Design a site like this with
Get started

A Brief History of The Pro Soviet Right Part 1

The mainstream history of the right of the 20th century was that it was antagonistic to the Soviet Union and its allies. While this is true as many Right-Wing groups all over the world sided with enemies of the Soviet Union such as the White Russian Army, National Socialist Germany, and the United States just to name a few. Many of these groups sided against the USSR for many reasons, from the USSR anti-religious campaigns and USSR espousal of global communist revolution were class, religion, traditions, and nations would be no more.

Despite these claims having some truth there was others on the right who saw that the USSR was moving away from its original radical communism and egalitarianism to a more nationalist and even conservative direction or even believed that Soviet Socialism could be used for nationalist and conservative end goals. Along with some believing that the USSR was an ally to pro nationalist struggles against, imperialism, capitalism, and the West, with all these groups seeing liberalism, capitalism, and the West as a greater threat than the USSR to tradition or national self-determination. Many of these people came from a variety of different persuasions from conservativism, nationalism, fascism, and many others.

This article will not cast moral judgements on these individuals but rather show the reasons behind this pro soviet position and show the history behind these groups. This will have two parts with part 1 going over pre-Bolshevik revolution to the end of World War 2. Part 2 will go over the Cold War to Present Day. While these two article will not cover everyone it will try to cover as many as possible. It should also be understood that I am well aware of the vagueness of political terms like right or left wing as one group of the right can be almost polar opposites to another group on the right. For the sake of covering a broad range of individuals and groups in this article I will be using the term right wing in the sense that these individuals or groups are socially conservative, nationalistic, and do not follow the idea of historical progress or egalitarianism. Despite these right wingers joining forces with an ideology (Marxism) that believe these ideals but did not share these views of progress or egalitarianism of Marxism. Without further delay, here is a brief history of the pro soviet right.

  Pre Bolshevik-Revolution Right Wing Interest in Socialism 1800s to 1917

Even in the times of Karl Marx many nationalists and conservatives took an interest in the idea of socialism all be it was not Marxist socialism.  To some people’s surprise Marx was not the one who came up with the idea of socialism in fact during his life and political career Marx had to compete against many other socialist camps and groups with many of Marx’s writings including his and his partner Fredrick Engels Communist Manifesto containing criticism of these camps.

 Feudal Socialism was one of the first right wing socialist movement that started out in Britain and France in 1830s/1840s. The French group being made up of French Aristocrats called the Legitimates who were displaced by the rising industrial capitalist class, made common cause with peasant and workers who were also being displaced and working under poor conditions during the time. Young England which was the name of the British Feudal Socialist who were apart of Tory Party and came about for many similar reasons to the French Legitimates. With both groups seeking to return an agrarian and pre capitalist society. Along with having strong ties with the church and Christianity. 

Marx was strongly critical of both groups, calling them backwards, being an exploiter of the people and wanting to return to a time that no longer exist. To quote from the communist manifesto.

“Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French Revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation[A], these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political struggle was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.(1) In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy was obliged to lose sight, apparently, of its own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus, the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new masters and whispering in his ears sinister prophesies of coming catastrophe. In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history. The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.”

 Despite these strong criticism by Marx and his growing popularity in the socialist camp that made socialism more progressive and internationally orientated this did not mark the end of Right-Wing interest in Socialism or Socialist who had religious or nationalist or even reactionary sympathies. For example, American Socialist Edward Bellamy who inspired some of the first socialist groups in America called the Nationalist Clubs was deeply religious and held nationalist sympathies despite also having many progressive views of history.  Russian Anarchist intellectual Mikhail Bakunin was a Pan Slavic nationalist who supported many nationalist struggles throughout Europe such as in Italy and Poland. William Morris famous English socialist writer and defender of traditional architecture and craftsmanship believed in a utopian agrarian socialist society and even made common cause with former Young England member and British Conservative Prime Minster Benjamin Disraeli who signed Morris petition to preserve St. Mark’s Basilica Cathedral in Venice Italy. The Russian Social Revolutionaries and Narodnik movement was an agrarian socialist and in the case of the Narodnik’s a religious orthodox Christian movement that had prominence all the way up to the Bolshevik revolution along with according to Russian Philosopher Alexander Dugin being a predecessor to Russian Conservative Revolution. Some of the Social Revolutionaries would go on to join the Bolsheviks.

 Even in the First International some of the first members were nationalist such as Mikhail Bakunin and Italian Nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini.  Despite this most right-wing forms of socialism were marginal outside of Russia and despite some conservative or nationalist tendencies amongst some socialist most were still largely progressive when it came to idea of progress, free love, and nation state. Along with most forms of right-wing socialism or socialist who had some of these sympathies being moderate reformers like Otto Von Bismarck or wanting a return agrarian society. Unlike Marxism that supported society becoming industrialize and supporting revolution. The Right would not start flirting with similar ideas until the 1900s particularly with a section of French Syndicalists led by Georges Sorel.

Sorel was probably the most conservative out most of the people that have been discussed. Even being consider a conservative by some historians and philosophers like Christopher Lasch and Alexander Dugin. Sorel was militant trade unionist or syndicalist believing that general strike of workers would bring about the workers revolution and bring about a decentralize society run by trade unions. He despised parliamentarianism believing it would not lead to a syndicalist society but rather one that strengths the capitalist.  At the same time Sorel believed the idea of progress that so many socialist and Marxist believed was nothing more than a capitalist concept. Believing that Grand Narratives or Myths along with heroism are true motivators of change believing that the early Christians were best example of this. Sorel was not as antagonistic to religion unlike many of the socialist of his time were and on other issues like the traditional family or small family farm as being noble things being displaced by capitalism. Sorel even held nationalistic beliefs for time after becoming disillusioned the major Trade Union in France the CGT for its reformist direction in 1909 to 1910 Sorel started a collaboration with French Catholic Monarchist and Nationalist Charles Maurras the leader of French Action. French action held many similar anti-capitalist, anti-democratic and localist beliefs. Sorel would also start writing for a Nationalist and Syndicalist magazine called L’Indépendance created by himself, Edouard Berth a follower of Sorel and Georges Valois a follower of Maurras. Both Berth and Valois would go on to create the think tank Cercle Proudhon founded in 1911. The group combined the ideas of anarchist Pierre Joseph Proudhon who held similar ideas to Sorel on economics and social issues like the family, Syndicalist Georges Sorel, and Nationalist Charles Maurras in hope of bring together nationalist, syndicalist and other anti-democratic forces to eventually overthrow of the French Republic and even referred to Republic at times with anti-Semitic remarks.

 The group would be minor  throughout its existences with even Sorel and Mauras being warry of the cercle and the group would disband in 1925. However, the Cercle Proudhon would leave a lasting impact on European nationalist circles such as the Italian Fascist and even the Pro Soviet German National Bolsheviks who adopted their symbol as their own. Many in Cercle Proudhon such as Edouard Berth and Georges Valois would go on to support the Bolshevik or other left-wing causes. Even their mentor Sorel would also go on support Lenin and Mussolini. Cercle Proudhon and Georges Sorel arguably marks the origins of many parts of the Pro Soviet Right such as the German National Bolsheviks and French New Right.

The Russian Revolution And The White Bleeding Red

In the Early 20th century, the Russian Empire was weak and a dying empire. Being surpassed by other nations like Britain, Japan, Germany, France, and others. Russia internally was Monarchical, semi feudal, and a agrarian nation plagued with economic poverty and political turmoil. When World War One broke out in 1914 Russia was one of the first countries to join the war against the central power. As the war drag on however as rations and morale became lower amongst the Russians eventually led to a liberal revolution in early march of 1917 then later that year in November a communist/ Marxist revolution led by Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party. 

The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary group that sought to create an international workers revolution, that sought to abolish the monarchy, the church, and much more. This led to brutal reprisals against the Tsar, his family, Churches, other religious institutions and other institutions or groups that could be consider counter revolutionary.  This caused all the conservatives and many nationalists to be against the Bolsheviks.

However, as the war progress into the 1920s and Bolshevik victory seemed ever more likely some amongst the White Army and White Emigres sought to change strategy towards the Bolsheviks. Adopting a more sympathetic view believing the Bolsheviks would eventually move away from its international, anti-religious and dogmatic Marxism to a more national orientated socialism that would revive Russia. Along with having strong hostilities towards the West.  Two Russians a former white army and a aristocrat believe this. One group the Smenovekhovtsy or Russian National Bolsheviks being led by a former slavophile and white army soldier named Nikolay Ustryalov and another group the Eurasianist being led by a Lithuanian prince Nikolai Trubetzkoy.

