoples are relations of complete/absolute slavery.

A number of historical and natural geographical conditions affecting the technological and cultural developments of the Western peoples have enabled the means of economic and cultural relations between the peoples in different parts of the world, in other words, international transportation routes and military strategic zones to be in the hands of these peoples. This situation laid the groundwork for the accumulation of all the initiative in their hands in the international political and economic relations between the peoples belonging to the Western-Eastern civilizations.

The technology and culture of Europe, during the struggle for existence at a certain stage in history, showed a stronger resistance and rationalism at that stage than the technology and culture of the Muslim peoples of Asia and Africa, who were the world masters of their time and who had fallen over them at that stage. and after the occupation of the necessary bases, they spread their influence to the Asian and African continents.

World trade routes, markets, and sources of raw materials, with minor exceptions, have passed into the hands of Western peoples. The peoples of the West have created their own national system of slavery—where the landed slavery(?) system under feudalism was actually a slave economy, and under capitalism, class oppression is nothing more than a form of slavery, the exploitation of man by man, but this time in a different way—to their colonies in the black and yellow continents. and gave an international character to this slavery system. Thus, the peoples of these continents have become, in effect, slaves who have no property rights over the wealth of their own countries and who work for the welfare of their ‘civilized’ masters (metropolitan peoples).


The capitalist-slavery character of the contemporary world economy has also determined another feature of it, the wholesale parasitic and reactionary character of the cultures of contemporary western peoples as the main factor of the developments in today’s world. The described features of the material culture of the metropolises reveal the following two issues:

a) Static Matter: The fact that the means of production and circulation of the consumption items necessary for the people have been monopolized in the hands of the metropolitan peoples.

All major means of production (fabrication industry), means of circulation (bank capital and its infrastructure), means of transport and communication (sea routes, railways, air transport vehicles, telegraph and radiograph), raw materials (oil, coal, sprouts, animal and herbal products) resources, as well as the sales markets of industrial products, have accumulated in the hands of metropolises with a population of 300-350 million. In this respect, the West, like a giant octopus, has surrounded a quarter of humanity and is exploiting all its vital resources. And this octopus is not just a sea octopus, but an armored octopus armed with the latest technologies of the West’s military inventions and martial arts… It is a striking octopus… It is a deadly octopus!…

Of course, these gains did not increase the courage and valor of the octopus. However, the cowardly cruelty and greed of the octopus has increased. The octopus now, by sucking the blood of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, enriches the other, smaller part of the world’s peoples on account of the weakening, pauperization(?), degeneration and death of the larger part:

b) Dynamic Consideration: The Material Culture of the Metropolises is Parasitic and Reactionary for the Maximum Development of the Productive Forces of Humanity

This issue is closely related to the first issue and constitutes its continuation. Indeed, in this period we live in, what is the contemporary culture of the metropolises as the organizers of the world? What is it built on and where is it headed? It doesn’t end with being in character. The point is that the content of the material culture of the metropolises, in other words, the essential essence of all these ‘monopoly capitalisms’, ‘imperialisms’ and other social categories of Western society, is certainly not related to its form, but to its dynamics and specific development trend.

This tendency is the preservation of the existence and development of the contemporary material culture of the peoples of the West, the system of slavery and domination applied only against the peoples of the East (i.e., colonial and semi-colonial).

This can be explained not only as the exploitation of the natural wealth of the colonies), but also as the inhibition of the productive forces of these countries and the application of a restraining pressure against the increase of their material culture.

On what principles is contemporary Western culture based?

(Western culture is based on) The production and marketing of goods for metropolises and colonialists, in other words, is based on the principle of monopolism in the economic process of the world.

What is contemporary Western culture based on?

It is built on the prevention of the internal economic development of the colonies and semi-colonies, the absence of their national industries, in other words, the maintenance of the agrarian-peasant character of these countries, so that these countries would have to resort to the ‘help’ of the metropolises, that is, the monopoly industry of the world, in their economic activities.

The process of having to resort to the aid of monopolistic industry consists, in concrete terms, of the following elements:

The survival of the economy, which is the main element of metropolitan economies, with the supply of cheap raw materials, the invading policies of the Western peoples towards Asian and African countries as a source of raw materials, and all the other events that these policies brought with them, stem from this point: First, the brutal struggles against the remnants of independence in the semi-colonies and independence by the colonies. The cruel punishment of even the smallest attempt. The second is the incessant wars of competition for colonial possessions between the major national groups of the metropolises. In other words, the increase in social conflicts between metropolises and colonies on the one hand, and the origins of national conflicts between different generations of dictatorial metropolises on the other hand, are hidden here.

Ensuring that industrial products are manufactured cheaply

The development of production technology is carried out through the exploitation of industrial workers of the metropolises and auxiliary workers of the colonies. The existence of class conflicts in metropolises and the reasons for the emergence of class political parties based on these conflicts are hidden at this point.

  1. Providing cheap (profitable) sales markets for industrial products of metropolises

Related to this is the intensification of the colonial policies of the metropolises, not only to keep colonies and semi-colonies in their own hands and under their yoke, but also to retain them as permanent markets for the industrial products of the metropolises.

These policies cause only intensification of social conflicts between colonies and metropolises, and these conflicts become a primary international factor.

This last element of the development process of metropolitan material cultures is of particular importance for the relations between colonies and metropolises. Because this element is the main dynamic of the culture of modern western peoples and the main reason for all the social deviations that occur in the development process of modern humanity.

These deviations are obvious and only the blind and politically degenerate types can attempt to deny them. We can list these deviations as follows:

  1. Cruel and inefficient exploitation of the wealth of the world and especially of colonies and semi-colonies for the general interests of humanity

I think there is no need to prove this fact again. For, it is sufficient to look at the economic activities of the metropolises in their ‘homes’ and colonies.

  1. The irrational order of the world production process and the general circulation process and the consequent inefficient destruction of mass human energy.

Since the means of production, which are concentrated in the hands of the metropolitans, are far from the main sources of raw materials and world sales markets, it is necessary to transport the raw materials to the means of production and the products (goods) taken from them to the sales markets.

For example, the transport of wool and leather raw materials from Tibet, India or Afghanistan to Great Britain… Here it must travel back to its homeland, turning into cloth, shoes and other goods. Just like this, Turkestan or South Caucasus cotton (also Baku oil) first travels to civilized countries – say Moscow or Ivanovo-Voznesenski where it turns into knitwear or something else-, then back to Turkestan or the South Caucasus, sometimes further (Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) must return. In terms of the economic use of vehicles and human energy, the opposite method, in other words, converting raw materials into necessary consumer goods in their own homeland, that is, in colonial and semi-colonial countries, would be a more correct move. The means of production in these countries—which

it is possible to supply and reorganize from metropolises – all conditions other than raw materials, liquid fuel, unused and wasted human energy, as well as

the massive need of the colonial peoples for factory goods exists.

The goods in question will only be sent to overseas journeys according to the needs, no longer in their natural form, but transformed into civilized goods and in proportion to the natural consumer demands that will come from there.

  1. Human energy is spent massively and inefficiently in order to maintain the                 current situation and the current structure (that is, the irrationality seen in the world’s economic order and the resulting social deviations-injustices) on a continuous and regular basis.

This is manifested in the raging militarism of the West, by the incredible increase           in the internal and external protective quota of its land-sea and air forces. Western peoples are protected not only from all kinds of ‘yellow’, ‘black’ and other ‘dangers’ and ‘pan-isms’, but also from ‘one another’.

  1. Preventing the natural development of the productive forces (a large part of the world’s population) of colonial and semi-colonial countries, on which a clear social inequality is formed between the colonial and semi-colonial peoples and the peoples of the metropolis, and the civilized development of modern humanity as a whole is prevented.

The preservation of the reactionary economic and social orders in the colonial countries is in the interest of the colonial Western Imperialism. Because the bandit culture of the metropolises can only breathe and be developed on this background of backwardness. Keeping the colonial peoples in darkness and oppression is a real and vital need for the western peoples, who have been the prison guards of humanity in their historical development process. The reason for the social inequality between the peoples of the metropolis and the colonial peoples being exploited by them is hidden here. Although the peoples of Metropolises benefit from all kinds of civilization blessings, technology and science, the main mass of the colonial peoples is living in a half-starved and beggar life. Skyscrapers made of steel and granite on one side, sluggish and secluded barracks on the other. Cars, trams, buses, trains, steamships, and airplanes on one side, lazy mares, Noah oxcarts and chariots on the other. On the one hand, electric plows, tractors, steam mills, irrigation systems, artificial

fertilizers on the other side plow, shovel, pick and rake. On one side there is electricity, telephone, telegraph and radio, on the other side the absence of black kindling, kerosene lamp and plus all other things. Fine art, literature, games and laughter on one side, despair and darkness on the other, constant pain and tears. On the one hand, satiety, security and a life guaranteed in all aspects, on the other hand hunger, cold, misery, death and corruption!

Can we justify this situation? Can we accept all this as a normal situation and a normal order? No! And again no! This is the expression of the greatest social deviation and worldwide social injustice from any moral point of view!


Here, our analysis of the culture of the metropolises will be incomplete if we leave without answering one question in particular: Where did the culture of the peoples of Metropoles lead? And what is it about to turn into? These questions are closely related to the dynamics of the development of the culture in question, revealing one of its most characteristic and important features, which gives clarity to the perspectives of the development of the world in the near future. We define this feature as integration, in other words, the centralized integration of the national and material cultures of the peoples of the Metropolis. Is there such a trend? Yes, there are/is. 

In other words, the imperialist war, the revolutionary earthquakes experienced in Russia and other countries after the war, the “diplomacy” struggle between the different groups of the “victorious” countries today, the intense works exhibited by the different political parties of the western peoples… 

All this is nothing but a manifestation of the trend in question in various ways. This trend is taking place under the pressure of the following two contradictions:

  1. It runs counter to the core of the existing material cultural structure of the peoples of the metropolis (private-property or anarchist capitalism divided into national fragments).
  2. In connection with this, the conditions for achieving social freedom and national liberation by getting rid of the tyranny of the metropolises in the colonies, in other words, the national liberation movements of the colonies are gaining strength.

Let us consider the first contradiction. What is the most concrete expression of this? We can explain it as follows: the existing order, the current structure of the material cultural foundations of the peoples of the metropolis, will not allow them to exploit the colonial peoples regularly, without punishment, trouble and in the full sense in the future. The material needs of the peoples of Metropolis have exceeded the existing structure of their material culture. The exploitation of the lifeblood of enslaved humanity by everyone without a common plan and a central will does not create the desired efficiency in terms of efficiency, does not yield the expected maximum result, and brings with it various surprises contrary to the wishes of the robbers. It seems that the current system of exploitation of the colonies and semi-colonies and the rest of humanity is not enough to completely stop the blood flow in their bodies. They can retain their vital abilities. They can live and breathe and at times revolt against these abusers when they fight among themselves over the division of other people’s property. But… Can the Western peoples allow the ‘luxury’ of condoning such acts of the colonial peoples? 

Of course not!

Whether they want it or not, changing the internal structure of their material culture; The creation of a new, more advanced, more orderly and perfect economic structure occupies their economic agenda. 

And it can’t be any other way!

What is the peculiarity of the internal structure of the material culture of the metropolitan peoples in the current and passing period? This feature is built on two pillars: private property within nations, and private property among nations. In other words, the means of production and the wealth obtained are relatively dispersed, whether within the nation or between different nations. 

Let us consider the first issue, the phenomenon of property within the nation itself: what consequences does this issue yield in the process of development of the material culture of the western peoples? The first of these is the competition between property owners—that is, capitalists and their groups (trusts, unions, cartels, etc.)—and in some cases between different industries. They fight each other in pursuit of gains and greater profits, and a large part of their energies is devoted to this struggle. 

True… This competition is the only and essential principle of capitalism based on private property. It plays a progressive role in terms of accumulation and centralization of capital. But in an environment where there are colonies on a social scale and eager to achieve independence, such competition is a factor that reduces the ability of metropolises to exploit. For example, if any Englishman were to go to India to do business with a British capitalist organization, he would have to spend some of his own capital fighting a similar British organization, losing some of his strength and opportunities along the way. Of the English capital. The robbery scheme in India, due to the lack of centralization and cooperation at the national level, cannot provide one hundred percent of the results and efficiency that the centralization situation can provide.

The principle of private property brings with it another negative factor in terms of the power of metropolises, the class struggle arising from the inequality between the classes within the nation itself. Now in this environment, three political currents have emerged that reflect the ideology of the main classes existing in Europe: Conservatism, the political ideology of the big bourgeoisie; liberalism as the political ideology of the middle and petty bourgeoisie; and socialism as the ideology of the working class. 

The struggle between these classes, which actually and to a certain extent reflects their desire to seize political power, will in some cases weaken the oppressive power of the metropolises against the colonies. At this point, we can exemplify the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. During this period, there was a class struggle within Russia that was evident enough, and the liberal Russian commercial-industrial bourgeoisie put forward some demands against the feudal-land bourgeoisie. The Russian working class had also revolted with political demands for both. This was the main reason why the Russians were defeated on the battlefield. As another example that proves the opposite of this example, we can show the victory of the renewed Turkey over the international imperialist gangs in 1922. There was a reason for this victory: During this period, rebellious Kemalist Turkey, which was a nation, was a whole formed by all classes of the Turkish Nation, united by the passion for national independence. The enemy front, on the other hand, was a volcano bubbling up national and class contradictions.

And we have to identify one point here: The class struggle and its development in the metropolises in contemporary conditions is still a factor that hinders the progress of western hegemony!

The second point we have reminded above; One such factor is the division of private property among metropolitan peoples, in other words, their material culture, which provokes national competition and struggle between these nations. The existence of this factor complicates the situation of the metropolitan peoples as the masters of the world, weakens the pressures they exert against the colonies, and provides the colonies with an opportunity for maneuver and a certain movement. How was it possible to preserve Turkey’s independence, revive Afghanistan’s independence, and increase the signs of independence in Egypt? On what grounds did the national liberation movements gain strength in India, Marrakech, China and similar places? How did it happen that some old countries like Poland were revived, and Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ireland could be established? Finally, on what ground does the acceleration of the national liberation movements of non-Russian nations in Russia take place? All of this has been possible thanks to the division of the material cultures of the metropolises. The fights of the peoples of Metropoles among themselves for the first place and for the world hegemony cause the oppression they exerted against the colonies to loosen and provide an opportunity for the political independence struggles of these last ones. 

Let’s come to the second contradiction, the liberation struggles of the colonies and semi colonies. Does such a movement really exist? If it does, is it really developing and growing? Let’s answer these questions in the language of facts:

Japan: Half a century ago, Japan was a semi-colonial country that was not very big. No one could not even imagine Japan getting involved in international politics. But once it began to wake up, it was enough to become the fearful dream of the Asian peoples and to easily ruin Russia, the gendarme of Europe and the notorious feudal imperialist. Not even 10 years have passed since war, Japan, after Russia, has been participating in the decimation of another European imperialist state, Germany. Is it long-term or not? For now, Germany has been derailed. Japan, on the other hand, forms a bloc against the United Kingdom, which also includes France, China and Russia. If these intentions are realized, Japanese will also try to form a bloc against their overseas neighbor, United States The future of the Japanese people obliges the opening of the Siberian gates for settlement, the opening of the gates of China and other countries for the activities of Japanese commercial and industrial capital. 

It is in the interests of Japan that the European imperialist states are crushed to shreds.

Turkey: What is happening in this country is well known even to the fiercest enemies of the ascetic Turkish Nation. A healthy national revival process is taking place in this country from the beginning. Those who did not believe in this process or looked at it with suspicion tried the results among themselves. The bayonets of the Turkish workers and peasants, the progressive Turkish intellectuals, who are devoted to the national development of Turkey, taught the necessary lessons to those who needed them and taught them how to think. Like how the Tsars of Russia succeeded in bringing down Kazan 400 years ago, this stronghold of the Northern Turks, and advancing towards the East only by passing through the corpses of Tatar fighters, today the Western European imperialists must defeat the Southern Turks – the Ottomans – in order to make their way to the East. Before the Western peoples spread to the east, was Turkey not subjected to their frenzied attacks? Western peoples have to go over the corpses of Turkish-Ottoman warriors in order to truly take control of the situation in Asia and Africa. The fall of Kazan in the face of Russian attacks did not happen in a day. The Russians attacked here dozens of times. The struggle between Moscow and Kazan, the two northern giants of the time, continued for decades until the invasion of Tatarstan. It was not easy for the victor to secure this victory. A guerrilla war between the vanquished and the vanquishers, full of brutal massacres and atrocities, continued for decades. After that, the resolve of Tatars was broken. Europe had to struggle for centuries to weaken the Turks and ultimately to take the Balkans, Egypt, Arabia and Mesopotamia from the Turks. The European rulers were not fortunate enough to intimidate Turkey. It won’t happen either… Turkey is alive and will live on. Turkey will not be content with living alone but will also give life to its old parts and the rest of the Middle East, which were forcibly torn by Europe. 

China: The Chinese People, the oldest of the ancient peoples on earth, slept for a long time. But Dragon finally opened its eyes. It is about to wake up now, awakening from its age-old slumber. For now, dragon is lying in its cave, busy straightening its numb joints. But it will be up soon. No one can keep it in cave anymore. What has happened in recent years shows that these people are on the rise. The Chinese People were able to make the 1911 Revolution. They could make another revolution. When the fragmented parts of China turn into such a steel fist after this revolution, Western peoples will find it very difficult to recover from this punch. The eruptions of civil war periodically seen in China are only the overture part of the great concert of the 400 million Chinese People. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, may die in this bloody civil war of the Chinese People. However, these sacrifices are inevitable, and the sacrifices will not be in vain. Civil wars in China are an expression of the process of integration of the Chinese People. It will take a few more decades before this process can be completed.

India: India is also waking up. India’s recovery process is more painful compared to China, and this is understandable. India is the colony of the most powerful of the European bandits – Britain. But this ex-pirate will not stand up to India’s liberation movement, however terrifying it has been in past. British may delay the liberation process of India a little bit by pressure, purchase, provocation and diplomatic trickery, but it can never stop it. The liberation movement of India exhibits a fluctuating course. The rise of revolutionary tension is replaced by descents from time to time. But one thing is well known. Such temporary descents seen in the behavior of the People of India are only a respite, signaling that stronger and much more terrible waves are coming. We are absolutely sure that one day the liberation movement of India will overcome all kinds of artificial dams created by England and will affect the whole world. From the tyranny of the West the liberation choir is gaining strength with the movements of Egypt, Marrakesh and the Russian colonies. And these movements are in no way different from the liberation movements of countries such as China, India and Turkey. All of these movements are carried out under the slogan of liberation from imperialism, in other words, from the domination of western peoples. However, they may differ in form and tempo depending on the conditions of the countries and times. Strong or weak… Fast or slow… Stormy or calm… They can be large or small.

The Colonial Peoples of Russia: We shall not dwell in more detail on the movements seen in Egypt, Marrakech and other Asian and African colonies of the West. Because their main lines are well known. Here we will review the liberation movements of the colonial peoples of Russia. According to our findings, the liberation movements of the peoples in Russia’s colonies – Turkistan, Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Mongolia – are clearly evident. The defeat of Russia against Japan, which caused the 1905 Revolution, enabled the awakening of the national consciousness of the colonies and oppressed peoples of this country. The defeats that Russia suffered on the Western and Caucasian fronts during the world war caused the 1917 Revolution and accelerated the liberation processes of these peoples. 

The separation of Poland, Finland and the small Baltic states from Russia, the establishment of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia, South Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus and other republics, together with 10 autonomous national republics, which are constantly struggling for the expansion of their sovereignty rights, are the most tangible proofs of opinion. Even though the Pan-Russians and the supporters of the Pan-Russians, no matter what mask they hide behind the “democratic” or “communist”, they try to destroy this movement as much as they want and turn these regions into ordinary Russian provinces and weaken them, so far, they have not been able to realize their desires. In the face of the increasing activity of the nations fighting for national liberation and independence, they will still not be able to do it, no matter what tricks they use. Whatever they have done so far, everything is theirs.

It gave results completely opposite to what they wanted. With the establishment of the USSR, the Pan-Russians wanted to restore the de facto single and indivisible Russia and to reassure the Velikorus sovereignty over other peoples. Not even a year had passed, all the peoples raised their voices of objection against Moscow’s Pan-Russian centralist tendencies. (As in the meeting of the Soviet of Nations at the last plenary session of the Central Administrative Council of the Soviet Union.)

Moscow divides the Turanic peoples into various small tribes in order to weaken Turkestan economically and politically. But within two years at the latest, these divided parts of Turan will raise the issue of reintegration; they will establish a stronger, more powerful and orderly state. 

Today, Russia separates Mongolia from China and wants to “tame” this country in its own hands. Mongolia, too, does not seem to be too opposed to sitting on Moscow’s lap. But if this Mongolia manages to stand up on its own feet tomorrow and strengthen its own Kuruldan (convention), it is not clear what it will say to this situation.

Based on the experience of the last Russian Revolution, we come to this conclusion that no matter what class comes to power in Russia, no one can bring back the former ‘glory’ and ‘power’ of this country. Russia, as a multinational state and a Russian State, is inevitably heading towards fragmentation and division. The result will be one of two things:


This dilemma is a historical necessity created by circumstances. It is most probable that the first option will be realized. If the latter takes place, it will be only a steppingstone to the first. The old Russia, which today was rebuilt under the name of the USSR, won’t not last long. It is a temporary and temporary thing.

This is the last breath of a dying person, the last flutter. Against the background of the disintegration of Russia, the images of the following national states appear clearly and distinctly: UKRAINE (together with Crimea and Belarus), CAUCASIA (which can exist as an alliance of the North Caucasus with other Caucasian parts), TURAN (the alliance of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kyrgyzstan and as the Federation of Turkestan Republics), SIBERIA and VELIKORUSIA… We do not count Finland, Poland and the small Baltic states, which are now separated from Russia, here.

The realities of the liberation movements of the colonies and semi-colonies are clear in this way. There are these liberation movements… They are real… They will progress and evolve!