Both groups formed in 1921 and were based outside of Russia for most of their existences. The Smenovekhovsty being based in China and the Eurasainist being based throughout Europe. Despite being thousands of miles away from each other the two groups came to very similar conclusion to one another when it came to the new Soviet state and with both wanting to influence/ infiltrate the Soviet Government. They saw that the Soviet Union was taking on a more Russian or Eurasian characteristics along with going in a more national direction due to being isolated from the rest of the world. With many of them being supportive of Lenin NEP and socialism in one country as being signs of moving away from Marxist dogma. Both groups expressed the importance of geopolitics and international relations with the Eurasianist having it at the center of their political theories taking influence from German Conservative Revolutionary geopolitical theorist Karl Haushofer. The nation economic and cultural development in Eurasianist view was defined by geopolitical limits and believing the Eurasian continent should unify against the liberal powers.  Both groups as well supported Soviet expansion as a new form of Russian imperialism. With Ustryalov seeing western imperialism as racist and destructive. Along with being heavily critical of Western Europeans views of Russians as being “backwards.”   The Eurasianist also held a very interesting view on race seeing the Russia being made up of a three great races Slavs, Mongols, and Turks, to quote Alexander Dugin

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

 The National Bolsheviks and Eurasianist also viewed the formers white army group who continued to be antagonistic towards the Soviet Union as nothing but ponds of foreign influences and denounced their ideas of the Soviet government being Jewish or blaming Jews for the October revolution. Both were also religious and in the case of the Eurasianist had an Orthodox Priest contributor named Georges Florovsky.   Despite their support for the new Soviet government the Soviet government especially Vladimir Lenin was not as supportive of Ustryalov or his group seeing them as reactionary opportunist and keeping Ustryalov out of the country.

When Joseph Stalin came to power, he allowed Ustryalov and his followers to return to Russia. Despite Stalin being the main advocate for socialism in one country and a more national orientated Soviet Union with a national anthem being made. Along with abandoning the early soviet policy of abolishing the family, and went onto to banning abortion, criminalizing homosexuality, and later laxing on anti-religious persecution in the 1940s and embracing Russian historical figures during the second world war. Stalin still mistrusted Ustryalov and arguably adopted those policies for opportunist reasons and later sent Ustryalov to a gulag in 1937 where he was executed not long afterwards on September 14th, 1937.

Eurasianist on the other hand stayed outside the Soviet Union but became depressed in 1930s over the lack of influence in their home country and being partially discredited when one of their leaders Pyotr Savitsky was found to be an agent for the Soviet government. The leader of the group Nikolai Trubetzkoy and Father George Florovsky went on to mostly write about theological matters, with Trubetzkoy being a contributor to the idea of structuralism and would write in 1938 an article critical of Hitler causing the German police to raid his house in Germany where he suffered a stroke shortly afterwards largely believed to be caused by stress from Nazi persecution. Others would go on to join the German National Socialist such as General Biskupsky, Avalov-Bermondt, Talberg, von der Golz, and Skoropadsky. Others like Pyotr Savitsky, Pytro Suvchinsky, Lev Karsavin, and George Vernadsky continued their Pro Soviet position.  Suvchinsky and Karsavin form of Eurasianism being known as left wing Eurasianism for there favor toward Marxism and support for internationalism with an Orthodox and Eurasian twist to it. Believing that Russia- Eurasia was the future bastion of Universal Socialism and the universal kingdom of truth. However, this was largely rejected by most Eurasianist especially by Trubtzkoy who rejected all forms of universalism causing a split between the two in 1927.

Outside the National Bolsheviks and Eurasianist there was one other Russian Emigrate group that had some interest in the Soviet Union called the Union of Mladorossi led by Alexander Kazembek. The group was originally based in France and at first was hostile to Soviet Union taking on monarchist and fascist ideals along with allying with the Russian Fascist Party but later came to believe just like the Natioanal Bolsheviks and Eurasianist that Soviet Government was only thing defending Russia national interest and supportive of the planned economy of the Soviet Union but instead of it being headed by Stalin should be led by the Tsar. Which is very similar to Eurasianist who saw the monarchy as the ideal system. The leader of the group Kazembek would be implicated in collaboration with the Soviet secret police and would disappear afterwards with the group extremely weakened but existing all the way up to the end of the second world war taking part in the resistances against national socialist Germany.

German Conservative Revolution

Outside of Russian Immigrant community there was similar groups of conservative and nationalist intellectuals especially in Germany who looked to the Soviet Union as a potential ally. Germany was a defeated country in 1918 being stripped of land, economic downturn, and being influenced by foreign countries like Britain, America, and France, along with by international corporations. This made many nationalists and conservatives see Germany as a nation oppressed by foreign imperialist and sought to find allies in anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle which include other colonial people and the USSR. Most of these intellectuals and group being considered a part of the German Conservative Revolution or CR especially from the National Revolutionary section of the movement. Some notable examples from CR are Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Junger, Otto Strasser, Ernst Von Salomon, Paul Eltzbacher, Arthur Moller Van Den Burck, Henrich Laufenberg, Fritz Wolffhiem and many more. Many of these people would also be described or call themselves National Bolsheviks.

This phenomenon originated 2 years before the Russian variety in 1919. Also, unlike the Russian National Bolsheviks and Eurasianist who mostly came from the Right many German Conservative Revolutionaries and National Bolsheviks came from left wing groups such as Social Democrat party or SPD, Independent Social Democrats or USPD, and Communist party or KPD. With many of them particularly Ernst Niekisch, Henrich Laufenberg, and Fritz Wolffhiem taking part in and leading the socialist and communist uprisings in 1918, helping to take control over Hamburg and Bavaria. Hamburg is where Laufenberg and Wolffhiem would start formulating there nationalist and socialist ideas among the workers and members of the military. Seeing that a nationalist and socialist revolution could unite the country and Free their country from Anglo and Capitalist domination. Hoping to form the economy around decentralized workers councils. Unfortunately for Laufenberg and Wolffhiem they would not find much support outside there section of the KDP in Hamburg with many nationalists refusing to work with them for them being communist and one case a volkish leader rejected them because of Wolffhiem being of Jewish origins. Soon they lost their councils seats to more moderate social democrats.  Then Lenin just like what he did with the Russian National Bolsheviks denounced them and Karl Radek expelled them from the communist party for their decentralized council communist and nationalist ideals only for Radek to adopt many of their nationalist positions a few years later to appeal to nationalist workers and some left-wing elements of the National Socialist Party or NSADP.

While many in the Pro Soviet Right originally came from the left many of them also came from right wing groups such as nationalist paramilitary group Freikorps even taking on the task of squash some of these republics in the case of Strasser or political parties like the German National Party such as Paul Eltzbacher where the right-wing origins of German National Bolshevism begin. Like Wolffhiem and Laufenberg, Eltzbacher an economic professor of German Jewish origins saw the Treaty of Versailles as being an immense blow to German sovereignty and believe the only way to regain sovereignty was an alliance with the Soviets against the Western powers and to nationalize the economy. All be it Eltzbacher did not agree with the idea of dictatorship of proletariat and hope to avoid the violence of the Russian Revolution.  Elzbacher would publish his thoughts in German National Party Newspaper on April 2nd, 1919, stating “There is only one way to end this affair. That way is Bolshevism.”  Just like what happen to Laufenberg and Wolffiem he got expelled from his party and blacklisted from many conservative groups but unlike Hamburg Communist, and Conservative Revolution this is where Elzbacher story ends.

After being expelled from the KDP Laufenberg and Wolffhiem in April of 1920 would help found the German Communist Workers Party or KAPD which would be a major thorn in the side of the KDP. However, they were soon expelled again due to pressure from both KDP and Vladimir Lenin. Which caused Laufenberg to denounce Lenin and his NEP as a betrayal to the Bolshevik Revolution. Afterwards Laufenberg and Wolffhiem would only have a few small revolutionary circles associated with them, most notably Bund der Kommunisten only having around a few hundred faithful followers. Laufenberg would soon retire from politics and die in 1932. Wolffhiem would continue to participate in politics and would find some prominences again among the Conservative/ National Revolutionaries and the next generation of National Bolsheviks. Which became much more influential than the original National Bolsheviks.