The Conservative Case for Multipolarity

There has been a lot of talk from some countries about a multipolar world recently from Russian president Vladimir Putin to president of China Xi Jinping to Latin American leaders like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. We also recently seen the decline of American Liberal global hegemony from the fall of Afghanistan to the Gulf States deciding to cut oil production even after the US government told them not to, to seeing growing influence of China, Russia, and India on the world stage and the growth of economic/ security unions to rival the EU and NATO, such as BRICS, CSTO, and SCO.

What is exactly Multipolarity? First, we should define its opposite Unipolarity. Unipolarity is a world where there is only one center of global power that controls were most of world goes in terms of economics, culture, and government. The best example of this is the 1990s and 2000s United States where the USA was the sole superpower that could spread its ideology liberalism across world with no major power preventing it and at the expense of those regions’ autonomy, and traditions.  The US could also decide the fate on what country would win in a conflict such as in the Gulf War and Yugoslav Civil Wars.

To many inside the American intellectual ruling class such as Francis Fukuyama believed that the United States had reached the end of history where the USA had reach peak of human evolution when it came to government meaning liberalism was highest stage of society and the rest of the world would eventually arrive to America “enlightened” ideals as well. Some within the ruling class and intellectual class like Irving Kristol the founder of Neo Conservatism or speculator and founder of the Open Society Foundation George Soros wanted to speed up this process by the US engaging in conflict and regime changes in countries that were illiberal such as Iraq, Serbia, Libya Iran, North Korea, and many more.

Multipolarity is the exact opposite of unipolarity. Instead of just one civilization pole of power that governs were the world is going. In multipolarity there are many civilizational poles that are not govern by the same ideology but rather each civilization will be based on its own customs, culture, religion, traditions, economics, and government model that will be right for their civilization. In other words, Multipolarity rejects universalism of all kinds whether it be liberalism or universalistic ideologies that seeks to dominant the world and force the world to go its way and nothing else.  It also means that multipolarity rejects the idea of globalization and one world government were peoples, cultures, and traditions are destroyed for a one world blob that has no identity.

It should also be noted that multipolarity is not bipolarity either were 2 great power control the fate of the world like during the Cold War in the mid to late 20th century. There will not just be two civilizations but 5 or more.  It should also be noted on what is meant by civilizations. Civilizations are large spaces that go beyond  the nation state where people in these regions share a history, religion, similar culture and in some cases a similar racial background. Some examples of these ideas are Pan Europeanism, Eurasianism and Pan Arabism with main theorist behind the idea of great spaces is the political theorist Carl Schmitt. The reason for these great civilizations instead of small nation states is because the smaller nation states will always be eventually dominated or must rely on the bigger nations because they have a lot more resources and military strength.

So why should a conservative support multipolarity? I think it very obvious that multipolarity is very much compatible with conservative ideals whether it be a Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver form of American Conservatism to someone from the German Conservative Revolution like Arthur Moller van Den Bruck or Ernst Niekisch. Whether it be multipolarity support for decentralization of world power, to support for civilization being based on their own traditions. To multipolarity rejection of universal capitalism and liberalism. Which is very similar to Russell Kirk Ten Conservative Principles particularly point 1 existence of enduring moral order, 2 adherents to customs, 3 principles of prescription, 5 principle of variety, 6 principle of imperfectability, and 9 restraints upon power. Multipolarity respects the ideas of civilization being based on there own moral orders, customs and restraint upon power on a global level were each civilization will put a check on each others power.  In fact, Alexander Dugin the main modern theorist behind multipolarity has taken influence from the German conservative revolution and from American Conservative Samuel Huntington. Dugin has also said positive things about all thinkers mentioned above and Dugin himself has described himself as a conservative on many occasions especially in 4th political theory which is an inherently a revolutionary conservative ideology that seeks to free the world from global liberal domination. Dugin has also written against nominalism like Richard Weaver and has admiration for rural life. 

To Dugin Multipolarity allow all civilizations to keep their own traditions and preserve their own way of life. Along with having these civilizations to determine their own fate and destiny. We are already starting to see the countries supporting multipolarity returning to their religious traditions such as Russian Orthodoxy in Russia and Confucianism in China or are already traditional societies like Iran. As liberalism continues to wane, we expect not only multipolarity to continue but also with more traditional ways remerging, with a better understanding of avoiding the mistakes of the past. Social Conservatives of all stripes have everything to gain from a multipolar world coming about as it gives Conservatives a chance to preserve or revive their own customs, traditions, and not be under thumb of a liberal hegemon that has no respect for these ideals. Only through multipolarity can a Conservative world be born.  


The Theory of a Multipolar World by Alexander Dugin

4th Political Theory by Alexander Dugin

10 Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk


The End of History? By Francis Fukuyama

Putin Says formation of multipolar world is irreversible


Return to orthodoxy in Russia

Return of Confucius in China

China state media CGTN promoting Confucius

Other Russia E.V. Limonov 100 Question 2022 Version Plus Additional Questions

The original Russian version can be found here

Questions to the National Bolsheviks: Answers-2022

Any significant political association raises a lot of questions, rumors and comments addressed to it. At the end of August 2012, we decided to collect 100 questions related to the activities of the National Bolsheviks movement and give an answer to them. In order for the questions to be sharp and topical, we asked Vkontakte users to ask them. Questions were received and answers given. Ten years later, in March 2022, we released an updated version of the answers to the questions, adapted to the existing reality.

1. How the National Bolsheviks relate to the Donbass war

It was a Russian national uprising that was merged by the Putin government. Not only the citizens of Russia, who hoped for the return of Russian territories, were deceived, but also the residents of Novorossia, which has been in limbo since 2014.

2. What is your attitude towards the military operation of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine in 2022. The

war with Ukraine, pumped up with weapons and anti-Russian propaganda, was inevitable. In this war, we are on the side of the Russian army, on the side of the Russian soldier. Since 2014, Eduard Limonov has been calling for military intervention on the territory of Ukraine – then the weak post-Maidan statehood was easy to bring under control, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine would not have put up serious resistance. The authorities did not listen to people like us, wasted time, so now the military operation is more complex and bloody.

Ukraine under the rule of Ukrainian nationalism will always be a threat to our country, it will be “Anti-Russia”. The threat must be eliminated, the transformation of tens of millions of Russian speakers into sworn enemies of Russia must be stopped. The ultimate goal of the war should be the annexation of the lands of Ukraine (all or part) to Russia.

3. What did the National Bolsheviks do to support the Russian people in the Donbass?
The forces of the National Bolsheviks gathered gum. assistance, material assistance to the families of those killed or wounded in combat operations. Volunteers were also sent to defend New Russia. Through the movement of the Interbrigade, created by the Party, in 2014-15. more than 1.5 thousand people from Russia and foreign countries went to war against the Kiev regime.

4. Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, which you have been talking about for many years. What are you dissatisfied with?

All the rest and the fact that the Russian regions of Ukraine did not go after the Crimea. Extradition of veterans of Donbass to foreign states, including Ukraine. Inaction in the Baltic and South Siberian directions.

5. Why did the Limonovites part ways with Zakhar Prilepin?

Zakhar Prilepin has been a National Bolshevik since 1996. At one time, the party respected him. But as Prilepin’s literary authority grew, he increasingly moved away from the National Bolshevik movement, moving to pro-government, protective positions. In 2019, he joined Putin’s ONF, which was incompatible with membership in the Other Russia party. In the future, Prilepin merged more and more with the state apparatus, continuing his degradation.

The National Bolsheviks are a patriotic and socialist opposition, and Prilepin’s projects of recent years are base, deceitful, commercial loyalism.

6. What types of membership exist in the party “The Other Russia of Eduard Limonov”?

Membership in the “Other Russia to Eduard Limonov” is determined by the actions of a person. After formally joining the party, everyone is free to determine the degree and form of their participation in the organization – from helping political prisoners and attending sanctioned rallies to direct action. Based on the degree of participation of a party member in the activities of the organization, his authority and position in the party are formed.

We need people with a wide range of skills: lawyers, programmers, designers, publicists, economists, photographers, video editors, drivers, military men, athletes and representatives of extreme professions with a taste for risk. First of all, we need capable organizers, political officers. We need strong hands, a bright head, an iron will (preferably all at once).

7. How does the modern party of Limonov feel about the Old National Bolsheviks?

The National Bolshevik is the National Bolshevik, old or new, it doesn’t matter. “Old age” is a relative concept.

8. Who can be considered the main ideologist of National Bolshevism in Russia?

Nikolai Ustryalov (1890-1937) should be considered the main ideologist of National Bolshevism in Russia.

9. What do you think about the state of the Russian economy?

Russia of the last decade has been in a state of economic stagnation. The growth rates of Russian GDP are lower than the global ones, but the indicators of social stratification between the “tops” and “bottoms” are high. Experiments to create a market economy on the ruins of the USSR led to the formation of a clan society. Our country is CJSC “RF” – a closed joint stock company with a narrow circle of beneficiaries, who mainly decide the issues of their financial well-being. Oligarchic capitalism with feudal elements has been established in Russia, where the overwhelming majority of the population has been thrown to the sidelines of life.

Large property is in the hands of a narrow stratum of the “elite” – businessmen who enriched themselves during illegal privatization in the 90s, or people from Vladimir Putin’s entourage, or government officials who, in fact, work not for the sake of the country, but for the sake of their own wallet. A small group of people have access to the levers of economic management, allowing only friends and relatives to “feed”

10. What economic changes in the country would the Party implement in the first place?

The state should be engaged in a new industrialization – the transformation of Russia into a country with a highly developed industry.

Priority should be given to both those areas that are called “industry 4.0” – big data, alternative energy, artificial intelligence, and traditional industries – mechanical engineering, instrumentation, agriculture. Contrary to the supporters of the free market, who believe in the saving power of competition, capitalism destroys market relations, leading to centralization and monopolization. Large transnational corporations operate on a planned basis. In the modern world, there is not a confrontation (and cooperation) between the market and the plan, but a fork between two versions of the planned economy – the corporative plan (corporate plan) and the state plan (state plan).

11. How do you feel about private property?

Within the current level of human development, we respect private property as a fact of personal and social life.

On the other hand, the National Bolsheviks intend to review the results of privatization and carry out a phased nationalization of the entire mining sector, strategically important large industrial enterprises, transport, construction, and communications. Effective business owners, in the absence of an obvious criminal trail, will be able to become hired top managers subordinate to the people, that is, continue to manage their companies. However, incomes exceeding average salaries by tens of thousands of times will have to be parted.

At the same time, it should be noted that we welcome social experiments to abolish private property, aimed at overcoming capitalism. Those who wish to build communism “here and now” will have the opportunity to implement their plans in a certain territory, but not to the detriment of the interests of Russia and its other citizens who are not ready for such experiments.

12. What will happen to small businesses?

Private businessmen tend to maximize profits while minimizing costs, which creates dangerous social contradictions. In order to resolve them, it is necessary to revive collective property in enterprises, which will coexist with state and private ones. In the history of our country, such property was realized as artels and cooperatives. Collective enterprises are owned by the workers themselves, whose power is based on the principle of “one person, one vote”. In cooperatives, the employee is not alienated from the results of his work, he chooses the management of the company from among his colleagues, and also participates in the distribution of profits. Collective enterprises make it possible to get rid of the appropriation of the results of the work of workers by the entrepreneur. The state will support the formation of collective enterprises – allocate them subsidies, provide preferential tax regimes. Comprehensive encouragement will be provided to production cooperatives that respond more flexibly to the needs of the population in the service sector and the production of consumer goods. They will help to avoid excessive unification and overregulation, characteristic of the Soviet economy.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be present in the country, but it is advisable to transform small businesses into cooperatives as much as possible. Modern small business in the Russian Federation is often characterized by increased exploitation of employees, ignoring the norms of the Labor Code, a bias in the use of the labor of workers without formalizing employment contracts. We will overcome this situation. Let’s make the policy of distributing profits among employees profitable for small businesses (not only profits are distributed, but also risks, the participation of staff in the fate of the company increases).

13. What would you do with those who support Ukraine in the conflict with Russia?

Supporters of Ukraine are of different persuasions. Among them are honest “pacifists” and pro-Western public and political figures who want Russia’s military defeat. We stand for freedom of assembly, so the Ukrainian public has the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons, to hold their actions. We do not support the cleansing of street politics, even if the views of the protesters are unpleasant to us. Another thing is that the agents of influence of the West are on a salary, so we do not sympathize with them at all.

14. Should China be Russia’s ally in the economic struggle with the West?

China is a tactical ally of Russia at a short distance, similar to what the UK was an ally of the USSR. After defeating a common enemy, relations deteriorate

15. Is modern China and the CPC line an example for Russia in terms of state building development?

Demonstrations of China’s success in terms of interaction between the private and public sectors of the economy, where private initiative is complemented by national interest, is undoubtedly interesting to study. But it is also necessary to take into account the specifics of the geopolitical position of the two countries, blind copying will not lead to anything.

16. Don’t you think that after the death of Limonov, the party should have dispersed, since before that it was mostly a club of fans?

No, it should not, just as the Roman Empire should not have disintegrated after the death of Otkavian Augustus or the USSR after the death of Lenin. Indeed, in both cases, the countries were a kind of clubs of fans of their leaders.

17. What are the main differences with the communists?

Communists are different, so it is difficult to answer this question in a nutshell. In general, the main problem of most communists is dogmatism and sectarianism. Communists, having in their hands the works of the 19th century (Marx, Engels), are trying to explain the processes taking place in the 21st century. Meanwhile, the world is changeable, and Marxism alone can no longer describe the fullness of social processes.

18. What economic policy do you consider the most acceptable for Russia?

We stand for the creation in Russia of a progressive socialist economy. Large enterprises will be nationalized, while small and medium businesses will remain in private hands. It is necessary to strive to achieve the economic autarky (self-sufficiency) of Russia. Only if the Russian economy is self-sufficient is it possible to actively enter world markets.

In foreign economic relations, we intend to start trading in rubles rather than dollars. This step will contribute to the elimination of the world hegemony of the American currency, to stop the humiliating dependence of the Russian economy on the globalist masters.

The economic system of Russia should be focused not on banking speculation, but on a person of labor engaged in the real production of goods and services. We intend to give free development to the trade union movement, which will defend the rights of workers before employers. The other Russia is the Russia of labor.

19. Do you support President Vladimir Putin or are you in opposition to him?

We are the opposition to the oligarchic elites that have been ruling in Russia since the early 90s. Putin is a kind of centaur, combining militarism with a commitment to the values ​​of his boss, Anatoly Sobchak. Attacking Putin personally for any reason is the style of the liberals, not the National Bolsheviks. Of course, Vladimir Putin is a representative of the same elite and the same classes that sell and betray our people. However, the problem is not only him. It is necessary to change not the frontman, but the entire Russian elite.

20. Why do the National Bolsheviks use the slogan “Stalin! Beria! GULAG!”, but at the same time stand for political freedoms? Isn’t that crazy?

The National Bolsheviks stand for a state that is as tough as possible on the outside, in protecting national interests, and soft on the inside – in relation to its own citizens. The slogan “Stalin! Beria! Gulag!” was used by the National Bolsheviks for a rally slogan in the 90s to annoy the ruling liberal circles. Since 2001, since the arrest of Limonov, this slogan has not been used by party members. For over twenty years now. The current National Bolsheviks are for political freedoms, against repression against modern dissidents.

21. How can one be against the authorities, but at the same time support the military adventures of the Kremlin?

We do not support the military adventures of the Kremlin. We want them to stop being adventures and become a consistent imperial policy. When a liberal is sad that Crimea is Russian, the National Bolsheviks are sad because the Russian flag is not yet over Kyiv.

22. What are the differences with the right, and are there any?

“Right” is a very vague term, as is “left”. Under the right one can be understood both football hooligans, and intellectual national democrats, and Orthodox banner-bearers, and yard guys in scarves with the imperial flag.

We welcome healthy tendencies in both the “right” and “left” camps. National Bolsheviks, within the framework of their ideology, combine adequate right-wing ideas (national justice) and left-wing ideas (social justice), while rejecting the stupidity, phobias and excesses inherent in these ideologies.

23. Is it possible to consider yourself a Russian National Bolshevik being in exile voluntary, but wholeheartedly supporting the ideas of National Bolshevism?

Think of yourself as anyone, if that makes it easier for you. We are against emigration without serious reasons (threat to life, threat of imprisonment), a person must remain faithful to his Motherland and share both victories and hardships with her.

24. How will the party function after the departure of the permanent leader?

Until the emergence of a new leader who can lead the movement, it will be managed collectively by the forces of the political council. The party has been operating this way since 2016. At the moment, the Party is led by the political council, as well as three coordinators – Mikhail Aksel (Moscow), Andrey Dmitriev (St. Petersburg) and Yuri Staroverov (Nizhny Novgorod).

25. How would the National Bolsheviks, the name of state power in their hands, solve the problems associated with the coronovirus infection?

Closing borders, mandatory vaccination and, if possible, temporarily relocating everyone to the countryside and summer cottages, those who do not have houses. The failure of vaccination is a direct consequence of the weakness of the administrative apparatus, which, instead of tough but necessary measures in a crisis, proposed some kind of vague practice – to transfer everything to the discretion of the governors. Because of this, anti-COVID measures were not implemented at all in the regions.

26. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the current policy of the Russian government in terms of combating the epidemic?

It is ineffective and only angers people with half measures. There is no compulsory vaccination, but there are QR codes. They are fined for masks and gloves, but major political events of the authorities are held and everyone is without masks.

27. What is your attitude towards covid dissidents?

Rather negative. We do not deny the danger of coronavirus and the fact that vaccines reduce mortality from COVID-19. However, we criticize the social and economic measures of the authorities during the pandemic, trying not to delve into the stupid contestation of medical facts.

28. Is it possible for the NB to cooperate with the “leftists” in Europe, who perceive nationalism extremely negatively and in every possible way consider themselves tolerant and multicultural?

In modern Europe, which is considered by many to be an island of common sense, in fact there are no less cockroaches in the head than in Russia. If you are on the left, then automatically a supporter of tolerance, migrants and gay parades, and if you are right, then you are a defender of capitalism, the church, and dull conservatism. In such a coordinate system there is no place for NB.

Nevertheless, even in Europe there are sound leftists (albeit few in number) who are free from dogmatism. We are ready to work with them, as well as with adequate European “rightists” – those who are anti-American, stand for the rapprochement of European countries with Russia and a multipolar world.

29. At the beginning of the NB movement there was a powerful cultural layer in the form of poets, musicians, artists (Letov, Nepomniachtchi, Kuryokhin, etc.). Concerts, gatherings, Russian breakthrough. At times it seemed that the National Bolsheviks were not a political party, but some kind of underground party of radical intelligentsia. Do you want to try again? For the “Other Russia of Limonov” is perceived only as a political party …

Probably, someone is saddened by the fact that the current party of the National Bolsheviks has a much smaller field of attraction for cultural figures than at one time a bunch of Limonov, Dugin, Letov, Kuryokhin. But you can’t enter the same water twice, what was, was. Then, in the 90s, the National Bolshevik community really was more of a cultural project that existed in the mild conditions of the Yeltsin mess, when songs like “Kill the Bourgeois” from the rostrum of a rally were not even threatened with police detention.

Times have changed a long time ago, the 90s are over – it has become dangerous to be a National Bolshevik, and indeed a political radical in general, so many figures of the cultural front, accustomed to comfort, were blown away like the wind. In part, the absence of representatives of non-conformist culture next to the National Bolsheviks is a problem of cultural figures who have become smaller, too, whose real ceiling is to support the toothless bourgeois “white ribbons”.
On the other hand, after the death of Eduard Limonov in March 2020, Limonov Readings are held throughout the country – this is a noticeable countercultural platform for creators of the kind we need.

30. Do you have a clear and well-thought-out plan for coming to power and a further program of action that is adequate to the current state of affairs in Russia?

The political and social situation in Russia is so changeable that it is simply impossible to draw up a detailed plan for coming to power at the moment. As history shows, no one has been able to draw up and implement such a plan. It is an illusion that people like Lenin or Mao (for example) had a clear scenario for taking power. They just kept their finger on the pulse and were at the right time in the right place.

We have program guidelines that we follow, and we also have tactical goals. A program of action after coming to power is also available.

31. What was the reason for the creation of a new, already third organization – “The Other Russia E.V. Limonov”?

With the fact that in 2020, after the Chelyabinsk case, there was a real threat of recognizing the party as extremist and depriving its leadership of the right to create political organizations for a very long time.

32. What caused the choice of new symbols?

The creation of a new organization, as well as the need to preserve recognizable features.

33. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the new war in Nagorno-Karabakh?

The war near our borders, which strengthened Turkey’s position in the region, which also showed the fragility of Russia’s international position. It is not a priority area as long as there is Donbass, although we acted on the side of Nagorno-Karabakh – we sent military correspondents there. The National Bolshevik Party was the only party in the Russian Federation that supported the Armenian side in repelling the Turkish aggression.

34. How do you feel about nationalism? and why NATIONAL Bolshevism?

The National Bolsheviks themselves are modern Russian nationalists. However, we do not define Russians by blood. A Russian is one who considers the Russian language and Russian culture his own, the history of Russia – his history, who has proved by his deeds his devotion to the Russian nation and does not think of any other Motherland and nation.
We are close not to narrow ethnic nationalism (and such accompanying concepts as chauvinism, racism, xenophobia), but to such ideological constructions as imperial nationalism, civic nationalism, and cultural nationalism.

In advance of the criticism of extreme nationalists who stand up for the purity of blood, we answer that

35. What is the attitude to labor migration?

Labor migration should be controlled by society. It is necessary to introduce migration quotas for professions that determine which migrant workers are needed and which are not. It is clear that Russia needs qualified engineers, scientists, doctors, but visiting builders, loaders, taxi drivers are not needed – and there will be enough of their own men if they are provided with normal working conditions.

National Bolsheviks against illegal immigration. We see its cause, first of all, in oligarchic capitalism itself, where business owners are more inclined to hire embittered semi-slaves from abroad for pennies than natives. Measures of state regulation are needed to counteract these processes.

36. Many National Bolsheviks cite fascism. Are there similarities between National Bolshevism and Fascism?

If we understand fascism as the dictatorship of corporations in one bottle with the suppression of dissent and totalitarian violence, then the National Bolsheviks not only do not quote fascism, but are its worst opponents.

On the other hand, in early Italian fascism, which was more rebellious, proletarian and futuristic, there is much that the National Bolsheviks like – the cult of the superman, the education of courage, anti-dogmatism, a bright offensive culture. Gabriele D’Annunzio and Filippo Marinetti are our people.

37. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the creation of national schools? Migrants are screwed…

The introduction of national schools is possible on a limited scale, but the division of the entire education system along ethnic lines is dangerous, since it will contribute to the disunity of the peoples of Russia, instead of their unification within the framework of Russian civilization. We see the solution to the problem of migrants in schools from a different angle: limiting legal immigration and combating illegal immigration will automatically reduce the number of migrants, so the severity of the problem will decrease even without the creation of national schools.

38. How do you feel about the current education system?

The current education system does not suit us, but what is replacing it (fee-based education) is even worse.

We intend to reform the education system in the following way:
– Preserve free general education, ensure access to education for all citizens of Russia. Every student should be able to study any subject without any fee.
– Radically raise the prestige of school teachers. The school should teach successful people who should become an example to students. To increase the proportion of male teachers who are able to teach male education to young men.
– Revise the primary education system. The ten most active years of life spent at the school desk is too much. Education should be faster, and more close to real life. In addition to scientific knowledge, it is necessary to teach survival, behavior on the street, convey ethical and aesthetic standards, instill a taste for self-development and personal growth.
– As part of school education, real military sports training should be carried out, which allows educating the basic skills of military affairs without further compulsory service in the army.

39. Are rising Turkish ambitions a threat to Russia?

Are. Not only by increasing tensions in the border areas, but also by their fueled separatist sentiments among the Turkic peoples of Russia. The recent “Great Turan” project openly lays claim to Russian lands.

40. How should the future Other Russia react to military actions right next to the country’s borders, similar to what happened in Karabakh?

Direct intervention with the support of forces loyal to Russia.

41. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the growing nationalist sentiment in neighboring republics?

This is one of the main threats to the peaceful Russian population, as it can lead to a new wave of anti-Russian pogroms, which we observed in the 90s of the last century.

42. How do the National Bolsheviks treat anarchists?

The attitude towards anarchists is ambiguous. Usually, these are funny and honest guys, but with a mess in their heads. An anarchist society is too naive a utopia to be realized in the coming centuries. Contrary to the opinion of leftists, people are not inherently equal. You can talk about the need for equality of opportunity, but there is no equality of ability. In any “powerless” and “autonomous” society, leaders, leaders, and authorities will quickly appear anyway. The same Makhno, although he called himself an anarchist, was in fact the Fuhrer of his detachment.

43. Are religion (religious beliefs) and sexual orientation important for the National Bolsheviks? Or the main thing is the struggle with the system?

Party “Other Russia” E.V. Limonova” is open to people with any religious beliefs. With regard to sexual orientation, we do not look into everyone’s bed, leaving such questions to the personal discretion of everyone. However, there are no gays in the ranks of the National Bolsheviks.

As for the evaluation of the activities of other movements, one must understand that completely different social forces, both close and alien to us, can be based on a religious basis. But only fools and provocateurs can make political capital by holding gay pride parades and other senseless LGBT antics. Those who try to create a fuss about sexual deviations are unacceptable people for us, both in their own and in the ranks of others.

44. Caucasian question?The Caucasus is a powder bomb capable of blowing up Russia. The solution of the Caucasian issue requires balance, accuracy, excess emotions are harmful here. “Another Russia by E.V. Limonova” intends to pursue a policy in the Caucasus based on the following theses:- The republics of the North Caucasus, which are part of Russia, are an integral part of it. Muslim peoples and Islam is also our country. Any attempts to separate the Caucasus, no matter who makes them, is a blow to the country, to the interests of the Russian nation and other peoples of Russia;- Recognizing the right of Caucasians to live by their own rules on their own land, we recognize the right of Russians to live in their own way on Russian territories. Ethnic crime will be suppressed. Anyone who, being a guest, does not honor the rights of the hosts, will be expelled, even though he is a citizen of Russia;- Wahhabi (Salafi) Islam, seeking to tear away the Caucasus, is dangerous for Russia. In the Caucasian republics, it should be opposed to moderate traditional Islam;- The political elites, on which Putin’s power in the North Caucasian republics relies, are deeply corrupt, in some places they are simply criminal. It is necessary to change this elite, the appearance of morally pure people in power in the Caucasus, patriots of Russia and their own people. These measures will undermine the social base of the Wahhabis, who are also fighting against luxury and the cult of consumption

.45. The attitude of the National Bolsheviks to drugs (alcohol, tobacco and hard drugs). Is there rejection on a dogmatic level, like the National Socialists?

We welcome supporters of a healthy lifestyle, among the National Bolsheviks there are many who refuse alcohol, tobacco in their lives, go in for sports. Self-development is an important building block of our ideology. However, flexibility is required in these matters, so we do not copy subcultures that are fashionable in certain circles and do not label ourselves (sXe, healthy lifestyle), we do not go to extremes. An energetic intellectual with an active lifestyle, keeping himself in a normal physical shape, but allowing alcohol and nicotine to a moderate degree is preferable to stamped “activists” under the slogans “Whoever drinks is not a Russian”, who instead of brains have only a horizontal bar, a yard party and Abibas sportswear.

46. ​​Maybe we should leave the “imperial ambitions” and let the nearest countries develop on their own?

They can be allowed to develop independently, as long as it does not interfere with the geopolitical interests of Other Russia.

47. How do you feel about the slogans of some nationalists: “Stop feeding the Caucasus”?

We believe that the separation of the Caucasus is impossible, but at the same time, infusion into this region should bring certain benefits, both economic and political.48. How does the proposed economic model of the National Bolsheviks differ from what was in the USSR, war communism again? No one has ever said that everyone will have three pens and two notebooks equally, but it is necessary to ensure relative equality of the population, create conditions for a normal life and self-development.

49. Attitude of NB to war?

From a philosophical point of view war is a natural state of society, the same as the world, not in vain in ancient mythology, the goddess of love Harmony was the daughter of the god of war Ares and the goddess of love Aphrodite. War ennobles people, awakens strong qualities in them, reveals the essence of people and things. The National Bolsheviks have always respected real warriors and have never been pacifists. On the other hand, we are engaged in politics, not abstract philosophy. Obviously, for Russia, as a power that has endured the horrors of the Great Patriotic War and possesses nuclear weapons, war propaganda and militaristic frenzy are sometimes too risky and ungrateful toy. In the 21st century, there are other tools of geopolitical struggle, such as economic, informational, cultural influence, although sometimes the great Russian soldier has to resolve political contradictions in the old fashioned way.

50. What should the National Bolsheviks do in the regions?

Develop party structure. Keep a finger on the pulse – intervene in regional conflicts between citizens and the authorities. At the same time, one must remember that the main political events take place in Moscow, so one must be mobile, ready to travel to the capital if necessary.

51. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the separation of the North Caucasian republics from Russia?

Negative. The separation of the Caucasus from Russia will lead to chaos in this region, where radical Islamists will play the first fiddle, which will most likely be accompanied by international intervention. Do you want the Taliban or NATO to be in power in Nalchik or Makhachkala? We are not.

Ethnically “pure” Russia within the Voronezh and Vologda regions is not the ideal of the National Bolsheviks. To glorify such a castrated Russia (albeit one hundred percent “white” and “European”) with destroyed economic and social ties, surrounded by a territory of lawlessness, is not nationalism, but rubbish.

52. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the secession of Siberia? And to the “Siberian Bolshevik Party”?

We consider separatism a destructive trend. Those who work for the collapse of Russia (not Putin’s, but in general), we are not friends, but enemies. With regard to the “Siberian issue”, we propose to increase the significance of this region by moving the capital to one of the Siberian cities (for example, Omsk), or by building a new capital in Siberia. This will “unload” Moscow and create a second pole of political, economic, cultural and social attraction.

We do not know what the “Siberian Bolshevik Party” is. Probably some local organization of little importance.

53. How do you feel about the Communist Party?

We respect ordinary members of the Communist Party. In the general mass, these are worthy people, in many ways ideologically close to us in their synthesis of socialist and patriotic ideas. With the rank and file members of the Communist Party, we stood and will stand together.

However, we note that the leaders of the Communist Party inherited the worst features of their predecessor – the CPSU. Careerism, cowardice, bureaucracy, narrow-mindedness have become the norm for these party bosses, clinging to deputy seats. Personally, Zyuganov betrayed the left-patriotic idea many times, performing small and large services for the Kremlin.

54. I have my own barbershop, will you dispossess me too?

Small businesses, service businesses, can remain in private hands. We are striving not for the complete nationalization of the economy, but for the elimination of a narrow oligarchic class that parasitizes not the body of the people, profiting, for the most part, from resources that do not belong to them.

55. What requirements do you need to meet to become a National Bolshevik?

Inner confidence in the correctness of the party and its ideals. Don’t pee. Be loyal to your comrades.

56. When will there be a revolution?

When the necessary situation in society develops. 80% of the success of a revolution is the situation. (There is also a troll version of “Next Wednesday, don’t be late. If it’s Wednesday and there’s no revolution, read it again”)

57. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the Pussy Riot case and similar attacks on the church?

The hype around Pussy Riot overshadowed almost all other news for several months. Russian and world media, as well as VIPs, enthusiastically promoted punks, forgetting about hundreds of other political prisoners. Meanwhile, the Pusechek case has split both society and the opposition along religious lines, diverting criticism from the policies of the Kremlin regime.

It’s hard for us to evaluate the Pussy Riot case. On the one hand, the National Bolsheviks have always been opposed to political repression and demanded the release of political prisoners. The course of the trial of the girls and the position of the top of the Russian Orthodox Church, which did not show Christian mercy, causes our rejection and irritation.

On the other hand, the action of Pussy Riot in the temple is not appropriate in conservative patriarchal Russia, and therefore is offensive to millions of Russians. Disgusting and vile anti-religious campaign launched later by the supporters of the punks. National Bolsheviks respect the feelings of believers and do not arrange their actions in churches.

58. Can minors join your organization?

Formally, according to the law, a party can be a member from the age of 18. However, no one prevents adequate and mature young people who have not reached this age from participating in our movement.

59. Is the essence of nationalism of the National Bolsheviks lies in the preservation of the Russian ethnos, or in its mixing with other nations of the CIS countries, like the Eurasians?

The essence of our nationalism, of course, lies in the preservation of the Russian ethnos, but we do not go in cycles in observing the “purity of blood”. The cultural and civilizational unification of peoples around the Russian nation is our goal. “Great Russia rallied forever the indestructible union of free republics” is an excellent formula for interethnic relations, if you think about every word and discard the clichés.

60. Are the National Bolsheviks interested in protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population outside the Russian Federation?

Yes, they are interested. For example, the leader of the Latvian National Bolsheviks, Vladimir Abel, is to this day one of the main defenders of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia. It was he who initiated the referendum on the state status of the Russian language. Recently, Abel managed to register the party “For Mother Tongue” in Latvia.

On the other hand, the National Bolsheviks in Russia actually operate underground, under the yoke of a police state, so we simply do not have the opportunity to conduct a full-fledged policy outside of Russia. And this is also the fault of the current government, which could use the “Limonovites” in the foreign policy circuit?

61. In fact, specifically, what is National Bolshevism?

In short and simplified, National Bolshevism is a synthesis of social and national ideology, it is the desire to achieve social justice in society, based on the interests of the nation

62. What is the difference between National Socialism and National Bolshevism? Isn’t the first a consequence of the second? It is clear that fascism and national socialism are different things, nevertheless, don’t you think that the people are more drawn to the “browns” than to the “reds”? Thank you.

The main differences between National Bolshevism and National Socialism (in the Hitler version) are as follows:
– The NB, unlike the National Assembly, are not racists. Belonging to the NB nation will be determined by the culture and actions of a person, and not by the principle of blood.
– NB are guided by the interests of the Russian nation, and not the abstract “White Europe”. Talk about the greatness of the Aryans, opposing the “Eurasian essence of Russia” is bad nonsense.
– NB pays more attention to the social problems of society than the National Assembly. Socialism for NB is a reality, not a formality.
– The NB honors the national heroes under the red flag who fought the Germans during the Great Patriotic War, and not the Vlasovites, Krasnov’s Cossacks and other Nazi underdogs.

As for the “browns” and “reds”, it is a very controversial question to whom the people are more drawn to. Young people tend to be more nationalistic, but the middle and older generations, especially in the regions, are more concerned about social problems, that is, the more left-wing ones shy away from open nationalism. It is better to say that Russia is a “red-brown” country, but certainly not a liberal one.

63. Your movement is for the rights of 14 year olds. Why is this needed?

We live in a world of old people who want to protect themselves from the energy of youth. Old people deprive the young of their rights, artificially dragging out childhood. Today’s teenagers mature earlier than their peers of previous generations. From childhood, they get used to assimilating a huge amount of information, early on they receive developed ideas about life, so they can quickly become full-fledged members of society.

At the same time, teenagers have no influence on the fate of the country. The state and society seek to destroy youth and prolong childhood to a ripe old age. They are afraid of the radicalism of the younger generation. They don’t need young passionaries who dream of changing the world.

64. How do the National Bolsheviks relate to religion in general, and to Rodnovery in particular?

Our movement is emphatically non-religious. We respect the freedom of religion of every person, just as we respect the atheist position. The attitude towards Rodnovery is calm, among the National Bolsheviks there are Rodnovers too.

65. Is cultural traditionalism included in the NB ideology?

We respect the cultures of different peoples, therefore we oppose cosmopolitanism, which seeks to make all the people of the world the same. At the same time, one must understand that culture must develop, not stand still. If we understand by “cultural traditionalism” a primitive copying of the customs of the past or the century before last, then this is clearly not our way.

66. Previously, direct actions of the National Bolsheviks (the Sevastopol action, the seizure of the Ministry of Health, etc.) thundered throughout the country. Why not now?

Because the state has liquidated the institute of independent mass media. Consequently, now they are not covered, and the result of such actions is only new cases, without the necessary media and public outcry.

67. Was Yegor Letov a National Bolshevik? Why did he leave the movement?
He was, he did not hand over his party card.

68. Who are your allies at the moment?

All real-life political forces in Russia, which are opposed, on the one hand, and patriotic, on the other hand, support Crimea as part of Russia, the DPR and the LPR.

69. Can National Bolshevism be considered a new branch of communism?

Historically, National Bolshevism adapted the communist utopia to the reality of the nation-state. Today, too, the National Bolsheviks are aligning all sorts of “-isms” (and communism too) to the standard of real life, so we can say that National Bolshevism is “common sense communism”, without clinics and chizuha.

70. Does the slogan “With a bayonet to the West!” Remain relevant?

We critically evaluate the policy of the United States of America, which has assumed the role of the world policeman. If it’s “anti-Americanism,” then call it that. At the same time, one must understand that until healthy nationally minded forces come to power in Russia itself, it is stupid to grin at the United States or try to bring down your anger on it with rallies near the American embassy. As long as the National Bolsheviks have no influence on state power, it remains only to watch the Kremlin fight the West, half-heartedly, inconsistently

71. What methods of combating illegal migration from the CIS countries do you propose?

The methods of combating illegal migration from the CIS countries, which we offer, are quite standard and fully fit into the mainstream of the European migration policy, which is successfully operating in practice in a number of states. These are the introduction of a visa regime with Central Asian countries, the introduction of migration quotas, large fines for employers for using illegal labor, and increased control over migrants by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

72. Why did the National Bolsheviks prepare a coup in Kazakhstan in 2001? Why do you need Kazakhstan at all?

We believe that several cities in the northern part of Kazakhstan were given to him unfairly after the collapse of the USSR. This is not about the whole of Kazakhstan, but about its northern part, besides, Nazarbayev pursued a policy aimed at ousting Russians, that is, he contributed to discrimination against the Russian-speaking population.

73. What will the National Bolsheviks do, after the revolution, with the entire criminal regime?

The mildest measure for major officials and a number of figures is life-long lustration (a ban on the right to work in the legislative and executive branches), but this, of course, is not enough. A number of government officials will be prosecuted for corruption, embezzlement of the budget and other crimes.

74. Why does the party have autonomous control of cells and why not make control more from the center?

We are for the manifestation of the maximum initiative on the ground. We need independent leaders in the regions who are able to think with their own heads, ready to make decisions and bear responsibility for them.

75. How do you feel about the ideas of anarcho-communism and eco-anarchism?

The ideas of statelessness, lack of leadership, and the complete absence of hierarchy are alien to the National Bolsheviks. There are brave, worthy people among the anarchs, but our ideas are different. However, this does not mean that we are rabid statists, the state should be present where it is useful for the majority of citizens. In addition, anarchists reject nationalism and advocate a mixture of nationalities. We consider healthy nationalism and the preservation of our national identity as a natural phenomenon.

As for eco-anarchists, we have a positive attitude towards the protection of nature, but it is not necessary to combine this with anarchism.

76. Have the features of the commune of the old Limonov party with sexual comfort been preserved?

The notorious “sexual comfort” (a phrase from Limonov’s book) is not an element of the way of life of the National Bolsheviks, just as the presence of communes is not mandatory. Yes, and before it was not, by and large.

77. Are family-dacha-career still anti-symbols of a party member?

No, no one in the party is forbidden to have a family, money and other material benefits, while not forgetting about party tasks.

78. Is there a methodological basis for creating small groups, their educational program?

Our main educational program is the maximum involvement of activists in the activities of the organization, that is, specific practical deeds. You can study theory as much as you like, arrange round tables and seminars, study fashionable crap like NLP, but if at the same time a person cannot take time off from work to go to a rally, then all these trainings are worthless.

79. Attitude towards Marxism, dialectical materialism

Marxism in the period of its appearance was a fairly progressive doctrine, and to some extent it remains today, but the National Bolsheviks do not follow this doctrine as fundamental. Marxism is good for analyzing certain political and economic processes, such as the global financial crisis, but many of the provisions of classical Marxism are outdated today, society has changed, like the working class itself.

We do not consider Marxism as a fundamental doctrine, but as a purely historical method. The problem of Marxism lies in the fact that in Soviet times it turned from a method into a dogma and became completely clumsy. In addition, dialectical materialism is very interesting as a philosophical direction and answers the questions of history better than its opposite, metaphysics.

80. Policy in the field of culture in general and in the field of protection of cultural heritage in particular

In terms of culture, the National Bolsheviks put forward the slogan “culture should grow like a wild tree, and we are not going to cut it”, i.e. culture should develop freely, without restrictions, this will give her momentum for development.

The historical cultural heritage must be preserved, which is one of the functions of the state in domestic politics.

81. How do you feel about Alexander Dugin and Eurasianism?

As for smart people who lack action and will. The Eurasian Youth Union could have been an interesting organization, but it was swallowed up by the circles and the lack of bright actions.

82. Why are the National Bolsheviks often called fascists?

People are accustomed to calling fascists those they don’t like, this is not a new phenomenon. Despite the sympathy of some National Bolsheviks for the activities of fascist, Falangist and other similar organizations “The Other Russia E.V. Limonov” is not a fascist organization – we honor the feat of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. May 9 is our holy day. But this does not prevent us from studying the experience of their activities and adopting individual practices and provisions that may be useful to us. Similar work is carried out in the left direction.

83. What is your attitude towards libertarianism?

An extremely bourgeois ideology that we do not support.

84. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the renaming of Soviet place names?

It is negative, because the authorities are doing everything to erase the memory of the revolutionary past and prove to society that the revolution is terrible.

85. What does the concept of freedom mean for the National Bolshevik, what meaning does he put into it?

Individual freedom is one of the basic values ​​of the National Bolsheviks. We stand for both the basic set of democratic freedoms (voting rights, individual freedom, freedom of opinion, etc.), and for a deeper liberation of a person (liberation from the routinization of life, from philistine prejudices, from the cult of consumption)Historically, in Russia, the authorities pay too little attention to people, to the disclosure of their personal qualities, which is possible only in a free society. Even the Bolsheviks, whom we have a generally positive attitude towards, ended up giving priority to a strong state over a free person (although these concepts should go together). As a result, when the Soviet state reins weakened, people weaned from true freedom plunged into a new dope – a capitalist “paradise”, which many mistook for freedom. We intend to liberate man in every possible way. However, one of the slogans of the National Bolsheviks is “Nation and Freedom”. The nation walks alongside freedom, even ahead of freedom. This means that human rights and personal development should not go against the public interest. A nation without freedom is totalitarianism, but freedom without a nation is a direct road to degradation.

86. Do the National Bolsheviks support the creation of a new Constitution in Russia?

At the moment we do not put forward this task. The National Bolsheviks believe that it is first necessary to change oligarchic capitalism to socialism, and the constitution is a matter of dozens.

87. The attitude of the National Bolsheviks towards Kurginyan, the left guards and their supporters.

The attitude is negative. The leftists and other guardians seek to equate almost any protest activity with “the intrigues of the West”. They believe that a Russian person is so stupid and worthless that he can speak out for his rights and against the System only at the behest of overseas puppeteers, and not based on his convictions. In most cases, guarding is a form of Russophobia, contempt for one’s own people

88. Will the National Bolsheviks, having taken power, fulfill my dream of the birth of a new person (generation), as free as possible from the false values ​​of modern society, which humiliate and enslave a person and hinder his development? Otherwise, is there any point?

Of course, society must be changed, but this can be done in two ways – by force and by evolution. It is dangerous to build a society based on other values ​​through violence, which was shown by Soviet practice. In Soviet times, they tried for 70 years to create a new person, and in the end, the case ended in failure.

It is necessary to introduce new values ​​into people, to change their mentality with the help of non-violent propaganda. Human development should be given special importance, because the goal of our revolution is to change society, otherwise there is no point in carrying it out. In particular, it is necessary to develop the sports sector and promote a healthy lifestyle. There are many idealists in Russia, and we will listen to their opinion.