As stated, earlier Karl Radek the leader of the German Communist Party who expelled the National Bolsheviks ended up taking many of their positions in 1923 to appeal to nationalist workers and middle-class people. Even trying to appeal to people within the NSADP with some minor success. Radek held talks with German Nationalist general Eugen Freiher von Reibnitz.  Radek even shared a stage with German Conservative thinker Arthur Moller van Den Bruck who in the same year published a book called Third Empire which advocated for a German Socialism based to a degree on German leader Otto Von Bismarck and German economist Frederick List economic policies and even describe Russian Bolshevism as a socialism authentic to Russia as well as being very critical of England and English Liberalism. Bruck book also discussed how young conservatives and young socialist of the time were coming to similar conclusion on liberalism which could form an alliance between the groups.  The book was a major influence on many on the nationalist and pro-soviet right including Otto Strasser who work for Bruck’s intellectual journal The Gewissen , later leading the radical socialist faction of the NSADP and the anti-Hitler Black Front organization and Karl Otto Paetel the writer of the National Bolshevik Manifesto and leader of the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalist. Radek even allowed Moller to publish articles for the communist journal along with the anti-Semitic Volkish writer Ernst Reventow.

The question soon becomes why did the communist and nationalist now start to collaborate with each other instead of earlier. The answer is simple with a declining capitalist economy and French/ Belgian troops began the occupation of the German territory known as the Ruhr. Along with a shared growing hatred of capitalism, liberalism, parliamentarism and growing sympathy of socialist and nationalist causes on both sides led to this collaboration. Radek gave nationalistic speeches and glorified Leo Schageter a member of Freikorps and NSADP who was executed by the French military for committing sabotage in the Ruhr. Ernst Revenlow and Arthur Moller Bruck would endorse Russia as a natural ally to the proletariat nation of Germany. Nationalist and communist even protested together on the occupation of Ruhr.

At this time many German political parties and political faction had nationalist or strong anti-capitalist sections within these organizations. Often many of these groups would try out compete each other on who was the real “nationalist” and real “socialist.” Despite this there was still clear differences between these groups as some especially those of conservative or nationalist backgrounds like Arthur Moller Van Den Burke or that of the NSADP favor class collaboration over class struggle unlike the KPD. Which leds to the fact that many of these socialist nationalist or conservative socialists were not influenced by Marx or Marxism largely being influenced by other writers like Fredrich List or Rudolf Jung in the case of the NSAPD. While some NSADP like Adolf Hitler and conservative revolutionaries like Oswald Spengler preached a nationalistic socialism but were anticommunist and anti-Soviet. Often getting into many street fights and attacking the other verbally in speeches especially the NSADP leader Adolf Hitler who accused the KDP of being run and controlled by Jews. The KDP was also not racial or antisemitic like the NSADP or CR Volkish Factions like Ernst Reventow.  

Despite this there were still notable factions inside the CR and other nationalist circles that not only sought an alliance with the Soviets but also believe in class struggle as a tool for national liberation but at the same time did not believe in progress or egalitarianism. While also being vehemently critical of both the NSADP and KDP. This is where the National Revolutionaries like Ernst Niekisch, Karl Otto Paetel, Ernst Junger, Otto Strasser, and Ernst Von Salomon enter the picture. Who went on to influence many sections of both radical nationalist and socialist scenes. Taking part in many journals, political parties, and movements.

Ernst Niekisch could probably be consider the most influential in the group for the informing on Pro Soviet position. Niekisch was originally apart of the SPD and help to form the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919 with his friend and later cell mate Ernst Toller. A project that both Niekisch and Toller would go to jail for in 1920. Around the 1920s Niekisch express more nationalist positions inside the SPD which got him expelled in 1926. He soon founded the National Bolshevik magazine the Widerstand which was one of the most popular national revolutionary and National Bolshevik magazine that even had famous World War One German novelist Ernst Junger and his brother Fredrick Junger write for it. Niekisch would also join the Old Social Democrat Party and influenced it to go in a more nationalist direction. The party won four seats in the Saxony parliament and at its peak got over 65000 votes.

The Widerstand magazine differentiated itself from major parties like the NSADP and the German Communist KDP.  For starters the Widerstand saw the NSAPD militant anti-Soviet policy as suicidal and foolish. Along with seeing Adolf Hitler National Socialism as not real socialism.  The magazine was also strongly anti-imperialist seeking to ally with colonial people around the world. The magazine was also more openly hostile to Christianity seeing it as foreign Latin religion even going as far as accusing Hitler of being controlled by the Catholic Church and with the magazine being more sympathetic to German Paganism.  Now while this sounds very similar to KDP position magazine had distinct differences. For starters Niekisch and the magazine did not believe in historical progress a core aspect of Marxism, nor did they believe in an egalitarian classless society rather seeing these things as grand myths that would motivate the masses but never be achieved. Niekisch also disliked the fact that Marx agreed with the capitalist process of eroding nations, ethnic identities, and traditions which Niekisch detested. Niekisch also saw class struggle as not as a process that abolishes the nation but rather revives the nation by overthrowing the old and weak ruling class, which Niekisch view the KDP was too incompetent to complete this task.

Niekisch would also join ARPLAN a group that studied the Soviet Planned economy which attracted many different political persuasions to the group. Niekisch would also visit the Soviet Union in 1930 and Ernst Junger would hang around the Russian Embassy with Political theorist Carl Schmitt.

Before Niekisch trip to the Soviet Union in 1930, we need to go back one year in 1929. This was not only a big year for national revolutionaries, or for Germany but the world as the economic great depression hits costing people their jobs and livelihoods and reviving interest in radical politics, giving everyone a chance for power.  This also leads us to the final German National Bolshevik thinker Karl Otto Paetel.

Karl Otto Paetel was not involved in political or revolutionary politics for years unlike Ernst Niekisch, Fritz Wolffhiem or many of the other people already mention were. In fact, Paetel was simply a college student at Fredrick Wilhelm University in 1928. However, Paetel always had nationalist sympathies and ended up protesting with other students and youths outside the French Embassy. He soon was arrested with many others and was stuff between a communist youth and national socialist student. This is where Paetel  National Bolsheviks ideas started to take form. Paetel was soon kicked out of university and started to write for numerous publications and was also part of nationalistic youth movement the Deutsche Freischar. He soon came under the influence of Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Junger and other national revolutionaries which made his writings more radically socialist calling for nationalization and land redistribution.  This ended up forcing Paetel to leave the Deutsche Freischar. Paetel would go on to join the Young Front Working Circle a group dedicated to collaboration between right and left radicals. This was soon reorganized into the Group of Social Revolutionary Front or the GSRN in May of 1930 led by Paetel and even had Fritz Wolffhiem join the group.  The group would first try to appeal to the Nationalist Socialists and push them in a more socialist and pro-soviet direction even trying to appeal to their antisemitism, but they only achieved some success on the grass roots level from those members who were disenfranchised with Hitler and his moderation on economic issues. Then soon went over to KDP who just released another nationalist and anti-imperialist program. GSRN would soon try to rally nationalist to the KDP and took part in protest with the KDP. Even adopting KPD anti-fascist position and getting in brawls with NSADP. Just like the NSADP the GSRN would become disenfranchised believing the KDP was not sincerely nationalist.

There are two other movements that formed in 1929 and 1930 one was the Black Front, and the other was the Rural Movements with having similarities with national revolutionaries. The Black Front led by Otto Strasser was a split off from NSADP in 1930 due to Hitler not supporting the recent strikes in the country along with abandoning of the more radical socialist and anti-imperialist elements within the NSADP. Even before Strasser declaration of breaking away from the NSADP and even before Strasser joined the party Hitler and Strasser never liked each other constantly fighting over the direction of were NSADP and the Nationalist cause should go. Black Front despite calling itself a National Socialist organization moderated on the antisemitism evening working with many jews such as Kurt Hiller and Helmut Hirsch. Strasser also called for a temporary alliance with the communist to overthrow the Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles. Otto Strasser also supported India independence from Britain and saw the British as a bigger threat than the Soviet Union.  Strasser took influence from many Conservative Revolutionaries such as Oswald Spengler and Arthur Moller Van Den Bruck. Strasser even adopted many Conservative Revolution symbols and ideas, arguably being closer to CR than Hitler National Socialism.