89. Tell us about your attitude to the tactics of power struggle like what Breivik did.

Breivik’s act is a sad result of the national policy of European countries, which, by launching an unlimited flow of migrants into the country, provoke nationalist-minded people to such actions. We agree that migration must be limited, since these people often do not comply with the customs of a given state, live on social benefits, or rather on the taxes of working citizens, that is, engage in social parasitism.

However, the very format of the struggle he has chosen is detrimental and harmful to politics, and we have never supported actions like those made by Breivik.

91. What kind of music do the National Bolsheviks listen to?

Cheerful and scary

92. What books by Limonov should be read for the first acquaintance with your movement?

“Another Russia, outlines of the future”, “Sacred monsters”, “Anatomy of a hero.” “Grandfather. A novel of our time”

93. Your movement has many decades. Why didn’t you win?

Therefore, throughout the history of the movement, we have been the main repressed political force in the country. Not only the central leadership of the party, but also the National Bolsheviks in the regions are being persecuted, not only in searches, detentions and criminal cases, but also in political assassinations.

94. Are you interested in your attitude to the personality of Adolf Hitler, and to the very idea of ​​National Socialism?

The attitude towards Adolf Hitler is negative, like all healthy people whose grandfathers fought the Nazis on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. At the same time, it must be admitted that as a leader and as an orator, Hitler was certainly talented. If he was a genius, as some believe, then, of course, an evil genius, who ultimately brought only grief and suffering to his and other peoples.

We are partly interested in the idea of ​​National Socialism, although it is worth noting that the German National Socialists had different ideologists – there were Nazis who were hostile to Hitler (the same Strasser brothers), whose ideas we treat normally. The founder of National Bolshevism N.V. Ustryalov has a good book “German National Socialism”, just dedicated to this issue.

95. It is interesting how the DR relates to the nature of animals and their protection (all aspects), like real patriots with love or with macho pathos like some rightists, like music is not a thing.

We treat the protection of animals normally, if it does not turn into open schizophrenia.

96. Will the National Bolsheviks, if they have power in the country, strive to build a classless society?

The National Bolsheviks do not aim to equalize everyone socially, but we are in favor of the liquidation of the big bourgeoisie (oligarchy) as a class. Hierarchy and competition on a moderate scale are natural phenomena. We stand for equality of social opportunities, not social status.

97. Your attitude towards Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny is an ambiguous figure. It must be admitted that he opened a new page in Russia in the use of Internet technologies to expose corruption and mobilize protest citizens, becoming a real find for many who had not previously been interested in political life.

For a long time, Alexey avoided foreign policy issues – for example, he constantly moved from the topic to the question of whose Crimea. Not aimed at a Western audience. But then he broke loose and entered into an obvious conglomerate with foreign intelligence services. He was not forgiven for this back in 2020. The disclosure of the personal data of the special services is something that the old “chekists” at the top, veterans of the KGB, could not ignore. And now Alexei Anatolyevich will be completely trampled, war time.

We don’t want Navalny to win, but we respect his tenacity in prison.

98. What is Limonov’s Other Russia about the free sale of self-defense weapons?

Positively. Any mentally healthy citizen of Russia should have the right and opportunity to defend himself, his honor, family and home. We are convinced that the Russians are no worse than, for example, the Moldovans or the Balts (in their countries there is already a free distribution of weapons of self-defense)

99. Do you allow a violent change of power?

At the moment, this is impossible, and even undesirable, but if the country is overwhelmed by chaos and lawlessness caused by the degradation of the regime, if a “war of all against all” begins, we will not be pacifists.

100. What to do with the regions?

In Russia, there is an unprecedented over-urbanization for the whole world – the accumulation of people in just one city (capital). The country’s budgetary policy is structured in such a way that Moscow’s budget is disproportionately high. A situation has arisen when it is unprofitable for capitalism, for example, to develop the Tver region, Khabarovsk Territory or Chuvashia – more than 2/3 of Russian regions are not interested in big business. Why invest in the development of Blagoveshchensk or Pskov? Inconvenient logistics, no significant natural resources, but there is a poor population who are not at all able to buy a lot of consumer junk and at the same time do not want to work for a penny, like guest workers.

It is necessary to “de-Muscovite” Russia – to move the capital to Siberia, to create new political and economic centers.

A comprehensive approach is needed to the development of Russian regions — creating incentives for reverse trends, the movement of people from Moscow to the regions (both to the capitals of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and to small towns, to rural settlements). Agriculture, first of all, should be focused on the domestic market, the priority should be the food security of the country

Additional comments

Gordey Limonov:

There are three questions:
1. Federalism or unitarism?
2. Attitude of DREVL to mixed (interracial) marriages.
3. Is ethnic nationalism and the definition of Russian primarily by blood acceptable in Other Russia?

UPD: 4. Multi-party system or one-party democracy of the Soviet or Chinese type?

5. Only article 282 of the Criminal Code is subject to cancellation? Or is it also expedient to cancel articles on insulting honor and dignity, insulting the feelings of believers, on Holocaust denial, on false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, on symbols (while maintaining responsibility for damaging historical and cultural monuments), on LGBT propaganda (while maintaining ban on same-sex marriage?

6. Do you think it is necessary to lift the moratorium on the death penalty for especially dangerous categories of criminals (apart from super-corruptionists): pedophiles, terrorists, war criminals, serial killers?

Other Russia: 1. Federalism, but there are too many national republics, it will be necessary to reduce their number 2. Attitude towards interracial marriages is calm, we are not racists, culture is important for us, not blood 3. We do not intend to define Russians by blood, this is a dangerous, bad path , but we will not be “multinationals” screaming that “no Russians exist”. 5. 282 in the current extremely vague wording, it is definitely necessary to abolish 6. The death penalty cannot be introduced under the current rotten judicial system.

Egor: How do you feel about the music of the group “December” and what do you think about their civic position?

Other Russia: we encourage our civic position. The song “We will not leave our cities” is cool.

Pixel Bloom:

Good day, there are three questions:
1. What is the attitude of the party to the Kurds and their struggle against Turkey, on which side are you on this issue?
2. Is it possible to buy any symbols and literature of the party somewhere?
3. What is the attitude of the party towards the personality of Kim Jong-un, do you consider him a worthy successor to Kim Il Sung?

Other Russia: 1) the Kurds are cool, for decades they have set an example of self-organization and the fight against several superior opponents at once, it’s only a pity that in recent years they have put on cooperation with the United States, this makes it extremely difficult for Russia to interact with the Kurds 2. Limonov’s books can be bought in bookstores stores, prints with symbols can be ordered here 3. Kim Jong-un is, of course, a worthy successor to Kim Il Sung, stubbornly bends his line, does not bend under the West. Within the framework of the state model that exists in the DPRK, he is a worthy leader

Egor: How do you feel about the personality of Otto Strasser and his work?

Other Russia: with interest. There was something in tune with the NB ideology in the left-wing National Socialism, which was in opposition to Hitler.

Maxim Chokto:

Does the party operate on the territory of Belarus?

Other Russia: Active but poorly devolved

What Was The Original American Populism?

We often time see debates on who in American politics is the real populist some say Donald Trump and the conservatives’ others will say Bernie Sanders and his social democrats and there will also be those who say Marxism or Fascism are the true and real forms of populism. However, if we look at the original American populists of the 1870s to 1890s that being the People Populist Party, The Farmer Alliance, the Knights of Labor, National Labor Union, and the Greenback party we find there are many similarities with all tendencies but had many stark differences.

What united the People Populist Party all the way to the Greenback party was a strong resistance to monopoly capitalism, Banking cartels and support for cooperatives and preservation of family farms, craftmanship, artisans, shopkeepers, and local communities that where being displaced by the centralization of land and capital by corporations and banking cartels. They were also very localist, religious, had negative attitudes towards immigration and were agrarian in many cases. They were also very key on producers and workers owning the means of production not being controlled by large corporate or government bureaucracies which is the heart of original American Populism.

Like mentioned earlier the original American populism has some similarities with current forms of so-called populism but have many strong differences. For starters if we are to look at the Trump forms of populism, we see it shares its conservative and anti-immigration stances however Trump populism was hardly against corporate capitalism despite many elements of this class despising him. Not to mention Trumpian populism fails to see how corporate capitalism wants cheap foreign labor and how corporate monopolies destroyed small business and traditional social norms that original populist sought to preserve. Sanders shares the some of the anti-capitalist sentiments however if we get down to what social democracy is which is a welfare state which hardly opposes corporate bureaucracy which in many ways strengths it and removes support for more radical opposition to capitalism not to mention its strengths government bureaucracy as well.  Fascism shares its synthesis politics and support for unions however what separates American populism is the localist and anti-centralization sentiments of the populist while fascism is inherently statist. Not to mention the reason the original populist wanted to preserve localism and mass proprietorship/ ownership by forming cooperatives was not only to preserve their way of life and independence but also because mass proprietorship was seen as something necessary for democracy to survive and not have politicians be controlled by large corporate or banking interest while fascism is an inherently anti-democratic movement. Marxism shares many of populism anti-capitalist sentiments however Marxism believed that the small shopkeepers, farms, and others who made up populist were destined to be defeated by larger corporate industrial capitalism and centralize industrial production, the last one even being also a part of a Marxian socialist society both in theory and in practice seeing it as the progress of history. Populist were in complete revolt against this so-called progress of the centralization of productions which they fought against in name of keeping control of the means of production or in case of National Labor Union and Knights of Labor to regain control and to preserve their local communities and democracy.

I believe that it becomes obvious after looking into how the original American populist opposed corporate and government bureaucracy it becomes clear that both the Trump, and Sanders forms of populism are nothing more than shams that are used to rally up people to support one section of ruling class over another instead of abolishing both. While Fascism and Marxism maybe strong opponents of the modern system but would still lead to centralization of power that so many want to move away from. However, I do admit that some industries like media, social media, large scale industries that must be that way have to be under state super vision but can still have some form of worker control weather be through a guild or union like system. I also admit that the agrarian democracy that the original populist wanted to preserve is long gone and there no way of going back too it. However, the populist strong distaste of capitalism, bureaucracy, and their belief in mass proprietorship and synthesis politics is worthy of keeping. The populist also attempts to unite different economic disciplines and races is also noble and needed if a populist movement is to succeed and maintain a populist American society.

With the rise of populism in the last several years and the recent railroad workers union deal which despite its reformism shows that unions and workers still have some power by organizing, it is necessary for real populist and dissidents to make their ideas known and to disprove and comfort those of both democrats and republicans who espouses this pseudo populism. Along with those who espouse welfare reform instead of the producers and workers owning the means of production. If any populist movement is to succeed it cannot just appeal to one group or industry but rather must be far reaching appealing to small businesses, the working class, rural people, churches, students, people from the right and left and of all racial demographics. United against international capitalism and for national liberation of this country from this class. While this is a long stretch it is not impossible take for example the March 8th Alliance in Lebanon which is made up of Muslim, Christian, secular parties and parties from both the right, left and in between who only a few decades ago were fighting a religious/class/ethnic sectarian civil war inside the country many times fighting with and against one another. If they can put aside their differences after trying to kill one another I’m pretty sure we can too.


The True and Only Heaven Progress and Its Critics by Christopher Lasch

Conservatism Against Itself by Christopher Lasch

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx Fredrick Engels

The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile

March 8 Alliance – Wikipedia

A Railroad Strike Has Been Averted for Now. What Happens Next. | Barron’s (

Hungarian Workers Party Chairman Gyula Thürmer to 888: “Being left-wing also means protecting our national interests” by József K. Horváth

original Hungarian version can be found here

During the Gyurcsány government, the national element was completely pushed out of leftism – Gyula Thürmer, president of the Hungarian Workers’ Party, emphasized, among other things, in response to our question. He added: they did roughly what Adolf Hitler did in the thirties of the last century: he took the red flag of the workers’ movement and put the swastika in it. He promised everything to the people, the workers, and the workers, and then he didn’t fulfill what big capital expected of him. Something similar happened in Hungary as well. 888 interview. The Gyurcsányist left suffered a huge defeat on April 3. Can the same be said for the entire left?

Gyula Thürmer: In the 2022 election, the opposition coalition made up of parliamentary parties suffered a heavy defeat. This coalition called itself left-wing, thus trying to position itself in political life. In reality, however, he did not represent left-wing values. He has stripped himself of the values ​​that the average person on the street would think of as left-wing. He pretty much did what Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s, taking the red flag of the labor movement and putting the swastika on it. He promised everything to the people, the workers, and the workers, and then he didn’t fulfill what big capital expected of him. Something similar happened in Hungary as well. The swastika is also present here, because it reminds people of Jobbik.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right. It can be said that way. Everyone who thought that Viktor Orbán should be replaced came together in the coalition. That was the only consideration in this election. They didn’t care about leftist values. Of course, it can be said that Fidesz has implemented a series of things that are the usual task of the left. From reducing utilities to family support and increasing minimum wages. What the Gyurcsányist left specifically attacked and wanted to eliminate.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right, what they specifically attacked. Nevertheless, there would have been a number of things that they could have taken on. For example, we should tax billionaires, let the rich pay, spend more on healthcare, not develop private healthcare. Before 2018, László Botka entered the scene as a left-wing candidate for Prime Minister with the slogan “The rich should pay” , and then he was confused.

Gyula Thürmer: Yes, there were a few months when he was the Prime Minister candidate. This did not fit into their liberal thinking. They said that the rich should not pay.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right. So they, the Gyurcsány coalition, suffered defeat, not the left in general. However, there are left-wing people in Hungary, there are left-wing feelings. In this election, the left was actually embodied organizationally and politically by the alliance of the Workers’ Party and ISZOMM. Others tried to run, from the Social Democrats to the European Left, but they didn’t make it through either, and in fact they didn’t have a candidate. In this duality, Tibor Szanyi, who broke away from the MSZP, is not the most credible personality as a left-wing politician. Why did you do this?

Gyula Thurmer: Leftism is a multifaceted concept. A significant part of this is embodied by the Labor Party. We are consistently against capitalism, the rule of capital and money. We preserve the traditions of the Hungarian labor movement and the good values ​​of socialism. But there are a number of other issues in which we are less at home. Starting from environmental protection, through green problems, to the problems of the European Union and much more. On the other hand, today’s world is so complicated that it requires multifaceted responses. Even on the left, a party cannot exhaust these answers. It is no coincidence that there are two parties on the right, Fidesz and KDNP. That is why we felt that content cooperation was necessary. But maybe there would have been no cooperation if the Fidesz government had not forced us to do so. Previously, in order for a party to have a national list, 27 individual candidates were required. We always had this, we were always able to start, we always collected the votes. Now it has been raised to 71. With this, we were excluded in the first place. That’s why we thought, let’s try the two of us, the two of us might be able to issue this 71. Is there a chance that this tandem will take the group in the direction of strengthening the national left?

Gyula Thürmer: Based on the experience of the past 30 years, I think that Gyula Horn committed the grave sin of teaming up with the SZDSZ, the liberals, against the left. He accepted their economic policy, the Bokros package and other hogwash. And AZ SZDSZ committed the grave crime against the right-wing, which it claimed to be, and then switched to the left.

Gyula Thürmer: Yes, it is. Gyula Horn needed a certificate to enter the gentlemen’s club. And the SZDSZ gave this proof to the world and the Hungarian people. The SZDSZ needed some kind of force that would bring them to power. It was a big deal. These two couples began to live in a kind of symbiosis. This led to the fact that the MSZP’s leftism was sharpened, and the entire policy of the MSZP became liberal. Under Gyurcsány, this got even worse. And instead of going back to the left, they switched completely to the liberal side. Continuing on the path of the SZDSZ to the extreme left, pushing the national element into the background.

Gyula Thurmer:Yes. In doing so, they tore up their own roots. And a party that eradicates its roots has no future. This is the reason for their death, and the current MSZP is also going in this direction. The other crime committed after Horn, especially during the Gyurcsány government, was that the national element was pushed out of leftism. All nationalities were considered bad, sinful, harmful, outdated and tried to replace this by mentioning pan-Europeanism, pan-Europeanism, transatlantic values, and similar things. This was a serious mistake. We have always said that we want a communal society, that we represent left-wing values, but the Hungarian people have to create them at home, in Hungary. Being left-wing also means protecting our national interests, traditions, and national customs. The Labor Party has done a lot in the last 30 years. For example?

Gyula Thurmer:During migration, for example, we clearly said that whatever the government says, we are still against migration. Even if they scold, it is because it is in the national interest to protect ourselves from illegal immigration. But we also stood up for national agriculture, national culture, and the national language. Absolutely: let’s protect the right of national self-determination in the cooperation of European peoples. That is why we rejected the EU’s attacks, and we will reject them. We also believe that a Europe of peoples and nations is needed. But we also made changes in historical issues, such as, say, Trianon. Trianon was not talked about during the decades of socialism. We used the 100th anniversary of the First World War to say: please, we were the losers of this war, and Trianon was a crime against the Hungarian people. Yes, we also keep the memory of this. And we have been laying wreaths at the World War I memorials in Trianon ever since. We consider what they have committed against the Hungarian people to be a great act of hogwash and an unfair step. In these matters, we tried to bring up the national element on the left. It is no coincidence that in our slogans we say that we are an opposition party, a left-wing party and a national party. We can use these three words to describe the Labor Party. Irrespective of this, the distance from the representatives of the national left, which appeared in 1990, after the system change, when the Social Democratic Party was put on hold from one moment to the next, can still live on. Making it impossible for Anna Petrasovits to operate. Can something be done about it? Is it possible to fight for a greater role for national left-wing politicians? A large number of left-wing people have a national sentiment and love their country.

Gyula Thürmer: He mentioned Anna Petrasovits and the MSZDP. The Social Democratic Party of Hungary was a historic party that undoubtedly stood up for national values ​​throughout its long history. It was a sin to waste it after the system change. This was a conscious process.

Gyula Thürmer: This was a conscious atrophy, they consciously made him a servant of the liberals. No one remembers it anymore, but in the mid-1990s, the Labor Party and the MSZDP, then led by László Kapolyi, now deceased, wanted to make a historic alliance. We agreed that we will run in the elections as an electoral party. We were very strong then, we would have given the strength, he would have given the confirmation that we were also members of the club. Still a historical party. We discussed everything, we even agreed on the program. And then László Kapolyi appeared at my place once and whispered:“Look, Prime Minister Gyula Horn called and said: there are two options. Or you create a new party with the Labor Party, that’s your business, but then you’ll have problems at the customs office because of your Ukrainian deals. Or you don’t create a new party, and then you can continue doing business with Ukraine, and the billions can multiply.”As we know, we did not form a joint party, he retorted, in exchange he could sit on the list of the MSZP in the next parliament. Unfortunately, the national forces in the MSZP, for example Katalin Szili, tried to go her own way, but she was not strong enough, and in the end she fulfills a respectable function today, but still only within the scope of Fidesz and the government. In this sense, he left the left. There were no other attempts. We were the ones who said that we stand for national issues. We supported the fact that the Hungarians living in our area were indeed granted citizenship. We think that we should continue on this path, let’s find our partners. During the elections, I noticed that now in 2022, a lot of people signed up for us. And they said that you are a decent, national, Hungarian party, we support that,

I think that the government would do Hungarian politics a favor if it allowed the national left to develop both organizationally and legally. It hasn’t hindered you so far, or has it?

Gyula Thurmer:The launch of 71 individual representative candidates is a serious obstacle to the establishment of a national list. We should be given media so that I can tell you what I am saying now. If I can’t tell you, a few people know, but a lot of people don’t. And now, in 2022, we have seen that we are no longer held accountable for the perceived or real faults of socialism. It’s not interesting anymore. volt. OK. 30 years have passed, new generations have grown up. There are those who don’t even remember the system change, because they weren’t even alive then. It is quite certain that today’s performance and today’s messages matter. A left wing relying on national foundations would be a really important part of the country’s balanced development. But we are also fighting this battle in the international labor movement. There are parties that speak exclusively on the basis of class and internationalism. What is their relationship with Chinese socialism?

Gyula Thürmer: We can acknowledge the Chinese type of socialism. The Chinese said that they are building a society based on their own image and customs, which they call socialism, and that no one has the right to judge whether it is good or not. This is for the Chinese to judge. We see a lot of good in the Chinese example. And especially the aspiration that each nation must decide its own destiny on a national basis. Despite the indicated obstacles, do the fourth two-thirds of Fidesz help the Labor Party function and possibly strengthen it?

Gyula Thürmer: I have been in political life for quite some time. Over the decades, I got to know many different Fidesz leaders. As they used to say: you have seen Lenin… János Kádár, Károly Grósz… You worked closely with them.

Gyula Thürmer: Hungarian politics has two veterans. One is called Viktor Orbán, and the other is me. There is no one who was here thirty years ago. The two of us are here, both of us in leadership positions from the first minute. I think there are pragmatically thinking people among the civil forces who say that we don’t particularly want socialism because we don’t like socialism, but the Labor Party is a normal-thinking, national party. That’s why we tolerate him, let him run in the elections. It might even benefit us. Then there are those who don’t even want to hear the word labor party, communist, or socialist, and are totally opposed to our presence at all.

We experienced this in the 2022 elections as well. We collected signatures on the street. Sometimes we had the Fidesz-KDNP tent next to us, we greeted each other and shook hands, but there were cities where they were quite hostile towards us.

In my opinion, the pragmatic relationship is the right one. We are not in love with Fidesz either, but we said that we support what Fidesz, the government, does good for the people. Be it family support, utility reduction, opening to the east or anything else. We will not support what we think harms the people and causes harm. I think this is a fair relationship.

Now the question of socialism or capitalism is not on the agenda in Hungarian politics, there are established relationships. Today, the main question is whether Hungary will survive the changing gender relations. Can we survive the war? If there is a war, will Central Europe, including Hungary, survive? What about our culture? How can we act against the curses of liberalism? The conservative side should also realize that the main enemy today is not the Labor Party, but liberalism. And liberalism is our enemy too. We must act against this in order to protect the nation, our children, and our families. Can serving the Hungarian interest be the common denominator?