This immediately attracted the interest of Karl Otto Paetel and other National Bolsheviks/ National Revolutionaries, but Paetel soon became disinterested yet again because Strasser did not like Marxism materialism and internationalism, which Paetel disputed. Strasser was also a Christian which influenced his politics along with being an agrarian socialist. While Paetel was Pagan, in favor of industrialization and class struggle while Strasser in long run hoped for class collaboration once liberal and international capitalist were overthrown.  Despite Strasser and Paetel disagreements Strasser and Black Front played an important role in 1930s to combat the NSADP inciting SA Stern Revolt along with getting in street fights with NSAPD and trying form alliance with other anti-Hitler Nationalist and Socialist groups.

While the National Revolutionaries and The Black Front may have had their quarrels with one another. They all agreed however to support the Rural Movement. The Rural Movement was a collection of small farmers who began to protest the government over the economic situation and the Treaty of Versailles. The Farmers would refuse to pay taxes, protested, and even rioted at times. This immediately attracted the National Revolutionaries and Black Front who saw potential in the movement. Some even in the National Revolutionary Camp such as Ernst von Salomon’s and brother Bruno took part in the movement and ran a magazine in support of the cause called Landvolk and committed bombing against government buildings, the last one being very unpopular with the wider movement.  Ernst Niekisch was also had sympathies for movement, giving speeches and writings positively about the group.

What also gave the National Revolutionaries and the wider Conservative Revolution a chance was that NSAPD at the time did not have popular support amongst the farmers as historian Armin Mohler points out. However the Conservative Revolution failed to capitalize on this as many prominent leaders like Claus Hiem and Ernst Von Salomon were arrested do to the bombing campaign that also made the group lose support. Which gave NSAPD more sway over the farming population. The National Revolutionaries were also divided on who should the support go to for the election of 1930. Niekisch supported Claus Hiem one of the rural leaders arrested and if Hiem won he would be freed from prison. Others like Bruno Von Salomon went over to the Communist Party. Other like Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetel refused to take part in electoral politics out of principle of being anti parliamentarian. However, none of these attempts succeeded and Rural Movement continued to decline but Niekisch carried much influence in the movement all the way up to 1933. This was the last chance German Conservative Revolution had to become a popular movement or overthrow the Weimar Government.

Despite their best efforts to combat Hitler and the NSADP they were still unable to defeat the NSADP. Whatever Black Front, National Revolutionaries and wider Conservative Revolutionary movement could do to undermine NSAPD, Hitler and NSAPD could do five times better by disrupting Black Front and CR meeting. Even at one-point NSAPD had men ambush Otto Strasser but were unable to kill him. In 1933 right before Hitler was elected Karl Otto Paetel would publish the last major work of German National Bolshevism the National Bolshevik Manifesto which goes into Paetel views more in-depth. Not long after Hitler came to power with many in CR going underground with Otto Strasser Black Front being immediately banned and Paetel manifesto being suppressed. Paetel would also help to form first resistance circles soon afterwards

Not long after in 1934 the Night of Long Knives happen effectively wiping out any opposition from within the NSADP. Along with killing some members of Conservative Revolution such as Edgar Jung. Then the banning of all other parties such as KDP afterwards.  Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetel would flee the country with those remaining starting resistance groups inside the country, While Strasser would try organizing resistance outside the country. Strasser would set up a radio station outside of Germany border with Czechoslovakia to reach into Germany spreading anti-Hitler messages and even tried to send an infiltrator into the country to attack NSADP HQ Nuremberg but was caught and executed and Strasser radio station was soon sabotage and with most of the Black Front dismantled in 1937 Strasser would flee to Canada. Still having contact with some German resistance groups and still trying to organize with no successes. Not much is known about Paetel life after he fled Germany but what is known is that he moved to America. It should be noted that the KPD leader Karl Radek also fled the country to the Soviet Union in 1923 after a failed communist uprising in Hamburg Germany. Radek would side with Trotsky Left Opposition and would be killed for it in may of 1939.

While Strasser and Paetel were lucky to escape Germany many of their supporters and friends were not so lucky with many of them ending in concentration camps arguably being some of the first victims of the Hitler Government. Notable examples being Fritz Wolffhiem who would die in Revensbruck concentration camp. Another example being the leader of national communist faction of the KDP Beppo Romer who would be tortured to death after being in a plot to assassinate Hitler. The brother of Otto Strasser Gregor who led with his bother the radical socialist section within the NSADP would be killed in the Night of the Long Knives. Ernst Niekisch would go to a concentration camp too but would survive but severely blind. Before Niekisch went to a concentration camp he would go to Italy in 1935 to try to get the support from Italian leader Benito Mussolini and would meet German Ambassador to Italy Ulrich Von Hassel with both agreeing that Hitlers strong Anti-Soviet position would be at the destruction of Germany however only Ulrich would end up taking action against Hitler during the July 20th Plot. While it may sound odd that Niekisch went to Mussolini of all people it should be noted at the time Italian German relations were extremely tense due to National Socialists in Austria supported by Germany who tried to overthrow the Austrian government which was an ally of Italy. While Niekisch and Mussolini agreed to meet again and found many common agreements. Niekisch would soon be arrested in Germany in 1937 and his magazine Widerstand shut down in 1934 a few year earlier. Mussolini due to seeing the French and British as bigger threat to Italian power than Germany would end up siding with Hitler during World War 2.

Despite the Anti-Communism of NSADP German Government they did seek a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union for a time. With one one of the few Pro Soviet nationalist left in the NSADP Joachim Von Ribbentrop leading the negations even meeting with Joseph Stalin. Both Germany and Soviet Union invaded Poland at the same time in 1939 which marks the beginning of the Second World War. This alliance collapsed when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1940. Ribbentrop was completely against this move even passing a note over to Soviet diplomat to give to Stalin stating his disapproval and believing it would lead to Germany demises .

While there was those who got caught early on like Niekisch and Wolffhiem there was those who wouldn’t be caught until the 1940s or not even caught at all.  Ernst Junger and his brother Friedrich would have their houses raid from time to time by the German police but never arrested. Ernst Junger would even take part on July 20th plot of 1944 to assassinate Hitler and drew up for peace proposal to allies and to maintain Germany sovereignty which did not happen due the plot failing. Ernst Junger also helped Jews such as Sophie Ravoux hide her true ethnic identity and warned the French Resistance of immediate deportation of Jews in France were he was stationed at.

Ernst Von Salomon another conservative revolutionary did many similar things as Junger such as hiding his Jewish wife from the German Authorities and was in contact with Red Orchestra a resistance group that transmitted information to the Soviet Union on German Military activity. The group was a communist organization but had many connections with nationalist and conservative resistance circles. One of the Red Orchestra leaders a Luftwaffe officer Harro Boysen was a part of Otto Strasser Black Front in the early 1930s. However Red Orchestra would be discovered by the German authorities in 1942 and Boysen would be executed the same year. Another leader of Red Orchestra Marxist economist Arvid Harnack was the founder of ARPLAN a group that studied the Soviet Planned economy which had Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Junger in it.  Harnack would also be executed in 1942.

The July 20th Plotter as stated earlier had many connections with people like Ernst Junger and Ernst Niekisch. Along with holding many similar nationalist and socialist beliefs. Sharing Niekisch belief that Hitler foreign policy and war strategy would be the death of Germany. Some notable names being ambassador Ulrich Von Hassel, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, German Army Officer Klaus Von Stauffenberg and his brother Berthold. The group would try to kill Hitler with a bomb then throw a coup but would fail with many of plotter being executed. This would be the last major attempt to overthrow Hitler by the Conservative Revolution and the Pro Soviet Right. Only less than a year later in April of 1945 Hitler would commit suicide and Germany would surrender soon after. However, this was no victory for pro soviet nationalist and conservative causes in Germany as their country would be broken up into East and West Germany and many of them were blacklisted such as Otto Strasser by Western controlled government who was not allowed to return West Germany until the 1950s but was offered a position in East Germany, but Strasser declined. Some like Ernst Von Salomon and his wife would even be abused and beaten in an American prison. Joachmin von Ribbentrop would be hanged for being apart of German government and for war crimes.   Other like Ernst Niekisch would go on to live in East Germany being completely disillusion with his old ideas. Karl Otto Paetel would write and give lectures about the National Bolsheviks of Germany in America, but political activity stopped. Ernst Junger would remain a controversial but a popular writer but would abandon his pro soviet positions being skeptical of all large-scale organizations and even being denounced by the East German Government. Salomon would write about his political activities, but political activity would stop.  While this may sound like the Pro Soviet Right was all but destroyed this would hardly be case for long as Cold War would start to heat up. Along with many of the new communist governments taking on the nationalist positions that Niekisch and Paetel would hope for them to take on.