Gyula Thürmer: We don’t have to officially cooperate with the right wing. You have to accept each other, you have to be in dialogue, you have to negotiate, you have to tolerate each other’s existence, and it helps that everyone can protect the interests of the nation in their own area. There is already a good example of this. You cooperated with the then mayor János Lázár in the defense of the hospital in Hódmezővásárhely.

Gyula Thurmer:Yes, there is a historical example. When the Medgyessy government wanted to privatize hospitals in 2004-2005, we, the Labor Party, launched a referendum initiative. We said don’t sell the hospitals. It was obvious that we alone could not collect so many signatures in a short time, then the civil circles and Fidesz officially and publicly declared that you should go and sign. Not because it’s a Labor thing, but because it’s a good idea. I have known János Lázár since then, we defended the hospital in Vásárhely together. As he alluded to, when he was mayor, there was a quote from Solzhenitsyn displayed on the door of the mayor’s office, which went something like this: Communists are the most guilty people in the world. Despite this, I met János Lázár countless times. Because it’s okay, that’s his belief, I think differently too, but that’s not the point. It’s about the hospital, it’s about the villages, it’s about the people who live there. And in that – yes – you can think together and even work together.


From NB-Portal : This text is an excerpt from E. Limonov’s book “A Foreigner in Troubled Times”, and this is perhaps the best that Limonov wrote in his “red-brown”, national-Bolshevik period. Here we see an excellent understanding of the nature of Stalin’s Caesarism, which makes it related to the great ancient Eastern kingdoms. It is also remarkable that there is no naive opposition of the “good patriot” Stalin to the “bad cosmopolitan” Trotsky (“patriotic Stalinism” is already somehow boring). The difference between them lies solely in human qualities, which is what this passage is about. 

  Joseph Stalin
On the Egyptian cut pyramid   of the body of the Mausoleum stood Joseph Vissarionovich STALIN – Caesar Dzhugashvili, in a cap, in an overcoat with shoulder straps, and rain fell from the November Moscow sky. The Kremlin wall and the building and building of the Historical Museum – the color of raw horse meat, the Tatar buildings, equipped with additional lighting from the falling snow, seemed redder than usual. The horsemeat looked fresher . Caesar Dzhugashvili smiled with a secretive smile of a man with a lot of mustaches. It was not an overcoat made of solid Tatar felt that warmed him, but warm air flowed through the grate to the boots of the Generalissimo. The heater was installed last summer. The Generalissimo was always cold now. He was aging fast. And in the white snow his troops walked in front of him … In  blowing snow out of chimneys, smashing with clubs of steam, the consolidated red banner orchestra of all military branches shook the air between St. Basil’s Cathedral and the Historical   Museum.

What was Joseph thinking? Mentally measured out the abyss separating him, Caesar Joseph Stalin, the head of a state that stretched out larger than Rome and the Mongol Empire combined, across half of Europe and half of Asia; from a Georgian boy from the stone city of Gori? Did you see the bowl of milk served to him by his mother in 1885? Crawling from the side of the Historical Museum were armored tank monsters, the famous T-34s that had just won the war. Commanders in helmets stood in the hatches, looked at the Generalissimo, saluted. Or maybe he saw the hand of his father Vissarion Dzhugashvili, a shoemaker, swollen with veins?

Joseph conversed with the Spirit of His true Father, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. The Father of Nations was talking to his Father. He had long been accustomed to conversing with the Spirit, for Caesar himself had long been a Spirit. And they, without haste, exchanged phrases, while the troops passed through the square with a clang and a roar. “Well, Joseph … Z ruined his equals … Well, now blame only yourself, you don’t even have anyone to talk to, only to me inanimate. This is the punishment of the Great Man – until the end of your days you will have no one to talk to. No one understands you, they are afraid and despised, and there is no one for you to open your soul to … “

“Tell me, father, well, is this all that a person can do, and there is no higher, and will not come again?”

“This is everything, Joseph, there is no higher, and no more will come. Cyrus and Darius, Genghis Khan and the first of the Caesars, and Alexander, here are our comrades with you, how to put it, comrades … “

“I’m sad, Ilyich, I’m sick. And more in spirit than in body. Soon we, father Ilyich, will lie together … “

“It’s your own fault, Joseph … Are you singing a Majorian song about the enemy? You do not know.

My enemy is dead.

The earth was deserted and disgusted.

Life has lost its meaning…

“I mean, Joseph, that you yearn for the absence of the biased eyes of the enemy, watching your every step and deed. You need an enemy, but you don’t have an enemy. Why did Trotsky order to be removed? A great enemy should be protected more than a beloved. Trotsky was a beast smaller than you, and he had no ability to govern the state, but he was the last of my apostles, he understood you … You made an irreparable mistake , now suffer … “

“Tell me, are you still pleased with me, father Ilyich?”

“Are you asking for a compliment, Joseph? Satisfied. Satisfied with you. You were unusually capable of Caesar’s hard work. I’m not sure I could do the same as you. I assume that the ability to manage passed to you by inheritance with blood. From Mesopotamia, it must be from the Sumerians, from the city-state half covered with hot sands, where Gilgamesh was king. In fact , stone lions should be carved on the gates of your Kremlin, clawing at the sovereign scepter, and Lavrenty Beria, having removed his pince-nez, should walk in front of you in leather armor and with an Assyrian blue-black beard. The short sword of the NKVD should turn blue in his hands … “

Caesar Joseph grinned, and the commanders of the Katyusha guards mortars, who were driving at that moment across the square, took Caesar’s smile as an encouragement. The next day, Pravda will interpret Caesar’s Mona Lisa grin as his desire to develop mortar and rocket troops. “Do you remember that you wanted to destroy the State, Vladimir Ilyich?”

“Their State, Joseph … The one in which your father was a shoemaker, and my brother was hanged. I wanted to destroy their State. Our State, yours and mine, I wanted to grow powerful and muscular. And you fulfilled my wish…”

“I served you as a faithful heir, Ilyich, admit it, father! None of the crowd of apostles would have coped with the task. Trotsky was a poser. Of course, a brilliant speaker, but the art of management is not identical to the art of oratory … Look how he allowed me to beat him. Being the Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army, he allowed me, some mere Party Secretary, even though I called myself the General Secretary, to remove myself from my post … He left for Alma-Ata, submissive and obedient, like a child who was shouted out: “Get out of class !” And Bukharin, our theoretician! He was not a practitioner. The art of management – the art of shepherding the human flock – is best given to those who herd flocks of sheep on the slopes of the Caucasus or other mountains, isn’t it, Ilyich ? … “

So they talked at the Mausoleum during a blizzard. Ilyich chuckled as he talked with Joseph. Laughed. He smiled with the calm smile of a satisfied Vladimir Ilyich. Having successfully nestled in the place of the old State, the mighty Tree of the Union of Socialist Republics flourished wildly. The state that Genghis Khan dreamed about. Its head touched Berlin, and its roots bathed in Japanese waters. Supernormal Tree. In essence , a miracle had happened, Ilyich knew it. The Union in January 1924 had only one chance – a Caucasian. Brilliant orator Trotsky, brilliant theoretician Bukharin, brilliant Party functionary having turned to stone, they were all stars, captivating the crowd, capable of working in the Party, but Joseph, the only one, had the gift of management. Intellectuals, beautiful orators and brilliant theoreticians would ruin the Tree in a few years. The son of a shoemaker, a seminarian from the hot stone mountains, spoke Russian badly and with an accent, he was not a Marxist theorist, but he inherited in his blood the ferocious art of managing people … “

The Economy for the Family

A little over two months ago as of writing this Roe V Wade was officially overturned by the supreme court which now gave the states the decision on what their policy will be on abortion with many states putting many restrictions on the practice. This led to mass celebrations from Social Conservatives of all types, Republicans, and Pro-Life liberals. However, this celebration is premature as there is a lot more work that needs to be done. There are still states like New York and California who have horrific abortion laws that last all the way up to 24 weeks and in New York no one will be held criminally liable if performed after 24 weeks. Then there the fact that it has become both increasingly more difficult both on a social and economic level to form strong family ties and to raise children. What conservatives next move should be is fixing these economic and social difficulties in their communities as much as possible. Dr. Lauren Johnson was correct in saying that we should address the issues on why women got abortions or held off on having a family instead of seeing Roe V Wade as the only issue.  This article will address the problem and try to work towards a long-lasting solution. This will also be an article that expands on my conception of Family Rights which was released last year around this time on the blog to give more in depth explanation and revise some issues.

What Should the Family Economy and Law be?

Let’s start with what the economy should not be. The economy should not be an economy that puts profit above family and community like it is today. The capitalist economy does everything it can to degrade community and family from the outsourcing of jobs to monopolization of industries at the expense of small family businesses and to constant flow of cheap labor from foreign countries at the expense of native workers if the capitalist do not automate the factory. Cutthroat prices for housing, and the encouragement from the consumer economy of today to put more value on consumer products than work and family. Along with promoting a culture of hyper individualism, and hyper sexualization at the expense of responsibilities that led to lasting relations. The Covid 19 pandemic and Russian Ukraine war made many of these issues worse especially when it comes to wealth consolidation in the hands of corporations. Even with some corporations such as Black Rock buying up the housing market.   

All this creates a society where people are reliant on both corporate and government bureaucracies for work and other basic needs. A society where people must move around to different cities and states to keep up with work which makes it more difficult to form long lasting family and community ties. A society where things like housing are so expensive and people have to put off getting married and having kids so they can have enough money. A society where the individual career is seen as more important than everything else. In other words, it creates a society that puts profit above everything else and at the expense of everything else even when they are the basic building blocks of society.

There was a time when family and economy were connected and did not hinder the family. This was in the 18th, 19th century and even further back when the family farm and shop was the most prominent economic model of society. The family working would allow the family to bond and allow parents to pass down their knowledge, morals, and skills onto their children. Sometimes neighboring or on the same family farm would also have other members of family working and living on it. Making sure everyone had a place to live, and enough food on the table. The family and the local church as well played a strong role establishing moral discipline on children. This all started to change with the Industrial revolution happen which started the process of centralization of economic power in the modern era gobbling up small family farms and businesses through withholding loans and other cutthroat business tactics.

 Now of course small family businesses still exist but are less prevalent and hold far less power than the modern corporation which is international in many cases while the small family business is local. We can also not go back to the 18th or 19th centuries, or we would be repeating the process all over again and would be throwing away the positives of industrialism like cars, better medicines, planes and much more. However, what we should strive for is the return to a national and to a local economy an economy owned by the producers not by the speculators or by multinational corporations. Where families are not at the mercy of corporations, were families and local communities have more control over the economy and not the corporations. Where people are not reliant on corporations for services but their family, neighbors, church, and local community. In Patrick Deneen book “Why Liberalism Failed” Deneen wrote on how some of this could start to be implemented now through household economics or in other words growing and making necessities and products at home instead of buying from corporations or if a family needs buy necessities buy from other households or small family businesses. This of course creates local self-efficiency and helps to foster community and strengthen it as Deneen points out. Making the interactions a lot more personal due to them being neighbors, friends, and family.

This is the first step of many that needs to be taken establish the family economy. When there comes a time when the liberal state is overtaken by the producers then the next phase can begin. The economy can then begin to be officially reorganized in a more national/local and family orientated way. This will be done in several ways, One the breakup of all major corporations that can be localized in production in other words small businesses and coopts will take over on local levels which will give families more control over the means of productions. Two if the corporation cannot be localized, due to product such as oil needing to be abstracted by large scale organization or is vital enough to be in the states hands then it should be nationalized. If the corporation cannot be localized, then it should be nationalized. This will allow the economy to be more nationally orientated not having these industries be outsourced or having to compete with foreigners or machines.

If the economic system is to be based around preserving the family, then it is clear that law in general should base around preserving the family and that laws should be measured on how they’re going to affect the family and procreation in the long term. In other words, laws that would undermine the family, parental authority, and procreation such as extremely lacks abortion and divorce laws would not be passed (not an outright banned on divorce or abortion either mind you) but laws that would help families thrive such as tax cuts for having children, free healthcare, state funded pregnancy centers and economic model that was mentioned above would be passed if it seen as beneficial in the long term for the family. This is what I call family rights. Family rights in short are rights that guarantee the family stability, and right to exist. Unlike modern liberal rights which puts the individual above everything else even at the coast of everything else, family rights put the family as one of the keys parts to having a functional society due to the family role of procreation, socialization of children and helping build local community.

Family rights and other ideas of collective or communitarian rights should replace individual rights as the highest form of rights because family rights understand the importance of duty and responsibility to one family, community, church, and nations while modern individual rights completely lack this understanding.  Of course, this all just some rough draft of an idea and more is needed to be expanded upon, but I hope this does lay out the idea of family rights a bit better now.

Inspirations for this post

Orginal article

Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

Haven in a Heartless World The Family Besieged by Christopher Lasch

  Why Overturning Roe is Not a Victory – YouTube

5 Reasons to be concerned about the Cartels and Narco Aristocrats

This is an expansion of a section of an article I wrote back in June of this year called “The Conservative Case for Class Struggle Part 3: Rising Classes” particularly the section about the rise of Latin American drug cartels and their leaders which I dub the Narco Aristocrats, which I recommend the viewer to read first. I will go into the main reasons why we should be concerned about these cartels and why they pose a threat.

  1. The Economic power of the Cartels

Latin American drug cartels make around 13 to 48 billion dollars a year on drug trafficking alone, which is not counting their other illegal economic activities such as extortion, human trafficking, prostitution, etc that also makes a millions to billions a year. The cartels not only are in both North and South America, but some are also international reaching almost every continent. With this significant amount of money means these cartels can continue to gain more resources in term of raw materials to resources to gain political power. The cartels are not just staying in the black market realm when it comes to economics but also many cartels such as the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion/ CJNG and the Sinaloa Cartel for short has actively expanded into more legitimate economic activities as foreign policy researcher Vanda Felbab Brown has pointed out and which she argues has expanded in recent years especially in Mexico. The cartels do this in a few ways either by taking over the industry completely or by taxing or by being a franchise licenser to local companies to operate in the cartel-controlled area.  This means that the cartel has economic hegemony over many areas which means they have political hegemony as well which leads to the next point.

2. The Cartel Political and Cultural Power

With Cartels having immense amounts of wealth means that they have the opportunity to engage in politics successfully. CJGN, Sinaloa, and others have actively bribed by money or violence, and infiltrated many government institutions from politicians, police, and even military.  They have also bribed and forced local’s Mexican churches and schools not to preach anti cartel ideals and even sometimes have made these institutions espouse ideas beneficial to the cartel. These Cartels clearly understand the idea of hegemony weather they call it that or not. The cartels have even music called narcocorridos that glorifies the drug trafficking lifestyle. Some of these groups even have started to participate in charity work to persuade locals to their side historical examples would be the Colombian Medellin cartel which built houses for the extremely poor to more modern examples such as CJGN which has started providing cleaning supplies to toys to computers for the local communities.  Even provide for those unemployed who have special services such as chemists with jobs to work in their drug labs. When all this does not persuade local officials and population the cartels resort to violence weather by bullets or even by drones. Even making videos of gruesomely killing their opponents.  

  • 3. Military Power

To many peoples surprises many Cartels such as Clan De Gulfo, CJGN, Los Rastrojos, Sinaloa and many more are not just drug trafficking groups but also paramilitaries that even go head-to-head with Latin American governments such as Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Even winning at times such as the 2019 Battle of Culiacan in Mexico or being in a dead lock insurgency such as in Colombia and Mexico were hundreds of people die each year and can shut down entire regions for days on in, most recently in the Mexican regions Jalisco, Tijuana, and Guanajuato or in May of this year in the Colombian regions of Bolivar, Sucre, Cordoba, and Antioquia. Both incidents were in retaliation to leaders of certain criminal groups being captured.  

Many of these groups have hundreds of thousands of members and even have cross border reach such as Sinaloa Cartel which has partook in the Colombian conflict or even some such as a FARC Dissident faction called the Eastern Bloc has expanded the drug trade and conflict to other neighboring countries like Peru, Ecuador, and Venezuela. In other words, these groups have the ability to be in a standoff against governments and even win at times. Many times, these groups have better weapons than the local police and military and even having military like uniforms with their own symbols and logos.

  • 4. Poverty

The wealth disparities in many Latin American countries have made them into breeding grounds for Cartels. Due to recent global economic crisis caused by Covid and Russian Ukraine War has deeply affected many countries around the world including those in Latin America. There are many examples of economic turmoil giving rise to mafias or cartels such as in Eastern Europeans countries like Russia, and Ukraine in 1990s were Russian and Ukrainian mafias were at their peaks. Due to lack of jobs and opportunities make organize crime easier to recruit people and this time is no different as point 2 has pointed out. Meaning that we can expect these groups to grow if the economy becomes worse.

  • 5. The Decline of America

While the United States of America has definitely been partially responsible for rise of the Cartels and the Narco Aristocrats, through supporting corrupt government and organizations involved in drug trafficking like Noriega Panama and the Contras in Nicaragua or going farer back with US government and corporations like the International Fruit Company lobbying or throwing coups against Latin American governments so that US corporations can exploit resources and the people of the region worsening the economic conditions of these countries where it made it possible for cartels to prosper. The US and Corporations were obviously thinking of short-term profit and not long-term negative effects of these policies that not only affected Latin America but the United States itself. At the same time the United States has tried to combat the influence of cartels and have provide aid to other countries on the issues and has dismantled a few cartels but largely ineffective. Possibly due to the US being supportive of the trade secretly or arguably the War on Drugs prolonging or intensifying the conflict.  However, as corruption and economic conditions worsen in the United States and as the government becomes more ineffective to the solve the migrant crisis and rising crime, along with parts of the American culture that fetishizes gangster lifestyle such as gangster rap, makes it easier for Cartels to expand their influence in ways that they only been able to do effectively in many Latin American countries especially when it comes to US border states like Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.  Arguably the cartels will become more effective in dealing with Latin American governments especially those who rely heavily on the United States like Colombia, and Mexico.  We may even start to see many border areas to come under the control of these cartels. While this may not happen any time soon it can happen in the distant future if the United States continues to decline. Possibly the cartels and Narco Aristocrats even becoming official rulers in some Latin American countries and parts of the United States or at the very least the drug epidemic in the United States and other places to become far worse.   


I write this article as a warning. While my primary concern is still Neo Liberalism and the global capitalist class which I see as a force destructive to all things human and good. I cannot ignore the Narco Aristocrats or Cartels who have the possibility of taking power after Neo Liberalism starts to collapse. I find it disappointing how many in the mainstream and dissident circles downplay the issue or not even touch it at all or in some cases of wanting take control of the Drug trade for themselves like the CATO Institute and Mark Zuckerberg have advocated for, a completely immoral position motivates by greed. There is hope at the same time, Cartels do not provide innovations to society but rather add very destructive elements like drugs and human trafficking, that end up killing people, destroying, trust, social relations, families, and communities. Meaning that the Cartels will not last long as rulers due to being self destructive and some group more innovating and inspiring can come to power if they can work past the cartels. Not to mention the cartels are at a constant state of war with each other which would further disintegrate there hold of power. The Cartels largely rule by fear not by grand ideals that can inspire change or keep a population loyal. Meaning at any given sign of weakness the people or a rival group can overthrow the Cartels. We saw this happen in the Mexican region of Michoacan were peoples militias revolted against the Knights Templar cartel in 2012. A long with many other examples listed in the previous article.  

There are two things that one should get out of this article. 1. To quote Mao Zedong “Strategically we should despise all our enemies, while tactically we should take them all seriously.” 2. To pull a principle from Russell Kirk Ten Conservative Principles practically point 4 we should measure policies by their long-term effects not by short term successes. In other words, the United States or whatever replaces the liberal order needs to rethink its policy on Latin America for long term prosperity for the American people and Latin America.


The foreign policies of the Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG – Part I: In the Americas (

How Mexico’s Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación rules (,in%20the%20Colombian%2DVenezuelan%20border.

From NEP to Soviet socialism by Nikolay Ustryalov

published in May of 1934. Original Russian version can be found here

Shanghai, 1934

After the 17th Congress

From NEP Russia there will be socialist Russia.


It was called the victory convention. And with good reason: he marked a great milestone in our revolutionary history, a milestone of truly world significance.

Now there are no doubts: the general political line of the ruling party has been justified by the course of events. In the most difficult and difficult conditions, in the hot atmosphere of an unheard-of social struggle, it led to victory. Now it is clear to all who are able to see and wish to see.

There is a turning point: to rise. This is the main thing. This – decides. Crisis – to recovery.

The main issue, of course, is agriculture. The most difficult, most intricate, painfully controversial question: our peasantry. It was in the sphere of this question that the general line met with the sharpest and at the same time the most stubborn resistance. Class resistance of the petty-bourgeois peasant element: “The peasant is regular.” Fluctuations in the ranks of the non-party intelligentsia, embarrassed by the severity of the socialist offensive and the prospect of state ruin due to the intensification of the social struggle. And – last but not least – resistance within the ruling stratum itself, part of the party members who were frightened by the new course, did not believe in it, saw in it a violation of Lenin’s political testament, the danger of disrupting the revolution.

Indeed, the revolution took the line of very great resistance. In essence, the five-year plan and rural collectivization were a new stormy take-off of the revolution – after the NEP respite. Some foreign observers are inclined to consider the “Stalin period” – even “a second revolution, more significant than the first.” They are probably mistaken: one must not lose sight of the essential historical unity of the October Revolution, with all the stages and zigzags of its development. But it must be admitted: its last stage is original and specific, marked by the stamp of an incomparable dramatic meaning. The last five years have changed the face of the country more than the twelve that preceded them. Of course, they would be unthinkable without those twelve. But this does not deprive them of their exceptional significance, “the style of a great era.”