Part 2 coming soon.


 Pre Bolshevik-Revolution Right Wing Interest in Socialism 1800s to 1917

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engles

William Morris – Wikipedia

Edward Bellamy – Wikipedia

The Russian Conservative Revolution by Alexander Dugin

Conservatism Against Itself by Christopher Lasch

Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel

illusion of Progress by Georges Sorel

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

Cercle Proudhon Archive

The Russian Revolution and The White Bleeding Red

The Russian Conservative Revolution by Alexander Dugin

Left-Wing Eurasianism and Postcolonial Theory by Nikolay Smirnov

THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE by Nikolay Ustryalov

Nikolay Ustryalov on The End of the Russian Civil War

N.V. Ustryalov letter to Pyotr.P. Suvchinsky (1926)

German Conservative Revolution

The Conservative Revolution in Germany 1918 to 1932 by Armin Mohler and Karlheinz Weissmann

Ernst Junger our prophet of anarchy by Aris Roussinos   

Ernst Jünger: our prophet of anarchy – UnHerd

The Third Empire by Author Moller Van Den Bruck

The National Bolshevik Manifesto by Karl Otto Paetel

National Bolshevism in Weimar Germany; Alliance of political extremes against democracy by Abraham Ascher and Guenter Lewy

Class Struggle by Ernst Niekisch

Technology The Devourer of Man by Ernst Niekisch

German National Bolshevism from 1918 to 1932 by Karl O. Paetel

The National Bolshevik Resistance to Nazism by Luc Michel

The Fathers of German “National Communism”: Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim – Rébellion

The Socialists Leave the NSDAP! By Otto Strasser

The Manifesto of the Black Front by Otto Strasser

Socialist Transformation by Fritz Weth

Ernst Jünger and National Bolshevism by Louis Dupeux 

Walter Lass and Karl-Otto Paetel, Two German National-Bolsheviks – Edouard Rix – Réfléchir & Agir – Summer



NATIONALIST REVOLUTION By Ernst Junger published in May 20, 1926

Russian version can be found here

Thanks to the honorific title “nationalists”, we would like to most decisively dissociate ourselves not only from those for whom this word simply means “vileness”, but also from peace-loving inhabitants in general. A movement that wants to defend the values ​​of life by resorting to violence, and which does not care whether it is approved by conventional morality or not, is based on the dogs of war, on real tough guys who give their whole heart to the cause. These are not the small shopkeepers and marzipan growers that the age of conscription fills the army with, but men who take risks because they have a desire to take risks. These are not those sweet creatures who consider the state saved if someone walks down the street in a general’s uniform or carries a black-white-red banner, and for whom, with the fall of the throne, world history seems to have lost its meaning. Yes, if these defenders of peace, order and the force of inertia, to whom liberalism had to pay pensions for the supply of inexhaustible material for its vigorous activity – if they acted as champions of nationalism – then the continuation of the existence of the Noyabrsk Republic would be guaranteed. For there would be no need for a protective law, and with mutual rejection between conservative and democratic liberalism, the need for a movement would be satisfied if it could not sometimes hope for full nourishment from communism. But with such limitations, one cannot count on long-term success. From that time on, the possibility of a national revolution has increased with discouraging clarity. And at the same time, for liberalism, there is a danger of losing in an instant, thanks to an act of life-giving lawlessness, the huge booty that was supposedly seized finally in 1918. Nationalism itself is surprised by this possibility, which would have been completely unthinkable without what happened, without war, revolution and the balance of power, was their consequence. His adepts were so accustomed to having their wills tied to a vast extant system that with the disappearance of that system, willpower seemed to have been lost. Since nationalism has not shaken off all this from itself like a worn jacket, it needs a long time to internally overcome the complex of forms of the old state, after they ceased to belong to the real world. With its first uprising in Munich, which did not yet have clear goals, nationalism joined this process. Thanks to his successes, new sensations became fully alive. The will to power was seen no longer bound, no longer bound, but completely liberated, as free as the German will had perhaps never been before. So, for nationalism is a perfectly clear position. The formal stability of the past has come to an end, and care for it should be entrusted, on the one hand, to the townsfolk, and on the other, to leaflets like the Weltbühne. The first, self-evident duty of nationalism is to move away from the battlefield, which lies in a secondary direction. Its task, on the contrary, is to fight by all means against the present state, which, with some improvements in the façade, counted by the layman, has lasted since 1918. And stone upon stone cannot be left here. To make nationalism capable of this task was the very meaning of the revolution of 1918. Thanks to her, not only was she freed from the fear that the Germans feel before revolutions, but she also removed all the large stones in the way that internal obstacles could prepare for the will of the nationalists, which knows no limits. Turning this path into a revolutionary one is inevitable, not only in order to deliver a mortal blow to liberalism, bypassing all legalistic indulgence, but also to strengthen the very will of the nationalists. The nationalist has no right to keep another possibility in his field of vision. He has a sacred duty to give Germany the first real one, which means a revolution led by merciless ideas that open a new era. Revolution, revolution! This is what that must be continually preached, furiously, systematically, and unyieldingly, and such preaching must be calculated for years to come. Only a few have accepted this demand in all its sharpness, sentimental nonsense still flourishes about fraternization and unity through all conceivable and inconceivable forms of spirit. To the scaffold with it or to the parliaments, that’s where there should be a place for it. In the transient world there can be no reconciliation between opposites, there is nothing here but struggle. The nationalist revolution does not need preachers of order and peace, it needs a proclaimer of the saying: “The lord with a sharp sword will rise above you!” It must free the word “revolution” from the ridiculousness with which it has been measured in Germany for almost a hundred years. In the great war, a new breed of danger-loving people has developed, So get to work, comrades! Let’s increase our influence in the fighting alliances, as their revolutionization is an urgent need. Less comfort, less members, more action! Centralized preparation! Let’s go to the workers! Away from all lazy charms of economic calm. We are not behind-the-scenes executives of employers. It is necessary to create and centralize militant nationalist trade unions, and they must be led by nationalist workers. On the nationalist barricades they will do more than Marxism has been able to do in fifty years. What about the universities, the youth movement, and those other places that we have questions about? What is a primary cell? What is the positive attitude towards the state? Thanks to cooperation and thanks to the opposition. Why is he being rejected? Separating myself from him starving him out and building a state within a state, independently starting from an idea and ending with the means of coercion that should be applied to him. In what way is the German nation viewed positively? Honoring her to the extent that one can read something, that is, being a nationalist. To be a nationalist in the war was to be willing to die for Germany, to be a nationalist today is to raise the banner of the revolution for a more beautiful and greater Germany. This goal is worthy of the best and most ardent youth of our country. that is, being a nationalist. 

Orthodox Christian liturgical music: music for the mind and soul by Ambrose Nelson

As time has gone by we have seen the slow progression of music moving from music used to enhance prayer and devotion to our lord to depriving us of spirituality through promotion of material possession such as women, money, luxury cars, pre-martial sex, and so on and so forth. Such things intrude into our souls and create an inner darkness of which only deep prayer and conciliation can we recover from. From this often times those of us who are more religiously incline will retreat to more spiritually grounded music, music of which glorifies god.

Music of the Past

Back even before the time of the incarnation music was used to glorify god. There are numerous examples in the Old Testament where people would sing praises to god. For some context the most famous musician in the Bible is King David. He primarily used music for the purpose of worshiping God (see Psalm 4:1; 6:1, 54:1, 55:1; 61:1; 67:1; 76:1) We can also see spiritual music ridding of demons. when King Saul was tormented by evil spirits, he would call on David to play the harp in order to soothe him (1 Samuel 16:14-23). In the New Testament, the apostle Paul instructs Christians to encourage one another with music: “Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in the heart to the lord” (Ephesians 5:19). From this we can see that spiritual music is used for numerous purposes but the primary objective is to lift us up in the faith as we praise god our father.