The years were difficult. Now that they have passed, the victors themselves not only do not hide this, but, on the contrary, emphasize “the enormous difficulties that have taken place during the reporting period” (Ordzhonikidze). Power walked on hot ground. We had to raise the virgin lands, go the path unbeaten by history. Victory, one might say, hung in the balance. There were moments when “many hands gave up and their legs trembled before the strength of the enemy,” Mikoyan recalls at the congress. “The years of the greatest height of the reorganization of agriculture,” states the father of victory, Stalin himself, “were the years of the greatest decrease in the production of grain crops.” A breakthrough in agriculture in Ukraine and the North Caucasus in 1931-32, a catastrophic drop in the number of livestock throughout the Union, a terrible fire of social struggle in the countryside, hecatombs of victims – the country went through all these trials. The Socialist Bulletin wrote about the “pre-Kronstadt situation.” Some people abroad again started talking about the “Russian heritage”. The tension of the lifting force of the people reached its limit, and the question was involuntarily raised: will the country withstand it? won’t it break? – But industrialization continued at all times, as well as the radical alteration of the countryside went on non-stop, accompanied only by short tactical maneuvers. The result is victory. 

By 1933, the resistance of the small-property peasant element had been broken, and the collectivization of agriculture had largely succeeded and passed. The social material of the Soviet countryside turned out to be more plastic than many expected. True, the strong-willed pressure of the general line, which was not afraid of the costs of production, exceeded many expectations.

Precisely the turning point, precisely the decisive The year 1933 – and not any other – gave the answer to Lenin’s well-known question: who wins? Yes, now this question has been finally settled in favor of Soviet socialism. The countryside has ceased to be a world alien to the state; the apparatus of Soviet statehood really embraced the peasant. The revolution, at last, came very close to the last village nook and the kingdom of “secular silence” ended. In 1933, the overcoming of the old forms of agriculture coincided with the completion of the five-year plan for industrial construction: our country became an industrial country, and its entire industry (more than 99%) is state-owned. This ensures the proper direction of the further path. The state already has something to present to the collective farm village, unlike the war communism of the pre-EP times, and there are reasons to expect that every year the planned harmony of the Soviet national economy will be established more firmly and more confidently. The state acquires a solid national economic foundation, and its new existence gives rise to a new consciousness – strong, healthy, reliable Soviet patriotism.

It is the fact of the fracture that is important . Its fruits will be felt in the future. It is important that the country is getting stronger and that a new path for its development has been secured. “In essence,” Stalin said in his report to the congress, “the reporting period for agriculture was not so much a period of rapid upsurge and a powerful run-up, as a period of creating the prerequisites for such an upswing and such a run-up in the near future.” In a word, it is important that the turning point has happened. And deaf are those who do not hear the sigh of relief that escaped from the chest of the country.

Did the harvest help? – Oh sure. But it’s not just about the harvest, i.e. not just in a lucky case. Even the Mensheviks now recognize “the undoubted growth of agricultural output, which is mainly due to production and agrarian-technical factors” (Yugov in Sots. Vestnik). The “harvest” itself, therefore, was largely the result of a technical revolution in agriculture and the social reorganization of the peasant way of life. The harvest itself was organized. It does not follow from this that a natural disaster of a large crop failure, grave and dangerous for the country, is no longer conceivable; but from this it is clear that the grief of hunger in such a case can no longer be blamed on the regime.

There is a restructuring of the state on the broadest basis. New labor incentives are being created in the city and countryside. New relations are being formed, new people are maturing, already alien to the atmosphere of the bourgeois world. Schools are getting back to normal: “Two or three years ago we were empty, there were no people at all, and now young specialists have appeared” (Ordzhonikidze). The management system is improving. From utopian egalitarians, depersonalizations, functionals, etc. – soon there will be no trace left. The painful “gigantomania” of the 1930s and 1931s, which brought a lot of confusion to our economy, is being eliminated. The mistakes and unfortunate excesses of the first years of rural collectivization were recognized, the task of “organizing things in a businesslike way” was mastered. New organizational forms of leadership in the countryside have been groped for, and, after the turbulent years of the turning point, “


All groups of the inner-party opposition unconditionally recognized the victory of the general line. This time there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of their repentant confessions. Facts are convincing. “At this congress,” Stalin declared not without reason, “there is nothing to prove, and, perhaps, there is no one to beat. Everyone sees that the party line has won.”

Bukharin’s Congress speech and Rakovsky’s post-Congress letter to the Central Committee are equally characteristic in this respect. Bukharin is definitively convinced that the peasant question – this hitherto truly “cursed” question for the Russian Bolsheviks – has been fundamentally resolved by the bold operation of recent years; the fears of the right opposition have been removed. Rakovsky sees with his own eyes that the Trotskyist line of banal internationalism is beaten; on the other hand, it is clear to him that Lenin’s party has saved itself from bourgeois degeneration and is building socialism in a huge country that is a first-class world, international factor. And both seriously renounce the opposition, recognize the correctness and authority of the party leadership, and include themselves entirely in the line of the party.

A similar turn is dictated to all non-Party Soviet circles, who were puzzled by the historical shift of 1929, in particular, by the special environment in the Union.

This environment in its mass, it must be said, was equal to the right deviation in the party: it seemed to her the most sober, reasonable, and in the interests of the country. “When Bukharin speaks, we can be silent,” I wrote in the spring of 1929, no doubt reflecting the moods of that time widespread among the service intelligentsia. The course of an all-round socialist onslaught that was outlined in those days aroused tactical objections and technical doubts on our part. Objectively, these moods of ours were, of course, a symptom of the reaction of the petty-bourgeois, mainly rural elements, to the new government course.

However, this course was adopted by the party, and Bukharin soon fell silent. Hard times have come for his fellow travelers. Some of them, expelled from the party, as well as non-partisans, were crushed by the weight of the state press and their own doubts. Some have strayed from the path of even elementary state loyalty (sabotage). As for the vast majority of the people of this environment, they continued, in spite of everything, “to live and work”, without changing the way of their behavior, doing their best to fulfill the duties assigned to them … “Since the army has already got involved in a serious battle,” he wrote I in the spring of 1930, theoretically comprehending this practice, soldiers have to do their duty, regardless of the chances of a favorable outcome .. The horizons are not yet clear, but the duty is clear: to maintain impeccable active loyalty,

This tirade quite clearly expressed the moods of the internal party Soviet service environment that prevailed at that time: there was a certain sad duality in them – the consciousness of the need to remain loyal to the state and, at the same time, uncontrollable fears about the new government course, infinitely risky and unprecedentedly cruel. The consciousness of these people was confused, they involuntarily remained in a depressed state of mind, which was further complicated by the atmosphere of unfriendly suspicion that surrounded them. Something similar was experienced in those years by the party members of the right deviation. Remaining in the party ranks and working with discipline in the posts entrusted to them, obediently pronouncing penitential formulas, they still could not overcome spiritual confusion, internal fluctuations: even if the “right to doubt” is denied by the code of party honor, – the fact of doubts, since they are present, cannot be destroyed by any decrees. And it is not surprising that during these years of struggle the Party deviationists turned out to be “carriers” (Kirov)…

But now it’s different. Hesitations, fears, fears – removed. Removed in essence, organically uprooted by facts from the souls. Bukharin’s speech at the congress seems to be for the first time in these years imbued with genuine, infectious enthusiasm. In complete agreement with himself, freed from doubts, he welcomes “the birth of a new country of socialism, with its new technical foundation, with its new economic structure, with its new man and with its new culture.” Not so long ago, he warned the party against the assault on the peasant element, and in the memory of Lenin he conjured not to quarrel with the countryside. Now he joyfully notes the successful completion of the most difficult and dangerous operation, as well as the skill with which it was carried out: “The great merit of our party leadership and Stalin personally lies in the fact that

Thus ended the Right deviation in the Party. The motives and related moods of the non-Party service environment are now disappearing. Bukharin lightened his soul, and so should his companions. It is necessary to recognize and emphasize with all clarity that the old NEP concept of “going down on the brakes” is now completely canceled by the logic of facts, and is fundamentally losing its meaning.. At the present time there can be no question of a return to bourgeois-capitalist relations in the USSR. If the general line strengthens the state, improves the economy and opens up prospects for improving the material, and after them all the conditions of the country’s life, then its all-round, selfless support becomes a gratifying duty for everyone. All the forces of the people must be directed towards mastering the path along which the government is leading the Soviet country. The more successfully and painlessly the great transformation of the state will be completed, the more unanimous and active work will be directed towards this transformation.

Thus, if the Right Party deviation and the non-Party special milieu associated with it voluntarily or involuntarily reflected the aspirations of the petty-bourgeois element in the countryside and in the city, now that it has been proved that the crushing of this element is possible without paralyzing the state and destroying the revolution, it is natural that everything right-wing and “rebirth” theories are losing ground. It is natural that unity is being restored in the Party, and that the militia of the Specialists is really torn off from the rump of the crushed class .

There is no need to indulge in illusions: the struggle is not over yet. The remnants of the old society, the defeated social forces, which are being forced out of all spheres of the national economy, are still swarming about. But they are doomed, and it would be pointless to try to guard and protect them. It is quite obvious that the vital interests of the country demand that the struggle for a new classless society be carried through to the end.

There is no need for illusions in another respect: the shortcomings of the state and economic apparatus of the USSR are still very great and numerous. Have not yet learned to work in a new way. All sorts of stupidity – as many as you like: the Soviet press tirelessly exposes it and gloatingly savores it – the émigré press. The new ruling stratum is still insufficiently cultured and insufficiently wise in business experience. He needs to study, study and study. Our cultural backwardness is painfully affecting, and the loss of human material over the past two decades is making itself felt. The system of work in the new conditions is only getting better, there are plenty of mistakes everywhere. But the essence of the matter is that the historical path of the country has already been firmly determined and the type states – finally designated. The essence of the matter is that the end of all these difficulties, shortcomings and troubles of the transitional period is visible. The end is visible to them and their meaning is clear.

“Overcome the maximum revolutionary program,” I wrote at the beginning of 1930, at the cradle of the general line, “succeed fully in the planned reorganization of the country, how not to exclaim with joy: you won, Galilean!” (“At a new stage”, p. 21).

Four years have passed. And with proud joy for our native country, for its worldwide cause and state feat, we can now say: yes, the great program overcomes, the miraculous transformation of the country becomes flesh and blood. Doubts and fears have been dispelled: the dawn of a truly new and glorious life is breaking over the peoples of the Soviet land.

Shifts Pavel N. Milyukov

Our political emigration is excited by the latest speeches of P.N. Milyukov. These speeches also find resonance in international political circles, which see in Milyukov the spokesman for the mood of the most solid and significant sections of the Russian emigration. What was the old Kadet leader saying that was new and sensational?

It is not difficult to grasp the main idea of ​​his topical statements. Milyukov openly and defiantly sided with the current foreign policy of the Soviet government and expressed the hope that the USSR, such as it is, will be strong enough to cope with the dangers from outside that currently threaten it. If we found ourselves in the responsible role of the Russian government,” he added, “we would have to pursue the very policy that Soviet diplomacy is pursuing under the present situation.

In other words, Milyukov—albeit with various reservations and reservations—occupied a kind of national-Soviet a political position essentially approaching that to which, with greater determination and consistency, the writer of these lines passed fourteen years ago, at the beginning of 1920, and which a year later was consolidated by the so-called Smenovekhovtsy movement. Since then, much water has flowed under the bridge, and this early Smenovekhovian position is now for us an irretrievably passed stage. Such gigantic events and shifts as the world crisis of capitalism and bourgeois democracy, as the Soviet five-year plans for industrialization and the radical reforms of our countryside, teach us to perceive the Russian revolution in terms not only of the national state, but also social and world-historical. Miliukov is very late. But still he does not stand still, he slowly moves forward. Better late than never.

What, in essence, says P.N. Milyukov in his sensational reports and articles?

He analyzes another “dispute” of our emigrants: what if the Soviet Union is attacked by hostile international forces? It is quite obvious that foreigners are pursuing their own national-egoistic goals, they are interested in appropriating pieces of Russian land, and in the final analysis, in dismembering, dividing Russia: Hitler speaks openly about this. But, threatening Russia, its external enemies, under present-day circumstances, also threaten the Soviet regime, hated by the émigrés. How to be? “How to behave,” the correspondent Milyukova Sablin formulates the main émigré question, “in order to contribute to the fall of Soviet power without at the same time contributing to the disintegration of Russia?”

The dashing young Russian youth answers this question quite simply: you must simultaneously “overthrow the Bolsheviks and defend Russia”! No less dashing, for all his venerability, General Denikin clarifies the formula of the Young Russians: it is necessary to free the Red Army from the Soviet leadership and direct its bayonets against the foreign dismemberers of Russia. Obviously, the general is not averse to replacing Voroshilov with himself!

Milyukov, of course, cannot fail to understand the whole naivety of these childish conjectures and the whole empty sounding of these pseudo-major phrases. “To free ourselves inside and defend ourselves outside?” he ironically. “But how can this be done at the same time?.. Unfortunately, Russia’s defense system does not wait for the time when we “overthrow” the Bolsheviks, , perhaps, they would not have had time to organize defense. A truism that still seems like a paradox in the “irreconcilable” émigré milieu!

Milyukov resolutely takes up arms against those who want to “overthrow the Bolsheviks at any cost.” He does not share the opinion of those who, in the struggle against the Soviets, are ready to fraternize “with the devil himself”: for, they say, there is nothing in the world worse than the Bolsheviks. He recalls his “long-standing formula” expressing his attitude towards the Soviet government: – “In certain cases and under certain circumstances, it necessarily performs the functions of a national government, i.e. represents the interests not only of its own, but also of Russia. The difficulty of this decision lies in the need to analyze in each individual case whether the interests of Russia are combined with the interests of the Soviet government, or contradict it.

The old politician is very cautious. He repeatedly emphasizes that his pro-Soviet, Sovietophile position is based on nothing more than “the conjuncture of the moment.” He by no means ties his own hands, thus giving Soviet publicists a reason to assert that “he is only inflating his own worth with foreigners.” However the logic of a position – obliges. Refuting Denikin’s philistine arguments about the zigzags of Soviet foreign policy, he is forced to state that the current Litvinist course “should be looked at more seriously and deeper.” Of course, he cannot fail to understand that the threat of the dismemberment of Russia is by no means fleeting. Consequently, Moscow’s current foreign policy is not accidental either. In other words, the “conjuncture of the present moment” has many chances to stretch out over a whole historical period. And that means “

He himself undoubtedly believes in the strength and defensive capability of the Red Army, although he expresses this belief with deliberate restraint: “The inability of the Soviets to defend and the hostility of the Red Army are still subject to proof and factual verification.” However, next to his feuilletons, he publishes curious military reviews in his newspaper, where the strength of the Red Army is already recognized without any concealment or ambiguity. Denikin invites the Red Army men to stop being Soviet. Milyukov ridicules this naïve gesture. For him, not only the Soviet nature of the Red Army is obvious, but also the harmfulness of any attempt to bring confusion into the souls of its fighters: this “would mean an attempt to create in Russia, at a decisive moment, that same chaos, that absence of any power that would just contribute to goals as separation,

Holy truth. But it is not an easy thing to plant it in the heads of the emigrant flock! And now – she is wrapped in a verbal fog of reservations, reassuring assurances. It turns out that the Bolsheviks are our enemies, but … there is no need to interfere with them yet; on the contrary, it is necessary to help them to the best of their ability to strengthen and protect the country. “If, generally speaking,” writes Milyukov, “one must maintain a hostile attitude towards the Soviet government and at the same time have to approve its foreign policy, which is so necessary for Russia, then turn this government’s foot at the very moment when the enemy’s invasion threatens to divide, would mean clearly contradicting the objectives of this policy, which we most approve of.”

But if so, what is the meaning of the phrase “generally speaking, hostility to the Soviet government should be maintained”? To what extent is it possible to combine the desire for the success of power with hostility towards it? Either the desire will be hypocritical, or the enmity will be ineffective! Its original slogan ” revolutionary attitude “Milyukov really withdraws to Soviet power. At least he is absent in his latest articles; and he would too clearly contradict the advice” do not turn your legs. ” Apparently, P.N. Milyukov also refuses his former position on the question of relations between the Soviet Union and foreign powers. Previously, he was “against” their recognition of the Soviet government. Now, while fully supporting Litvin’s policy and considering its results useful for Russia, he obviously can no longer object to acts of recognition of the Soviet state, increasing its specific weight and chances for international peace. He cannot but regard the friendly relations between the USA and the USSR as a positive factor.In other words, it is quite clear that he is forced to give up the whole complex of habitual emigrant beliefs.

What does this “hostility in general” mean?

I think its nature is twofold. First, tactical considerations. Secondly, fundamentally political, so to speak, ” world- contemplative “.

Milyukov has to reckon with his own past and with the milieu with which he is connected and upon which he influences. A sharp, sharp turn would tear him away from this environment, and his new directive would not have had, perhaps, a calculated social effect. In this regard, I recall my own “turn” in 1920. At that time I did not care at all to clothe it in forms that outwardly softened its essential sharpness, I immediately “said everything straight, without bending” – and immediately completely broke away from my environment, frightened it, sharply restored it against myself, and found myself lonely, isolated. It was, of course, easier for me than P.M. Milyukov: at that time I was less than 30 years old, the burden of “name”, traditions, connections and political experience did not burden me as it burdens him, the leader of our pre-revolutionary Cadet community, recognized ideologist of the Russian “progressive” bourgeoisie. Naturally, it is not easy and unsuitable for him to remain a general without an army (albeit one of dubious strength), and so he methodically, patiently, with endless the constant pressure of inexorable reality. This makes sense: it is not for nothing that the frantic Tsurikov is forcing him to “as soon as possible admit to being of one mind with Ustryalov” – so, they say, for them, the Kutepovites, “it will be better, because it is clearer and therefore more harmless.” I am ready, if you like, to say the opposite: the last thing we need here now is premature confessions, it would be better if there were less clarity, so it will come out more useful. that it is not easy and unsuitable for him to remain a general without an army (even if he has a rather dubious strength), and now he methodically, patiently, with endless precautions explains, step by step, in his tight environment for innovations, new attitudes that are maturing in his mind under continuous pressure inexorable reality. This makes sense: it is not for nothing that the frantic Tsurikov is forcing him “to confess as soon as possible that he is of one mind with Ustryalov” – so, they say, for them, the Kutepovites, “it will be better, because it is clearer and therefore more harmless.” I am ready, if you like, to say the opposite: the last thing we need here now is premature confessions, it would be better if there were less clarity, so it will come out more useful. that it is not easy and unsuitable for him to remain a general without an army (even if he has a rather dubious strength), and now he methodically, patiently, with endless precautions explains, step by step, in his tight environment for innovations, new attitudes that are maturing in his mind under continuous pressure inexorable reality. This makes sense: it is not for nothing that the frantic Tsurikov is forcing him “to confess as soon as possible that he is of one mind with Ustryalov” – so, they say, for them, the Kutepovites, “it will be better, because it is clearer and therefore more harmless.” I am ready, if you like, to say the opposite: the last thing we need here now is premature confessions, it would be better if there were less clarity, so it will come out more useful. with endless precautions he explains step by step to his environment, which is tight on innovations, new attitudes that are ripening in his mind under the continuous pressure of inexorable reality. This makes sense: it is not for nothing that the frantic Tsurikov is forcing him “to confess as soon as possible that he is of one mind with Ustryalov” – so, they say, for them, the Kutepovites, “it will be better, because it is clearer and therefore more harmless.” I am ready, if you like, to say the opposite: the last thing we need here now is premature confessions, it would be better if there were less clarity, so it will come out more useful. with endless precautions he explains step by step to his environment, which is tight on innovations, new attitudes that are ripening in his mind under the continuous pressure of inexorable reality. This makes sense: it is not for nothing that the frantic Tsurikov is forcing him “to confess as soon as possible that he is of one mind with Ustryalov” – so, they say, for them, the Kutepovites, “it will be better, because it is clearer and therefore more harmless.” I am ready, if you like, to say the opposite: the last thing we need here now is premature confessions, it would be better if there were less clarity, so it will come out more useful.

But the matter is not limited to tactical considerations. For the anti-Soviet reservations of the old Kadet leader are, of course, not only tactics. No matter how flexible his outstanding mind is, he is still too rooted in the past to assess the present and future without prejudice. Even if he had fully assimilated Smenovekhovtsy ideology of the NEP era, how anachronistic it would look now! The past years, full of grandeur and drama, pushed that era away from us into the distant past. Our faith in the creative forces of the revolution, in the invincible might of our great country, is justified. Our position of active fidelity to the government created by the revolution and reviving the state is justified. But our specific forecasts of that time, our theory of “sliding on the brakes”, our ideas about the socio-economic paths of the development of the revolution – were removed by the course of events. The years of the five-year plan and rural collectivization refuted the right-wing deviationist fears in the Party and the “bourgeois” doubts of the intelligentsia-specialists. The strong-willed pressure of the general Stalinist line broke the resistance of social materials, which turned out to be more malleable than one might think. There were victims, there were many victims – you can’t hide it; but the victims cannot be returned by moving back, and the winners are not judged. At present, the country is facing incomparable prospects for development on a new social basis; if only the atmosphere of peace would last, even if it was bad, i.e. armed! Yes, the Leninist question of “who wins” has now been firmly resolved in favor of new forms of economy and life, and it would be the height of madness and nonsense to attempt to re-solve it.

It is clear that Milyukov is immeasurably far from us in this respect. It is clear that here he is entirely – on the other side. Now he only approaches, stumbling and looking around – “old age walks cautiously and looks suspiciously” – to that national-Soviet attitude, which we realized and proclaimed fourteen years ago. Let us wish him good health and a happy journey ahead: let us hope that the time will come when he will get to our current positions – to the unconditional recognition of the great historical truth of the Soviet revolution in its leitmotif, in its guiding political and economic line. Political slogans have their own logic and their own destiny.

Classless society

“The main political task of the second five-year plan is the final elimination of capitalist elements and classes in general, the complete destruction of the causes that give rise to class differences and exploitation, and the overcoming of the vestiges of capitalism in the economy and the minds of people, the transformation of the entire working population of the country into conscious and active builders of a classless socialist society” ( Directives of the XVII Party Conference).

A revolution is a struggle of people against people. “Revolution,” Lenin said, “is the sharpest, furious, desperate class struggle and civil war. Revolution is a socio-historical phenomenon, the result of contradictions that are growing and boiling up in society[“].

But if the nature of the revolution is struggle, then its goal is peace. It is done for the triumph of a new, more perfect, more just social order. These have been all significant revolutions in history. Such was their justification before posterity. Their troubles and sacrifices turned out to be redeemed to some extent.