Music of the present

As it currently stands modern music outside of the orthodox church does not accomplish this. It goes so far that often times artists who have a hatred for Christianity and other religions will try to tear concept down by praising sin and encourage others to participate in such a lifestyle. One of which is not fulfilling. This is applicable to both mainstream and underground music. For some background I come from an former extreme metal listener point of view. Quite often I use to listen to bands praise sin and even either pretend or fully engage with worshiping satan to rough the feathers of those who speak out against such a thing. For me this was in conflict of my orthodox spirituality. It was almost like living a double life. Encourage to give into sin I became lazy in the faith. Not doing my morning and evening prayers, not keeping into touch of the prayer rule of which I was given, and many other things. It was only until after I stopped engaging in this form of music that my spirituality began to flourish. While it is a struggle to be a orthodox Christian it has gotten slightly easier since than. It has to be said as well that before satan was cast from Heaven and into hell he was known as Lucifer, the angel of music. Before he became jealous and cursed god he would play music in praise. Satan is very easy to deceive others into partaking in music that might sound fun and endearing, however it is a gateway to a sinful lifestyle that satan can pull us into which can create a rabbit hole that is hard to get out of. Fr. Peter Heers a orthodox priest who tackles reformed Protestantism has said that Satan is no spring chicken and has been doing this for a long time and knows how to do this. However, with the glory and forgiveness of god we can be pulled out of such a mess.

What can be done

Now while I’m not a ecumenist or apart of the religious indifference crowd If you are a Christian of any stride whether it be orthodox, catholic, or protestant I would encourage you to show people the music that your church produces. To show those outside of the faith that there is more uplifting and spiritually mindful music that has brings fulfillment to the mind and soul and a sense of greater purpose compared to the smut that you might hear on the radio or see on the TV. I will leave you all with a quote from a man named Andrew Tzoumanekas who used to be a hair metal singer before leaving that life to live the rest of his days as a orthodox christian.


THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE by Nikolay Ustryalov

original Russian version can be found here

The state was the natural fruit of a long historical development. There was a time when the state did not exist and people lived in clans, hordes, tribes. It is possible that someday the time will come when the state of the modern type will cease to exist, giving way to another, some people think, a more perfect form of human communication. Will it be possible to retain the name of the state for her? Opinions differ. But be that as it may, modern humanity lives in states, and it is necessary to give a clear account of the essence of this type of human communication.

Diverse reasons – economic, political, psychological – entailed the complication of forms of joint life of people. The primitive social union – the horde – was a simple human herd, and, it is clear that neither the material needs of people, nor their personal security, nor their growing spiritual needs could, with such a primitive organization of society, be tolerably provided . The desire to satisfy needs more fully and better served as the reason for the complication and improvement of forms of mutual communication.

The state is, first of all, a union of power and subordination. Only then can order be conceived in society when a power is established in it that is capable of ordering and coercing. Where there is no power, disorder, disharmony, chaos reign. The beginnings of domination and subordination are laid in the mysterious depths of human nature, the human psyche. As long as this nature is not reborn to its foundation, power will be an inevitable element of society.

In the horde there is no definite organization of power, there is no political differentiation, and therefore there is no stable order. In the state, power acquires a solid foundation, is put at the forefront of the hostel. Power is the basic and primary element of the state. “The state is a powerfully organized people” (Prof. Magazener’s definition).

It would be a mistake to define power as physical dominance, exclusively external force: who, they say, took a stick, that is a corporal. After all, living people should hold the “stick”, “bayonets” also know how to think and feel. Ultimately, power inevitably rests on voluntary obedience. The reference to an armed “backbone” is rarely convincing. Armed support is good when it is reliable, and it is reliable only when it is not the main thing and the main thing. It is bad if you have to guard the guard himself: quis custodet custodem?

The main support of power is not physical strength, not guns, and not fists, but human souls. When there is no support in the souls, neither bayonets, nor prisons, nor other lifeless objects will create and protect the authorities.

Modern social science quite thoroughly proves that the relations of domination and subordination must be recognized as relations, first of all, mental ones. Already in the personal communication of people, we sometimes notice the germ of power interaction: what is respect, adoration, love, if not a prerequisite for power? “Loyalty and authority are eternal in our world,” Carlyle argued, “because they are deeply rooted in reality, in sincere human feeling.”

The great philosopher of antiquity, Aristotle, was inclined to raise the question of power even more broadly, on the scale of the general law of nature, – “The element of domination and the element of subordination,” he wrote in his Politics, “is connected in everything that, being composed from several parts, continuously connected with one another and disconnected, constitutes something whole. True, in inanimate objects, for example, in musical harmony, one can notice a kind of principle of subordination.

The personal power of a person over a person is nothing but a kind of psychic connection of people. There is in it something of hypnosis, of suggestion and self-hypnosis. The “will to power” corresponds to the “feeling of dependency,” the same feeling in which Schleiermacher sought the source of religion. In the human soul , the will to dominate and the will to obey are intertwined. The absolute absence of subordination, boundless freedom, a person endures just as hard as the burden of excessive, unconditional power: the “cross of freedom” is no less heavy than the “yoke of tyranny.” Dostoevsky brilliantly expressed this idea in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor. “Nothing has ever been more unbearable for a person and for human society than freedom” – this is the basis of the worldview and life of the inquisitor.

If a person yearns for authority, then at the same time the thirst for domination, the instinct for power (Machttrieb), stubbornly lives in him. Do we know little from history and from literature of examples of intoxication with power, the rapture of power? Everyone remembers the monologue of Pushkin’s Miserly Knight!

What is not under my control? Like some kind of demon

I can rule from here…

And the free genius will enslave me,

And virtue, and sleepless work

They will humbly await my reward…

Everything is obedient to me, but I am nothing.

And here is the review of Napoleon, the great poet and master of power – “I love power,” he wrote to Raederer in 1809, “I love it like an artist … I love it, like a musician loves his violin, I love to play from it sounds, chords, harmony … Everywhere where I was, I commanded. I was born for this. “

But at the same time, it happens that the greatest rulers of people themselves, in turn, feel an ineradicable need for authority, for guidance, for a strong refuge. Let’s remember Ivan the Terrible: didn’t he really have a taste for power and didn’t understand it? And, however, who experienced the horror of his loneliness more sharply, more intensely than him, and fell in sleepless nights to the Higher Power, in front of which it is so gratifying to feel like a “slave”? Or let’s take modern dictators like Lenin or Mussolini: ruling the people, enthusiastically cultivating rigid and absolute power, aren’t they themselves slaves of ideas, admirers of the principles that rule in their minds? Ruling people, they obey “things and ghosts” (Nietzsche). The “feeling of dependence” is no less characteristic of them than the “will to power.”

It happens, however, that an imperious state is not connected with an imperious will. In Russian literature, this issue was noted by Korkunov (“Decree and Law”, ch. 1). The will to obedience, the thirst for authority is self-determined. The ascetic does not strive for power, but the brighter his halo, the more frenziedly they obey him.

So, the roots of power lie deep in the recesses of the human psyche. Gradually, the personal power of a person over a person expanded and acquired a supra-individual, social significance: a social “prestige” was born, an organization was created, an impersonal

public authority. So, for example, the power of the German kings grew out of their initial personal influence on a limited circle of people who made up their squad. The role of the Varangian princes and their retinue in the formation of the Russian state is known. The Arab caliphate based its power on the personal authority of Mohammed. The psyche of the masses turns out to be an excellent medium of power. The ability to understand this specific social psyche, to master it and direct it, to feel the laws of the “technique of the masses” is the property of great statesmen. It is not for nothing that sociologists pay much attention to the problems of collective psychology (in particular, “heroes and the crowd”): these problems are inexhaustible in their essence, and the ongoing historical process constantly supplies new materials for their deepening and elucidation.

The role of spontaneous-subconscious moments in the complex of power relations is enormous: probably, here are the dark echoes of the initial vital impulse, the will of the biological factor. Logic and reason, argue many sociologists, have never been the real leaders of peoples: the irrational, the unconscious, the instinctive, has always been one of the most powerful engines of mankind. The state is an emotional phenomenon. Mass habit must be recognized as another essential factor: “habit is the soul of powers” (Pushkin).

On the contrary, reflection is by no means always a reliable companion of power status; where individual political reflection becomes a mass phenomenon, where political supermen begin to roam in herds without shepherds, there the state is in danger. The same Napoleon spoke about this in exceptionally clear, figurative formulas, “I was born too late,” he exclaimed, “now it’s hard to do something great! … What a difference compared to ancient times! Take, for example , Alexandra: having conquered Asia, he declared himself the son of Jupiter, and the whole East believed this, with the exception of … Aristotle and a few stupid pedants. The peoples are now too enlightened, there is no more opportunity to do great things!