Our October Revolution, in terms of both its real scope and its final goals, almost surpasses all the revolutions that have hitherto taken place on earth. It covered vast spaces and drew in innumerable masses of people. It presented a picture of a social struggle of unprecedented and painful tension. Like a giant flood, it swallowed up the whole world of political and social relations: the “drowned world”. And at the same time, which is especially characteristic of it, it has set before itself the most daring world-historical tasks, in their inner pathos and projective volume reminiscent of perhaps the universalist plans of the beginning of our era.

These end goals remain unfulfilled. But, being inspired by them, the revolution found in itself the strength to recreate its own arena from top to bottom, the country directly embraced by it. With the combined means of destruction and creation, it brought into life a new human material. And no forces in the world are now able to turn the USSR into the former pre-October Russia.

But the revolution, changing the country and the people, changes itself: it rages in the souls first of all, and the ongoing remelting of souls inevitably also entails the transformation of the revolution itself.

The second five-year plan was conceived under the slogan: “a classless socialist society.” Why is this so and what does it mean? Why did the class dictatorship speak of a classless society?

The meaning of this slogan is as clear as it is profound. It means, in principle, a general switchover of revolutionary energy. A new focus of minds and hearts. New style of the whole process.

Class dictatorship is the struggle of people against people, the height and rampant revolution. Her virtue is malice, “black malice, holy malice”. Its principle is restrictive, preeminently flawed, its inspiration is primarily negative: negation, destruction of the old. Its environment is organically split: – “we” and “they”. Not without reason “enemies” – a favorite word of her vocabulary: the class enemy – everywhere and everywhere; the last, decisive battle is burning. Hence its symbols – fighting, menacing, armored: “iron broom” (Lenin), “naked sword of the proletariat” (Stalin), “hot iron” (Trotsky). Its method is not only persuasion, but also coercion, suppression, terror. Its gospel is militant Marxism, the doctrine of the transitional age, the last breath of class psychology, the strategy and tactics of discord, ideological instrument of struggle. “Dictatorship,” Lenin himself said, “is a heavy, harsh, bloody word, and such words are not thrown into the wind.”

A classless society is the goal and reward, the crown of effort and the end of adversity. His style is completely different. It is no longer struggle, not anger, not violence, but solidarity and peace. No longer enemies, but friends, brothers (even, perhaps, not “comrades”: this term, in Russian, is too saturated with the smell of “commodity” relations, the spirit of the fractional, split environment of capitalism). New being and new consciousness; emancipation of consciousness from social existence. Independence, self-lawfulness, the creative power of the human spirit.<<5>> A new culture of brotherhood and common work. Light from darkness: such is the immanent dialectic of ideas.

Undoubtedly, even in the bloody reflections of the revolution, the appearance of a cherished goal is vaguely foreseen: the construction of the first five-year plan is a condition for the possibility of high tasks for the second; the class dictatorship of the working people is fraught with the classless brotherhood of socialism. But while war is being waged, it is dangerous to dream of peace, and the end is obscured by the means. In the atmosphere of a steep dictatorship of progress, the leaders train their masses to be harsh and intolerant. It is impossible to soften, demagnetize hearts.

And now – the first swallow, a sign of a significant change. The “classless society” was announced authoritatively and solemnly, no longer in terms of pure theory, but in terms of real politics. From a distant ideal, a beacon, it becomes a concrete prize, the next task, the work of tomorrow. The masses are given a new impulse, oriented no longer on malice, envy and fear, not on the instincts of selfish, predatory struggle, but on emotions of a completely different, opposite order. In the history of the revolution – a new milestone, a new frontier.

Classless society. Instead of the struggle of people against people – friendly unity of people in the struggle with nature for a worthy existence. “Management of things and management of production processes” (Engels). Planned and organized regulation of economic opportunities and vitality. Mastering technology, transforming the economic geography of the country. Organization of culture. Creative unification of forces in a common great task: overcoming the blind and inert forces of matter. Unity of knowledge and action: explaining the world – to change it.

The task is not new. But – in a new setting, not yet tested by history. In the conditions of a new social system, which ultimately ensures the purposeful unification of people. And no longer in abstract rational constructions, not only in dreams and fortune-telling, but in living concrete reality … however, still becoming, and not becoming.

Never and nowhere has the problem of the union of an organizing, active science with all the forces of a society united and free from former contradictions been posed as broadly and boldly as it is now posed in the USSR. It can be argued that one of the leading motives of the emerging Soviet culture has every chance of becoming the motive of perfect humanity, proclaiming and realizing its unconditional dignity, its absolute goal.

But how is it that the state of the class struggle so decisively raises the problem of social unity?

The answer is known: it believes that the past years of struggle have already prepared the ground for peace. Of course, there is still no question of a stable, secure peace that eliminates the need for the state itself. It is enough to recall the external environment of the Soviet Union in order to refrain from excessive optimism. And within the country, too, social contradictions have not yet been overcome, the force of inertia of the old relations, the force of resistance of the remnants of the old society, has not yet been overcome. But all the same, since the sources of private accumulation and, consequently, social inequality have either been destroyed or seriously undermined, since the channels that feed a separate class existence have been blown up, since the foundation of workers’ democracy and social economy in town and country has been laid, it is possible to put on the order of the historical day the problem of a new society of working people, alien exploitation of man by man. The fight against people within the framework of this social whole, within the borders of our country, is coming to an end – the next step is the fight against nature. And, on the other hand, it is precisely by conquering the elemental forces of nature that we will complete, bring to the end the reorganization of society! – This is how the ideologists of the second five-year plan argue.

The very appearance of the theme of a classless socialist society in the current situation is extremely significant. It is primarily a symptom. This, one might say, is the motives of dawn in the symphony of the night. They herald a justified turn in the consciousness and will of our leading stratum and at the same time reveal the mass thirst for peace in a country reborn by struggle. To put it aphoristically, they are ” turn from hate to love “. The switching of energy from the destructive social struggle, which is already exhausting itself, to the creative common work of organized and purposeful solidarity.

The slogan of a classless society “in five years” is, in essence, a whole ideological revolution, a postulate of a fundamental reassessment of values. The whole setting of Marxism-Leninism as a theoretical doctrine and political practice has hitherto been thoroughly permeated with militant class pathos. “Leninism is the theory and practice of the proletarian revolution … The main question in Leninism, its starting point, is … the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the conditions for its conquest, the conditions for its strengthening” (Stalin). The entire revolutionary armature of Marxism-Leninism, its philosophy and psychology, its romanticism and its pedagogy, rest against the idea of ​​class struggle. The doctrine, it is true, spoke of “a leap from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom”; but circumstances forced its adherents to focus only on the first two elements of this formula: on the “realm of necessity” and on the “jump”. As for the third element, the “realm of freedom”, beyond the distance, it invariably remained in a kind of pious fog, which least of all determined the historical appearances of the movements led by Marxism and the characters of the people educated by it.

Now the situation is changing: in the Soviet Union the proletarian dictatorship declares a classless society to be the task of the current years. It obliges. And it opens up new horizons.

The liquidation of classes leads to the withering away of class psychology and class ideology: a new social existence will also give rise to a new consciousness, or rather, it will free consciousness from the slavery of social fetters. Consequently, the entire ideological atmosphere of the Soviet milieu is subject to a natural transformation. A kind of classless statehood is no longer the proletarian dictatorship of the era of acute internal social contradictions. And its culture is no longer a cult of the barbaric form of progress, not the heroism of the harsh means of combat prowess, not the philosophy of the omnipotence of the stomach, but the music of goals, the pathos of the social world and the flowering of a free spirit. True, the very existence of the state, conditioned by foreign policy grounds, preemptively and deliberately lowers the tone of new motives. Reduces – but still does not nullify! It can even be said that the more vital these motives are, the more concretely the more authentic their environment, the more historical the atmosphere of their sound. The classless Soviet nation, the union of Soviet peoples, is entering the world-historical arena as an outpost of the all-human idea: this is the faith of the second five-year plan, this is the objective logic of its design.

The new era creates a new one, its own person. The hero of the transition years, the master of destruction, the “man in a leather jacket”, the commissar of the civil war, the security officer, will gradually die. These years, too, of course, knew and know their eerie romance, their dramatic attraction; but everything has its time. It is no coincidence that even now, more and more often, Soviet literature observes fruitful metamorphoses: hatred in the souls decreases, love is added. Gradually, little by little, the old virtues of growth are coming into circulation and turning into vices, the moral climate of the revolution is changing. The “sword” from an instrument of internal influence will become a means of external defense par excellence. So? If social reorganization takes place, the emancipation of consciousness will lead to the emancipation of individuality, fades, the flawed philosophy of the period of social strife will fade, thought will deepen, feeling will be fertilized, the blinders that still limit spiritual vision will disappear. And objects will open before him that are accessible to a mature spirit, living wisdom, a symphonic culture of the coming society, imbued with unity and peace.

Unity! World! – But isn’t it a utopia? Has our internal social struggle ceased? Is it not said everywhere that it is possible to destroy classes only through the merciless class struggle of the working people, that the years of the second five-year plan are by no means a time of peaceful and “smooth” development? Doesn’t the need for a rigid apparatus of coercion, a state of dictatorship, relentlessly reiterates – and for the coming years?

No, the fight hasn’t stopped. Yes, we are talking about a state of dictatorship. Little of. It is quite possible to doubt that in five years we will really be finished with classes and with class differences: the actual pace is always slower than desired, and high ideas are never fully realized on our mosaic earth. But it is also characteristic, but already indicative, that the leaders of the class revolution consider it appropriate, necessary and timely to raise the honorable and obligatory banner of all-Soviet classless solidarity as a practical concrete program for the coming years .

Such ideas – forces are not lost without a trace, such words become flesh. It is time for a new consciousness to take shape, free from the former captivity of class conditioning, a consciousness no longer fettered by external being, like fate, but acquiring its own content and its own significance. And woe to those revolutionaries who are unable or unwilling to adapt to the new psychological situation, break away from yesterday, enter into the mind of a new stage and realize its beneficent inevitability, its true nature. Like the fanatics of vulgar internationalism who denounce the “national limitations” of the organic Soviet policy program, they will be left out of history. Such a fate usually befalls all who, brought up by the night, try to delay the coming of the morning.

One and a half long, difficult, in its own way glorious decades – a storm, a flood that swallows the old world. But already – it becomes clear. There are still clouds and thunder, – but the needle of the barometer is already deviating in the souls. And now this “classless society” through the torrents of a class downpour – isn’t it already an oil-bearing branch? Are not the first signs of the dawn?

About the Soviet nation

The historians of our Time of Troubles, characterizing the factors of overcoming the turmoil, see the main of them in the rallying of all the forces of Russian society against the formidable foreign danger that has come to light. The strife of classes and groups of the population, which was the main content of the then lack of dress, ended with the struggle of the whole earth with the Polish invasion, which sought to use internal Russian strife for its own purposes. Russia was saved by a nationwide, nationwide upsurge. Negative, but at the same time its determining condition was the pressure of an external enemy. We can say that the Poles indirectly turned out to be our saviors.

When you now reflect on the historical fate of our current revolution, the same factor invariably pops up in your mind: the role of external forces in the consolidation of the new political and social order. The Soviet state is growing stronger and maturing in an atmosphere of constant alertness, in a heightened sense of its own uniqueness, exclusivity, ideological self-satisfaction.

The relations of today’s Moscow with foreigners are in their own way faithful to the old Moscow models of the era of Grozny and Godunov: “being afraid of innovations in the sphere of ideas and beliefs,” historians write about those times, “they willingly went to material borrowing from the outside.” Just as then they sacredly guarded the national culture, the original appearance of Russia, entering into extensive trade relations with foreign countries, learning technology from foreign masters and sending “Russian shy children” to gain knowledge in Europe, so now they are willingly buying the necessary bourgeois products and adopting bourgeois skills, together with thereby, however, stricter and comprehensively guarding against the bourgeois spirit, from the ideas and beliefs of foreign peoples, cultivating and educating their own new consciousness.

The world revolution, which was supposed to remove the borders, contrary to the initial expectations of the Bolshevik leaders, did not happen. And theoretical internationalism has to be reconciled with the constant practical opposition of the Soviet country to the rest of the world. Of course, this opposition was and is being carried out not in national, but in socio-political categories: the world proletariat – the world bourgeoisie. But, by promoting the consciousness of its own exclusiveness and its messianic world role, it arouses in the new Soviet generation an active feeling of love for the fatherland and national pride. When the dialectic of the proletariat becomes the policy of the state, the patriots of the class acquire a fatherland.

A curious phenomenon is emerging before our eyes, which could be called the “Soviet nation”. No matter how new and strange such a phrase is, it is an accurate designation of the emerging socio-historical reality.

Modern sociology considers the so-called “subjective moment” to be the main sign of the national formation, i.e. movements of feelings and states of consciousness of people. A nation is a special, peculiar social complex, marked by a commonality of feelings and consciousnesses, directly experiencing its historical and cultural unity, as well as its difference from other similar complexes. From that point of view, the population of the Soviet state, undoubtedly, is being formed into a special social world, becoming, as it were, a new nation, historically saturated with Russian traditions, continuing Russian history, but at a significantly new level and in a different cultural and historical tone. Russia died to live in the Soviet empire. The Russian people dissolve into the Soviet nation, finding themselves in this act of creative dedication.

Since the rest of the world does not follow the Soviet path, the national consciousness of the union of Soviet republics will inevitably deepen and mature, additionally inflamed with an unsatisfied messianic thirst. Obvious signs of this process are already observed at the present time. The more difficult it is to infect others with your will, the more tangible is the psychological boundary between the faithful and the unfaithful. And the more hopeless the attempts to directly influence those of other faiths, the more stubbornly and resolutely the activity of believers is directed towards the work of self-strengthening and self-improvement. Contrasting oneself with others is a negative condition for understanding and mastering one’s own individuality.

The history of social transformations and political attitudes in the USSR was largely determined by foreign policy grounds. In the first years of October, the state independence of the country was defended with an armed hand: the fight against intervention, the war with Poland, reunification with the Caucasus, the Central Asian Russian lands, and the Far East. Then, starting with the Genoa Conference, there is a stubborn, tireless national-state defense in the economic sphere. Not to pay back old loans, not to become an agrarian colony of world capitalism, to defend the economic and, consequently, political independence of the country, to ensure an original, non-capitalist way of its transformation – such is the main concern of Moscow diplomacy and one of the main springs of Soviet economic policy. To the extent that

Hence the migration of the center of gravity of Soviet foreign policy from the Comintern to the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, the “return of Russia to Europe”, about which the European press is now making so much noise. “Valorization of the Russian factor”. The Comintern in recent years has contributed more to the successes of the European fascists than to the triumph of the international revolution. A little more – and he would have fascistized, what good, the whole of Europe. Obviously, at this stage, he needs a reasonable rein; everything has its time.

Hence the five-year plans, which aim to create a flourishing harmonious economy in our country on new social foundations at an unheard of speed and with unprecedented hard efforts, to turn the Union into a relatively self-sufficient industrial-agrarian country. The real meaning of the industrialization five-year plans is the switching of the old messianic conception to a new one, which affirms the world role of a strong, in some way “closed” Soviet state.

If we talk about the enthusiasm of five-year plans, then this, of course, is the enthusiasm of love for the fatherland and national pride. “Now that we have a working government,” Stalin declares on this score, “we have a fatherland and we will defend its independence. Do you want our socialist fatherland to be beaten and lose its independence? If you don’t want this, you must eliminate its backwardness in the shortest possible time and develop real Bolshevik rates in the development of its economy. There is no other way. We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must cover this distance in ten years. Either we do it or we will be crushed (from a speech at a congress of industrial workers).

The economic reconstruction of the state is developing under the slogan of building socialism in our country. It cannot be denied that this slogan turned out to be tenacious, on target, practically successful. He entered life, he took root, despite the furious opposition of Trotsky and other “Bolshevik-Leninists”, crushed and discarded with all their primordial internationalist orthodoxy. But while building “socialism in one country” at the present stage, the Soviet state at the same time does not cease to this day to be inspired by universal, world-wide tasks. Only now they dissolve into the future, turn into a distant goal, into a regulative principle…

A passionate will for a broad economic and cultural transformation of one’s state, love for one’s beautiful, newly re-created country, faith in its strength, in its glory, in its future – these are the late impulses of the Soviet revolution in its present day. Reading Soviet newspapers and magazines, the speeches of the leaders, following the mood of the youth, attending meetings, meeting with an ordinary party member, one feels these impulses closely, with irresistible liveliness. The famous “we’ll catch up and overtake” is again nothing more than a figurative expression of the spontaneous patriotism of the young Soviet nation, the “nation of youth”, a fervent symbol of that selfless faith that moves the mountain. Everywhere and everywhere there is a confrontation between “world capitalism” and the “country of socialism under construction”, the fatherland of all working people. And since this country is our country, and besides it, there is no corner in the world free from capitalist domination – territorial, geographical patriotism is also naturally born in Soviet self-feeling and self-consciousness: “We don’t want foreign land, but we don’t want our own land, we won’t give a single inch of our land to anyone.” Previously, Russia did not have such a jealous love for its land, which is now awakening in the broad masses of the Soviet Union, despite all the troubles and sorrows of the difficult life of the transitional period. And she, this spontaneous love, is not only accepted, but also dictated by the leading idea of ​​Soviet socialism. When the international is embodied in the state, the patriots of the globe become the nationalists of their only country. – naturally, territorial, geographical patriotism is also born in Soviet self-feeling and self-consciousness: “We don’t want foreign land, but we don’t want our own land either, we won’t give a single inch of our land to anyone.” Previously, Russia did not have such a jealous love for its land, which is now awakening in the broad masses of the Soviet Union, despite all the troubles and sorrows of the difficult life of the transitional period. And she, this spontaneous love, is not only accepted, but also dictated by the leading idea of ​​Soviet socialism. When the international is embodied in the state, the patriots of the globe become the nationalists of their only country. – naturally, territorial, geographical patriotism is also born in Soviet self-feeling and self-consciousness: “We don’t want foreign land, but we don’t want our own land either, we won’t give a single inch of our land to anyone.” Previously, Russia did not have such a jealous love for its land, which is now awakening in the broad masses of the Soviet Union, despite all the troubles and sorrows of the difficult life of the transitional period. And she, this spontaneous love, is not only accepted, but also dictated by the leading idea of ​​Soviet socialism. When the international is embodied in the state, the patriots of the globe become the nationalists of their only country. which is now awakening among the broad masses of the Soviet Union, despite all the troubles and sorrows of the difficult life of the transitional period. And she, this spontaneous love, is not only accepted, but also dictated by the leading idea of ​​Soviet socialism. When the international is embodied in the state, the patriots of the globe become the nationalists of their only country.

It is well known what role national defense issues play in the Union. The Red Army is national pride. When at Soviet meetings and rallies do faces brighten with incomparable enthusiasm, when are greetings especially warm? Just when it comes to the Red Army and our increased state power. When are street celebrations especially festive? Again, precisely when military parades are sparkling and paramilitary demonstrations are noisy.

And here there is absolutely no spirit of official militarism, a specific style of “military”. The army of the revolution has a different flavor. Here is a striking sign of an organic state feeling, of patriotism coming from below, a characteristic feature of a developing nation. We must be “always ready”. We must become stronger every year. Hence the training of cadres, hence the growth of the military industry: the tranquility of our borders breathes in every propeller.

Calm? – The point, perhaps, is not even only calmness: a revolution is a restless thing by nature. But the thing is in a young, fresh will to live, to power, to the victorious triumph of one’s “idea”, one’s own style of life. Such have always been all viable state organisms. They cannot and should not be otherwise.

Soviet nation. It consists of multicolored, multilingual, different-sized ethnographic material. It includes a whole vast world of peoples, “continent-ocean”. But it is soldered together by a single state and permeated with a common cultural and historical aspiration, the power of the leading idea. The state is the primary nationalizing factor, and the “total”, ideocratic state in particular. A common cultural and historical aspiration is a fundamental sign of national unity.

Of course, one cannot say that the Soviet nation is a fait accompli. She is just being born. It takes generations to mature. It must not be forgotten that in relation to it the famous premise of a “common historical past” is already to a large extent present. The easier it is for the peoples of the Soviet Union to understand each other, the more actively Russian history endowed them with a common destiny. If the former Russian state sometimes even seemed to be a “prison of peoples,” then after all, life together in prison means a lot: it brings people together, makes them related, educates in common feelings. The Imperial St. Petersburg period failed to create a strong multilingual empire – this mission is now objectively assigned to the Soviet Union. In our era of states-worlds, history itself seems to be forcing the Soviet world of peoples to unite. Really strong is such a union, caused by the logic of vital interests, can become only on the basis of a certain unifying idea-force. It is only in it and through it that mainland imperial patriotism is created and strengthened, which is able to create from the multitude of peoples a single whole, a single nation, as a higher unity, which does not suppress or kill its elements, but elevates them to a higher level.

Two ideas that are characteristic of Soviet statehood shape the face of the emerging Soviet nation. This is, firstly, the idea of ​​universal unification on the basis of social justice and common labor (internationalism and socialism) and, secondly, the idea of ​​transforming nature by the power of human genius to serve the highest goals of man (mastery of technology, a kind of romanticism of technology). One might think that the coming Soviet culture would be saturated with precisely these ideological aspirations, above all. They do not conflict with the best traditions of our past. But, undoubtedly, they represent something new in their current setting, in their contemporary concrete expression. For culture, as for poetry, the question is no less, if not more, significant than the question of what .

Even now there is a lot of talk about the “new man” in the USSR. Yes, the new Soviet man, regardless of his tribal roots, is the product of a great historical turning point, the brainchild of a new era. Over the past decade and a half, new human material has entered the life of our country and the old material has been continuously melted down and remade. Enormous social shifts and displacements are combined with the pedagogical influence of state power, unheard of in terms of pressure and energy. As a result, a new mental atmosphere is formed, a “new society” arises, which is rightfully opposed to the
“drowned world”. Having arisen, this new society begins to realize itself, to determine itself.