In these paradoxes of genius, there is a lot of sensitivity and sharpness of sight. But still, on the other hand, it would be erroneous to ignore the presence of elements of consciousness in relation to power and subordination. The peoples are enlightened, power is inevitably rationalized, and the claims of consciousness grow in the public recognition of power. But great deeds have not outlived their time: didn’t Napoleon himself manage to do them, aren’t they being done in our days? Obviously, the task is to adapt the ruling values ​​to a new level of consciousness, to master reflection by its own means and creatively overcome it, at the same time raising the subconscious to a higher level …

This is one of the characteristic functions of the state as hitherto the highest form of human communication.

Unlike earlier types of community life, the state is a single, dominating, forced union, which was the result of the complication of social needs, the wide unification of people and the perceived need for firm protection of order in society. Protecting order, the state thereby contributes to the development of material capabilities and spiritual abilities of a person. It seeks to realize the common interest of its members. The stronger the consciousness of the commonality of this interest among the latter, the stronger, stronger, more viable the state, the historical union of unity and order.

The establishment of a firm political power, defined in its organization, became possible only when the nomadic tribes turned into sedentary peoples. The economic prerequisite for the state was, therefore, the transition to agriculture, associated with the settlement of people on a certain, limited part of the earth’s surface, or territory. The power of the modern state operates on a strictly defined space, extending only to people living within this space.

But the state is a union not only of power, but to a large extent also of law. Some writers and scientists even believe that the state should be considered exclusively as a legal phenomenon. The old contractual theory, through the mouth of Rousseau, categorically emphasized that “power does not create rights, and a person is obliged to obey only legitimate authorities”; and only authorities can be recognized as legitimate, the establishment of which is conditioned by a social contract and fixed by the general will. In our time, supporters of the so-called “legal method” in the science of the state also insist on the indispensable interpretation of the state as a phenomenon, through and through juridical, in the fundamental principle of its law exhausted by categories. The state is considered by the Gerber school as a closed system of legal order.

The most prominent representative of this point of view at the present time is the outstanding Austrian statesman Kelsen. In his normativism, he wants to be consistent to the end. He categorically proclaims “the identity of the state and law”, draws an equal sign between the doctrine of the state and the doctrine of state law. According to his definition, “the state is the order of human behavior, the system of norms regulating human behavior.” The order, which is the essence of the state, he considers, therefore, the normative order. The old Kantian dualism of due and existing is revived by Kelsen in its emphasized sharpness and is applied in the field of the science of the state. “The state is the objective significance of the normative order. This significance of obligation is a specific sphere of existence of the state. The state is an ideal order, an ideal system.

True, the author by no means considers the gap between the norm and the fact to be absolute. He states that the state order can only be recognized as normatively significant when the actual behavior of people, related to this order, corresponds to it to a certain extent in its content. “There are stubborn heads who consider the state order of tsarist Russia to be significant on the grounds that it was not legally abolished by anyone. But this is the point of view of fools.” However, and vice versa, it is impossible to create such a normative order in which any behavior of people subordinate to it would be strictly in accordance with the norm. Violations and deviations are always inevitable. Only the norm: “You must behave as you actually behave” would never be violated, but it is meaningless. It is, therefore, minimum.

This is how the unity of the state and law is obtained; their dualism is only apparent: Scheindualismus.

On these premises, Kelsen builds his whole concept of the science of the state. It encounters many objections in the literature on the subject, and not without reason. Even Iering, who himself worked hard for the legal method, ridiculed an excessive tendency to be carried away by deductions and warned researchers against hovering in the skies of formal concepts of jurisprudence.

It is difficult to agree with the extremes of abstract legal normativism. It is rightly said of them that they sin by “denaturalizing” the state phenomenon, by losing a sense of the reality of the state. They deliberately obscure the complex historical nature of the state, which is far from fitting into the framework of pure law. If the very emergence of the state is always “meta-legal”, being the result of the actual situation, actual social relations, then in the long centuries-old history of state formations much will not be clear to us without taking into account their “social factuality”, that is, that side of them that escapes from field of view of the legal method. Is it conceivable, say, to study the state of absolutism, proceeding from the identification of state reality with the rule of law? Wouldn’t this be a methodological misunderstanding? States are clothed in flesh and blood, attached to the life-giving source of world history: Spengler is right that the fundamental method of their comprehension is not systematics, but physiognomy. In the “state law” of legal normativists, the state is least of all present.

True, Kelsen himself speaks of the necessity of a certain correspondence between the “significance of the normative order” and the actual flow of facts. Consequently, “facts” are far from indifferent to law. But why then exclude all sociological, teleological and other aspects from the concept of the state? The integral phenomenon of the state is, as it were, artificially damaged by unilateral legal normativism. State studies, free from such artificial one-sidedness, must first of all focus on historical experience in its entirety and richest diversity, on historical and comparative data, on historical science, coexisting in harmony with sociology, and with political morphology, and with jurisprudence, and with ethics . State science must be truly dialectical.

The merits of the dogmatic-juridical method cannot be denied: it teaches “the logical mastery of positive legal material” (Laband). But, applying it, one must relentlessly remember that he comprehends the state only expressed in legal norms, the state as a legal institution, as a scientific construction. The dynamics of living phenomena eludes him, he is forced to conventionally close himself in statics, in the scheme of his subject. If the facts are not embraced by this system of positive norms and even break it, from the point of view of a consistently pursued juridical method, it remains only to proclaim – “so much the worse for the facts” …

The state exists. The state is a “great fact” (O. Mayer). And, above all, it is subject to study precisely as a being. It has long been customary to introduce the motives of duty into the definition of the state, that is, to define the state not so much as it is [,] but as it should be from the point of view of a scientific researcher. This is hardly a fruitful path, and it is not for nothing that it has irritated and irritates so many sociologists, beginning with the venerable Gumplovich. No one is forbidden to express their own views on the goals and tasks of the state, serious attempts to establish its objective historical meaning are undeniably valuable, but it is always more expedient to start with an understanding of its actual nature, its real features.

The sociological side of the state phenomenon is developed by social science. It closely follows the complex, infinitely varied movements of social groups, races, classes, associations, the ascent and descent of cultures, the vast social processes that constitute, in the words of one sociologist, “the skeleton of world history.”

Gumplovich (“Allgemeines Staatsrecht”, 1907, pp. 23-38.) sees the precondition of the state in the political and economic struggle of human groups. For him, as for the ancient Heraclitus, discord is the father and king of all things: “struggle is a form of social formation.” The strongest, most active tribal groups, having won in it, begin to exploit the defeated, for which the state apparatus is organized and as a result of which there arises what we call culture: the deepening and refinement of the vital contents of the upper classes on the basis of the division of labor. But the social struggle does not stop even in the state, although a certain equalization of social differences, a certain softening of social contradictions take place all the time: such is the natural function of the state.

One human group defeats another in the struggle for existence: Darwinism applies not only to the natural world, but also to human society. The victors dominate the vanquished. What for? — To profit for themselves by their economic exploitation. Hence the class differentiation: the ruling and the subservient, the oppressors and the oppressed. Modern sociology pays great attention to the historical role of the economic factor. As is well known, the Marxist sociological school proves that it is precisely the economy that underlies social authority, legal norms, state power: “any political force,” wrote Engels, “is based initially on the economic social function” (“Anti-Dühring”). Modern Marxism erects a whole system of its doctrine of the state, associated with this initial historical-materialistic premise. It would be a mistake to deny the extraordinary value of a number of specific Marxist studies in the field of the sociology of state existence. Historical materialism is par excellence a method, and its critical use yields good results in the analysis of social phenomena. Underestimation of the role of the economic factor in the history and life of the state, as well as in the development of power relations in general, is now, one might say, directly unforgivable. In any case, it is no less unforgivable than the underestimation of the biological factor. And we have to admit that over time, the importance of economic moments in the life of the state has a noticeable tendency to increase.