On a large scale of history, the process of his self-determination is still just outlined: the transformation of a person is a complex and lengthy business. But, as you know, revolutions are the locomotives of history. It is no coincidence that the problem of the new man is one of the most resonant, combative in our day. Let there be a lot of chaotic, still contradictory, sometimes even frightening in the guise of modern Soviet people: these are pioneers, primitives with all their inherent qualities. It is not their inevitable flaws that are important – the style of their “mission” is important, the composition of the culture proclaimed to the world through them is important.

It would be naïve to ignore that far from the entire population of the Soviet Union is captivated by its ruling idea. Soviet empiricism is shaggy, rough, extremely confused: one word – revolution! The rigidity of life, the severity of the methods of ruling, sometimes suffering from harmful excesses, lasting material poverty, the breaking of many habits of the soul and body – all this cannot but give the process extreme complexity, pain, and tension. But all this cannot take away from him either direction, or purpose, or movement. And he is short-sighted who does not see the forest for the trees.

Both ideas, embedded in the idea of ​​the Soviet national-state consciousness, are subject to internal development and deepening. On them, a new type of cultural-historical being can be nurtured and justified, essentially alien to the individualistic style of the last two centuries of European history. And the universalist pathos of the international, inseparable from the pathos of a working classless society, and the plan for an organized general attack on the inert forces of nature in order to turn them into a source of worthy, joyful and fulfilling life through the power of collective activity – both of these leitmotifs of the Soviet consciousness are capable of becoming the soul of an original and significant social historical system.

In other words, the subjective and objective conditions for the possibility of the Soviet nation as a united world of the peoples of the Soviet state are evident. Whether this possibility is destined to become a reality will be shown in the coming decades.

Two events could interfere with the process: 1) the breakdown of Soviet statehood and 2) the world communist revolution. The first case would mean the complete disintegration of the peoples that made up Russia, the division of the Russian inheritance, defines Russia in the most hopeless sense of these words. The second case would have abolished the Soviet nation, realizing its “idea”, dissolving it in the world socialist society. It is not only necessary to believe, but it can also be considered probable that the first case will no longer befall. Judging by the available signs, one can doubt that a second event will take place in the foreseeable future. And, therefore, the chances of a third possibility, the Soviet nation, are quite real.

As long as the state individuality of the Soviet republic is preserved, as long as the state exists as a form of social organization, the cultural and historical fusion of the peoples of the Soviet Union will have to grow stronger and stronger. Economic and political unity – a prerequisite and guarantee of cultural unity – is dictated to the peoples of the Union by the totality of the world situation: “the instability of the international situation and the danger of new attacks make it inevitable the creation of a united front of the Soviet republics in the face of a capitalist encirclement” (Declaration on the formation of the USSR). Apparently, this situation tends to stretch out over a long historical period.

In the Time of Troubles, the self-defense of Russian statehood proceeded under the banner of protecting the Orthodox faith more than national life. And yet it was precisely at that time that the Russian nation was intensively formed. The Busurmans did not become Orthodox, they offended the Orthodox, and the more resolutely the Orthodox seized on their state, like the banner of faith and the sword of truth. So now the self-affirmation of Soviet statehood is being carried out not under the slogan of national interests, but under the sign of the victory of international socialism. But since the latter is slow to win, since the busurmans of our time are stagnating in capitalist darkness (or trying to overcome it in their own way), since the Soviet idea encounters real obstacles and dangers in its path, the energy of the Soviet impulse turns inward, wraps itself in the patriotism of its own state, as a pioneer of the new world and a foothold for the coming humanity. This dialectic is deeply and truly objective. “To hate internationalism is not to know and not to feel the strength of the national” – A. Blok wrote in his diary (January 5, 1918).

Of course, this is no longer the 17th century, and the international significance of the Soviet political program can hardly be disputed. But at the same time it would be a mistake to overestimate its direct influence outside the USSR. At present, it is most symptomatic of the principle orientation of the Soviet state idea and the emerging Soviet national character. Neither the vital forces of the bourgeois system in general, nor, what is especially important, the individual characteristics of the various national-historical paths of its evolution, its obliteration, are still far from outlived in the world. Spengler was right to a certain extent when he declared that socialism is different in every country, that there is no single working-class movement, just as there is no single working class. The Russian experience is full of world significance, but there is no reason to assert that the Russian path is predetermined equally for everyone. Red Moscow is sympathetic to the international working people, but the weakness of the communist parties outside the USSR is hardly accidental.

What does this mean? – This means that within the limits of a sober political foresight it is not necessary to speak of the withering away of the Soviet state. Rather, on the contrary, it promises to grow stronger, strengthening both its external, material power, and its educational ideocratic influence. And if so, then the concept of the Soviet nation in the sense established above acquires the right to recognition.

The point, of course, is not in this or that term, but in the content of the concept. For Soviet people, “nation” is a suspicious word, full of dangerous reminiscences, a word of the old world. The Soviet people would prefer to talk about the proletarian state, then about the classless Soviet socialist society, about the world of the peoples of the USSR. The Soviet nation will not call itself a nation – and naturally: its striving is supra-national, planetary. So in his time and from his own point of view, in a completely different line of thought, Konstantin Aksakov attached to Russian history – “the significance of world confession.” The messianic idea knows different forms and faces…

Previously, it seemed to many that it was unthinkable to combine the Soviet state on earth with world capitalism. However, this view soon had to be abandoned: life is flexible, history is plastic. The joint existence of the Soviet Union and the bourgeois states, as experience shows, is possible. Let us assume that in the final analysis only a “bad peace” is conceivable between them. But is it really so good, and indeed is, peace between states of various types? The whole history of the world is a story of a bad world interrupted by good wars. However, this does not prevent her from lasting quite a long time.

Enemy dreams about the fragility of the Soviet state burst. It turns out to be durable … apparently, in this respect it will even surpass the expectations and calculations of its own founders and leaders: it will turn out to be more durable than they would like.

It will change one generation after another. The society of Soviet peoples, the Soviet nation, is acquiring historical traditions, and its cultural content will be enriched. Now it is marked by the sign of strong-willed impulse, storm and onslaught; one can say about him in the words of Posselt about Peter the Great: in Tagendrang war sein wahres Genie. But time will pass, people of a different mentality will come, the initial sharpness of the struggle will be smoothed out, and Soviet culture will go deeper, give flowers and fruits worthy of the great historical impulse underlying it.


(fragments of anniversary reflections)

Fifteen years, in essence, of uninterrupted historical fever. Fifteen years of struggle.

… Huge, clumsy,

Squeaky steering wheel.

The earth is floating…

If you look closely, everything floats in your eyes. Everything has gone from its place: people and things, ideas and feelings. “Mutational cramp”. Everywhere. Perhaps this is just how it seems to us that it has broken off its axis? – No, perhaps: the fact that much, very much “floated” and floated away is now abundantly recognized in all civilized languages.

The earth is floating…

Fifteen years of struggle. A lot of heavy, dark, cruel. A lot of suffering. And hatred – fierce and dashing. According to Blok: “black, black malice”. And the wind, the wind… At Voloshin:

In this wind – the oppression of centuries of lead,

Russia Malyut, Ivanov, Godunov –

Predators, guardsmen, archers,

skinners of live meat,

Hall, whirlwind, whistle dance,

The reality of the tsars and the reality of the Bolsheviks.

This reality and this reality are before our eyes, the people of the frontier. We have learned: – to look and see.

So often Russians were convicted of anarchism, of spiritual formlessness, of an asocial nature. True, we ourselves helped a lot with these accusations, correspondingly confessing aloud, both in prose and in verse.

In the seventeenth, eighteenth years, Russia really went through anarchy and formlessness. But, in fact, how quickly she overcame them!

“Russia needs a whip”! – Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna wrote to Nicholas II in the 16th year. In her mind and under her pen, this maxim sounded insulting and philistine vulgar.

And meanwhile, in this rough formula, if you like, a peculiar historiosophical truth is hidden. You just need to decrypt it. Yes, Russia needs a whip. And this is not a shame for Russia at all.

She needs a whip, and she always knew how to find it in herself . She did not tolerate someone else’s yoke, but she always knew how to pull herself together. Find inner discipline within yourself.

And she really needed this whip : without it, she would have fallen victim to her great love of freedom . Only the people of scorching passion, love, as wide as the sea, needs, in order not to burn out, not to perish, – in an act of creative lynching, in the cruel asceticism of self-restraint. His share is heavy; but enviable. Blessed is he who has overcome great love – the greatest.

Hence the contradictory duality of our history, which confuses foreigners, and sometimes even ourselves: “anarchist nature” – and harsh, cruel power; “feminine passivity of the soul” – and the most active statehood. “Land of the native long-suffering” – and the greatest revolution in the world.

A remarkable entry in Blok’s diary is dated December 26, 1908.

… “And the elements are coming. What kind of fire will splash from under this crust? And will we have the right to say that this fire is destructive if it only destroys us (the intelligentsia)? ..”

Fire splashed. And “us” (intelligentsia) – “destroyed”. But it is clear: fire is not destructive. Cleansing, redemptive, creative. “Black malice – holy malice…”

The country is alive. At fifteen, the state is back on its feet, like a first-class world force. And “we” (the intelligentsia), “who died” – it is not fitting to regret our death. He who has lost his soul will save it. And, on the contrary: he who saves her will destroy her. “The intelligentsia will destroy Russia” (“Milestones”); – no: truly, to the end, the intelligentsia is only capable of destroying itself: trying to save itself – in a splashing fire; aging – do not catch fire.

“Long hair and speaks in an undertone.” Abroad – shouts loudly:

“Look who you are replacing me with! Look at the new generation of the revolution. These are barbarians, Martians. At best, they are still beginning to understand something in technology. But what will become of Russian culture?! ..”

Let not your heart be troubled. Now Russian culture is focused on technology. For the salvation of the state and the people lies in this “mastery of technology.” Hence the psychological type of the new generation. Such is the healthy instinct of our history. We would have perished with other human material – with “Chekhov”, with “Korolenka”, and with “Blok” as well. And one more thing: culture is a discussion, but so far we have no time for discussions. It is necessary to say thank you three times that they were found, that they flooded thickly – “barbarians”.

Is the new man primitive? But he is still a pioneer. How could it be otherwise: a moral uprising, the awakening of the masses, the rise of historical virgin soil. Kaiserling, Ortega, and many others have also seen in the West a technological primitive, a “chauffeur”, homo vulgaris, a Massenmensch. And they study the “great charter of barbarism” proclaimed by him, a primitive. To resist, today, first of all, the will is needed. Nerves that are not corroded by the “soul”.

But there is no reason to be afraid that this human material will become a waste of time in our history. No. Firstly, the barbarian succumbs to the spirit of culture – and the “vertical” barbarian is still much faster and more successful than the “horizontal” one. Secondly, for all its usefulness at the present time, it is still too artificial, too “extraordinary”, and too “not our” type to hold on for a long time. It will pass … and perhaps even sooner than it sometimes seems. He will pass, having honestly fulfilled his mission and singled out a new one, his own elite, in place of the old one, who died or deserted. Give it time. And the dialectical break of cultural traditions will be replaced by a synthesis at a higher cycle of development. Both “Blok” and “Chekhov” (not to mention the “eternal companions”) will be opened to the children of today’s Komsomol members: in the proper, of course, perspective. It is known that grandchildren are more likely to call to their grandfathers than children to their fathers.

Shulgin in the State Duma – shortly before the war:

– There will be trouble … Russia is hopelessly behind … Next to us are countries of higher culture and high willpower. You cannot live in such inequality. This neighborhood is dangerous. You have to put in some great effort. Scope, ingenuity, creative talent are needed. We need a social Edison (see Days, pp. 58-59).

And social Edison – was. True, not in the guise in which, probably, Shulgin was waiting for him.

But with the same imperative:

– We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We have to run this distance in 10 years. Either we do it or we will be crushed…

And we are doing it!

Fifteen years of struggle, effort, an unheard-of new path .. under the “whip” of one’s own will to win.

Much has been achieved, the right to life has been won. But – at a high price: the body – in scars, the soul – in blinders. Stubborn, incomparable will, moving mountains, armed with lightning.

They rustle with dry leaves, rub their hands – on the side – old people who protect souls:

– Far from the goal! Not pulled. Excuse me, where is their five-year-old?! Go in sixty percent. And the quality! A – redneck! Ah, agriculture! The man – let us down. Man – regular!

Yes, it’s not easy. But anyway:

– Remember what happened fifteen years ago: at the time of the Smolny. And ten years: after Kronstadt. And five years: before reconstruction. Re-read your own diagnoses, calculations, prophecies. Compare. – And stop rubbing your hands.

Now you are “offended” by the morning paper that instead of two hundred thousand tons of coal, one and a half hundred thousand are mined daily. And who, ten years ago, swore at all foreign crossroads that “the Bolsheviks only know how to destroy” and that “our industry has been utterly destroyed”?!..

No, it is useless to argue: a lot has been done. The country is being transformed, rebuilt.

Where before the Finnish fisherman,

The sad stepson of nature…

As then, from the darkness of forests and swamps, slender masses rise. Ore sings and coal groans … at least seventy percent. The state foundation is being strengthened. It is being built – the future … as then at a high price!

Difficult. Much is contradictory. A mixture of poverty and wealth, bitter hardships and stubborn pathos of construction. The old resists. Many victims. Probably a lot of mistakes. There is no such thing as error-free. And in everyday, everyday work, these errors are subject to discussion, clarification, correction; sometimes heavily paid.

But today is not weekdays: a holiday! Big, pillar stage. Huge, clumsy, creaking steering wheel. And I want to think – about the main:

Our country has survived. Our people survived in the historical storm. And, straining all his strength, all his will, persevering, worrying and hastening, he creates new world frontiers, lays a fairway – for the floating earth.

About revolutionary tax<<8>>

What is happening in the Soviet Union? How does the historical process of the Russian revolution develop? What are its prospects?

Now, it seems, more than ever, information about this process is plentiful. Thinking through it, you reveal its [solemnly] dual, two-faced appearance. She constantly rushes between the cheer and the guard.

On the one hand, there is a stream of information about striking economic successes, a massive labor upsurge, and about the rapid and fruitful industrialization of the country. On the other hand, there is endless news about the low standard of living of the population, about the unheard-of cruelty of the political regime, the tension of the financial and general economic condition of the state.

Some sources of information depict mainly the positive aspects of the process, others – the negative ones. Often, optimists and pessimists challenge each other. The world press is full of these controversies: the five-year plan is in the international focus. They argue about facts and opinions. The political tone makes the music.

A careful analysis shows, however, that in the main both groups of information are substantive and objectively provable. The duality of information is rooted in the fundamental duality of the process itself.

Using the old terminology of Russian journalism, we can say that the revolution at its present stage sacrifices the people’s well-being in the name of national wealth . Hence the inevitable inconsistency of its present appearance. Hence its organic dynamism, its “erotic” excitement. As the ancient Eros, the winged demon, she is marked with the double seal of Poros and Singing, wealth and poverty. “We won’t finish eating, but we will build socialism and we won’t let our country be offended.”

Of course, this scheme hides extremely complex life relationships that require a special, concrete political and general sociological analysis. But as a preliminary, precisely as a schematic characterization of modern Soviet reality, the above formula is quite suitable.

But it needs a detailed, comprehensive disclosure.

The revolution began with a thunderous proclamation of public freedom. It formally, and indeed in essence, liberated, liberated all sections of the Russian population, left them to their own impulses and their own understanding. The Duma of June 3, the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia, the peasants, the workers, the soldiers – all perceived the collapse of the old order as the advent of freedom .

And freedom came, the historical bridle broke. Freedom is real. spontaneous, radical. Freedom was the starting point of the Russian revolution, the longed-for testament of the most diverse elements of Russian society. The liberal Duma landlords and the Guchkov bourgeoisie imagined this freedom in the light of Western canons on the motive “enrich yourself”, the peasants saw in it the end of the landowners and land redistribution, the workers – material security and lighter work, the soldiers – voluntary demobilization, an early peace. The intelligentsia crowned it with a halo of primordial bright ideals of its glorious history. The “small peoples” of Russia were not slow to turn it into a craze of self-determination, threatening the complete disintegration of the state. Everyone was in a hurry to express their needs, everyone strove to improve their position in the state.

The history of the revolution was destined to become a fatal test of all these fragmentary – stratal, class and national – ideas about freedom. The naive anarchy of February was the medium of their direct embodiment. Colliding and mixing, they gave rise, as you know, to a wild socio-political cacophony, an irreconcilable strife of social classes, which finished off the state and concealed its own death. February, as a historical reality, was exhausted, choked in turmoil, in violent fits of all-Russian “theft”, reminiscent of our old Time of Troubles. In essence, our February is completely exhausted by this centrifugal discord, this dashing turmoil, they are and will remain its objective life characteristic, to the considerable annoyance of those who would like to perceive it not as a historical reality,

Then, little by little, the reverse process begins. The social history of October is the history of the painful self-determination of all group, class and national segregation from the cause of the whole state. Freedom, realized in disarray, turned into confusion, destroys itself, and a consistent consolidation, self-enslavement of the state of various social forces, which have taken a sip from the cup of revolution, begins. The political bonds of the social order are being restored, and the more immeasurable freedom was, the steeper and more autocratic the dictatorship that grew out of it. Under the guise of class struggle, an unprecedented curbing of class harassment is taking place, and in the name of the coming classless and stateless society, the current might of the revolutionary state is being forged. As a result of the critical years, a new political balance is being acquired, a new state consciousness is born, a new idea-ruler is created. From anarchic self-serving freedom, the country is moving towards a universal, direct and equal, severe sacrificial tax.

Indeed. Scattered were classes that by their social nature were hostile to the new center of state concentration. The liquidation of the nobility is completed. In the era of NEP, the bourgeoisie performs certain official functions, but the state is stubbornly striving to get its hands on it more and more firmly. The big bourgeoisie has been crushed earlier, while the middle and petty bourgeoisie have been drawn into the tough nationwide tax in the course of the current years.

But what happens to the victorious, working classes, the “lower classes” of yesterday? “They, too, are inevitably drawn into allegiance to the ruling idea, and only memories remain of their isolated class self-interest. There was a time when the village unanimously finished off the landlords, smashed the estates and parks. Then there was a stratification within the village itself, a mutual pogrom of pogromists, and gradually an objective common goal began to emerge – “the liquidation of the peasantry as a class”, i.e. direct, unconditional service of the entire rural population to national tasks. Group, egoistically stratified aspirations are broken into parts, expropriators are expropriated in turn, according to the old principle of divide et impera.

Proletariat, hegemonic class? – Extremely interesting are the transformations that have befallen him over these 14 years. As a result, he firmly overcomes the ghostly “February” perception of freedom. And for him, freedom becomes a duty. And he is in the service of the state. Now there is nothing more disgraceful to him than “guild moods” that oppose the independent class interests of the workers to the tasks of the state as a whole. Now he, too, mercilessly secures himself behind his state, competing in shock sacrifice with other strata of society.

Small and medium nationalities included in the Soviet Union? – They also parted with political separatism long ago, strengthen the state unity of the Union in every possible way, and feel “local chauvinisms” as the gravest of sins. They are firmly harnessed to the all-Soviet cart.

Old intelligentsia? – Seems to be the most painful topic, especially at the moment. But essentially it is clear: it is either reborn or perishes. The type of the old intellectual disappears : he has no place in the new conditions. And this is even regardless of the formal political coloring. The psychological type, the banner of a whole large historical period, is dying. There was a time when one part of our educated class imprisoned another. But now the stratification seems to be ending, and gr. Kokovtsev shares his fate not only with Kerensky and Milyukov, but also with Trotsky: they wandered apart, but found themselves overboard in a herd. Yes, rebirth or death. Those who have been reborn are in their turn assigned to the state and are completely alienated at its disposal.

Fourteen years old. The revolutionary generation is biologically supplanted by the post-revolutionary generation. But in addition to the natural flow of time, specific factors also operate: it seems that some kind of terrible Nemesis is rushing to descend into the grave of human material, infected with the air of a vague revolutionary spring, organically stuffed with previous impressions, old skills and habits, the spirit of inescapable protest against the unprecedented despotism of the new state disciplines. He is rapidly being replaced – this worn out and destroyed material – by a new breed of people, which the general logic of the process educates and drills in its own image and likeness. A new breed of people with new personal stimuli switched to the collective, with souls deaf to tradition. “Shaved people with sharp chins…”

It would be childish to deny that this whole process of the transitional epoch is a rather heavy step. It develops, as they say, “through contradictions”, in a tense and tense atmosphere. It would be hypocritical to assert that it does not need specific criticism and is assured of ultimate success. But it does not at all follow from this that he is not organic, not popular in the deepest sense of the word. It is directed by the initiative minority, the newly formed ruling stratum, the guard of the leading idea – this is indisputable. But isn’t this stratum itself put forward by the nation as a result of passionate historical selection, and isn’t it bound to it by a thousand vital ties? Did he not become the organ of her will, her dramatic self-restraint? The time of troubles at the beginning of the seventeenth century also ended in a striking victory for the state center over an outburst of group willfulness; the masses of the people emerged from it rigidly attached to the state, and yet it does not thereby cease to remain a complex of truly popular movements.

The state of a kind of “voluntary-compulsory” self-enslavement for the sake of great state tasks is still characteristic of the Russian people. The people of the modern West were often amazed by this historical Russian feature: “what a wonderful country Russia is,” they marveled: “people are beaten there, and they grow up as heroes” (Ibsen). And if now at all the world’s political crossroads the philippics of international freedom-lovers are blaring, stigmatizing “Russian slavery of the 20th century,” then, in essence, these thunders are the least deafening. Large phenomena require large criteria for evaluation. It is impossible to brush aside the huge, world-historical problems of Russian events with one fervent word. The peoples of great style in the doomsday hours of their existence were never afraid and always dared, standing on their own throats.

Thus, in the logic of the revolution, the revival of the state takes place. But this is a state of revolution, not renouncing the new world, but carrying it within itself. And the people who create this new state will know their freedom – in service, their right – in their historical duty, and they turn their labor, their hard feat – according to a well-known definition – into a matter of honor, a matter of glory, a matter of valor and heroism.