More controversial is the Marxist definition of the state as “a machine of systematic violence of one class over another.” Already the Communist Manifesto of 1848 proclaimed that “political power in the proper sense of the word is the organized power of one class for the purpose of oppressing another class.” In this definition, criticism has repeatedly revealed the existence of a certain kind of simplistic schematization. The function of oppression, the state of social parasitism does not determine and in any case does not exhaust the role of the ruling state stratum. At the same time, not only the class struggle is manifested in the state, but also class cooperation, interclass peace. Engels himself recognized that “the state arose from the need to restrain class contradictions.” Raised on the soil of social struggle, the state in its development at times succeeds in this struggle, if not to overcome it at all, then to transform, significantly neutralize, change its forms, thereby transforming its very essence. Social solidarity is the same law of human nature as social struggle. It is difficult to dispute the theses of Marxism about the class structure of modern society. The sociology of the state has no right to ignore the various class and group interests, harassment, aspirations that are reflected in the policy of state power. These interests, harassment, aspirations often oppose each other. It happens that state power, by the force of things, really turns into a militant organization of class domination. But unconditional generalizations are hardly legitimate here. No less often, for their own class-egoistic purposes, their bearers seek peaceful compromises, achieve relative historical balance by mutual concessions, create conditions for the possibility of development, alien to painful upheavals. Even if the state power in its personnel is painted in class colors, the very logic of community life forces it to take care of the “general interest” as well. This “common interest” or balance between classes sometimes influences and puts pressure on the personnel of power, which in such cases becomes “mixed”. Far-sighted class egoism is inevitably altruistic: the eternal dialectic of egoism and altruism! It is characteristic of the state that, interested in peace and order, it strives to smooth out and mitigate class contradictions and present their approximate resultant. Let us recall, for example, the history of England: next to the stormy revolutionary outbursts, how many masterful socio-political compromises! And what consciousness of national unity, community of national interests! The state is a complicated system of political levers and safety valves designed to prevent class conflicts, or at least mitigate their pain. True, it is sometimes said that “the class struggle can sometimes manifest itself in the forms of interclass peace, alliance, cooperation.” But then, obviously, all the special sharpness of the corresponding theory already disappears in a pseudo-dialectical fog. 

It is possible that the logic of economic development will lead in the future to the complete abolition of the class struggle and the classes themselves in the modern sense of the concept. Marxism claims that then the state will cease to exist, giving way to an organized society. From his point of view, he is right: he sees the exhaustive sign of the state in class violence, in exploitation. But if this restrictive definition is considered insufficient, the outlook on the future of the state must also change: it persists even with the disappearance of the class struggle. To a certain extent, the controversy becomes terminological: is it possible to call an organized society of a problematic future a state?…

So, the state is a polysyllabic phenomenon, moreover, its focus, its fundamental beginning, is power. As for law, it is one of the most important constituent elements. The state can be more or less legal, depending on how much state power is imbued in its activities with the principles of law. It should be recognized that as the historical development of states within a given civilization, they tended to “juridize”. Legal moments were manifested in them brighter and more convex. The power is given to a precise, specially formulated and steadily implemented organization. Both the forms of its implementation and the scope of its powers are outlined in advance. The state lives on the basis of permanent rules, laws issued and repealed in the prescribed manner. power is ideally bound by them: it has the right to cancel or modify them, but must not violate them. Rulers become servants of their own power. Dominion is becoming more and more legal in nature, subject to the regime of legality. If at the dawn of state life the conviction triumphed that the ruler was independent of the laws (princeps legibus solutus est), then over time this conviction had to give way to another, opposite one: the ruler, the government, the highest guardian, the first servant of law.

Normal legal consciousness is especially sensitive to offenses emanating from the authorities, called upon to create and observe the law. “No injustice,” wrote Iering, “that a person has to endure, no matter how hard it may be, cannot be compared with what power does when it itself violates the right. The murder of justice (Justizmord) is truly a mortal sin against the right The guardian and guardian of the law turns into its killer: this is a doctor who poisons the patient, a guardian who suffocates the ward” (“Struggle for the Law”).

The state consists of people and exists for people. No matter how the power is built, its task is to serve the good of the whole, for the benefit and prosperity of the population. Modern legal consciousness requires the state to recognize certain rights for the population, for every person living in the state. The people should be not only the subject of domination, but also the subject of law. Being obliged to obey the dictates of authority, he is at the same time the goal of these decrees. Not domination and subjugation, as such, but joint action in a certain direction – such is the idea of ​​the modern state. Those in power have power not for their own benefit, but for the good of the state. Power is not a personal advantage, but public service, sometimes a heavy duty. The abuse of power therefore perverts its very meaning, on the basis of which the French revolutionary ” becomes the most sacred of rights and the most necessary of duties.” It is curious to note that we find a similar idea in the Middle Ages with the famous church father Thomas Aquinas, – “A tyrannical government is unjust,” he says, “because it does not seek the common good but for the private benefit of the one who rules… and therefore the revolt raised against such a government is not of a rebellious nature”…

The modern state of civilized mankind can be called a legal state in the conditional, technical sense of the term. Analyzing its appearance, prof. N. N. Alekseev lists the following four main tasks of legal ruling: “1) to depersonalize ruling, turning it from a state of indefinite personal dependence into some general pattern of relations, in the dominance of formal legality, 2) to bind those in power with legal obligations and thereby raise ruling to a degree social service, 3) to raise the object of domination from the level of simple matter to the degree of a subject of law, and 4 ) to accurately determine the content of power relations, the competence of those in power and the rights of those subject to “(“Introduction to the Study of Law”, p. 145).

“The rule of law,” Professor Kokoshkin defines this concept, “is a state that, in its relations with its subjects, is bound by law, is subject to law, in other words, a state whose members have not only duties, but also rights in relation to it: are not only subjects, but also citizens” (Lectures, (48, p. 261).

“As a final result of the process of gradual growth of law-building,” argues Prof. B. Kistyakovsky, “law restructures the state and turns it into a legal phenomenon, into the creation of law” (Social Sciences and Law, pp. 594-5). The peoples of our time live in states called legal, and even hitherto some are imbued with the principles of law to a greater extent, while others to a lesser extent.

However, it is still necessary to make a reservation that the state, as such, cannot be completely exhausted by law. The element of power in the state inevitably takes precedence over the element of law. “Let’s abandon the usual methods of research,” writes Prof. S. A. Kotlyarevsky, “and try to imagine the state simply, as part of the world in which we live: it will immediately unite for us with the image of power.” And this power does not lend itself to complete dissolution in law in the “sovereignty of law.” “World history cannot retire because of jurisprudence,” we read from the German jurist Radbruch.

Jellinek’s theory of “self-binding”, self-restriction of the state is widely known: by the act of creating law, no matter what it consists in, the state undertakes to support and implement law before its subjects; observance of the law is a legal duty of the state.

This theory is characteristic as an expression of the tendency of the scientific legal consciousness of the end of the 19th century. But it hardly solves successfully the basic problem of the relationship between law and the state.

Indeed, if the state is, as Jellinek believes, the creator of law, what is the price of its legal self-binding? Where are the real guarantees of the strength of the legal coherence of power? Since the state itself sets restrictive rules for itself, it can always cancel them. If, however, law is an independent principle, independent of the state and not receiving its significance from the state, then where does it get a real opportunity to limit state power?

If the question is about natural law, about legal ideals and beliefs, it is more appropriate to talk about ethical and social, rather than legal boundaries and restraints of power. Such actual boundaries and checks are indisputable. If, however, right is directly understood as categories of a sociological order, for example, the phenomenon of social solidarity (the theory of Duguit), then again, in essence, there is no need to interpret the legal restriction of power, and, in addition, the question arises about the specific content of the requirements imposed by such “right” to the state. For, after all, the state is also a social fact, embodying that degree of social solidarity which corresponds to the present historical conditions. Who will “legally” oppose to it a different understanding of this vague principle?

Law is the most vital, necessary element in the life of peoples, and those who, like our Tolstoy, underestimate it, are deeply mistaken. But one must not close one’s eyes to the truth that in the “critical” epochs of history it is not it, and in any case it is not it alone that moves the world. It recedes in these epochs, stays in a “latent state”. Like the Statue of Liberty in the days of the Convention, it is “draped with a sacred veil,” and a sense of tact should prompt its ministers that this veil must not be touched for the time being.

In the depths of great upheavals, a new right is always ripening. But these upheavals themselves rarely fit entirely into the formal framework of law. Genuine power, seeking its recognition, appeals primarily to itself, to the immanent, inner meaning embedded in it: its aspiration does not know fundamental restraints alien to its nature – Non kennt kein Gebot (need does not know laws). Only when the forced reassessment of values ​​is completed does the right return to the historical stage in order to register the changes that have been made and beneficially “regulate progress” … until the next major reassessment. It is well said that a coup d’état is the only crime that is not punishable once it has succeeded. Successful violence is the vital impulse of history, its creative impulses.

The real pathos of law is in the “tamping down” of the historical path, in the “decreasing of violence and increasing freedom” (Vizer). The continuity of evolutionary development within the framework of law is the fundamental postulate of the legal idea (“the law is repealed only by the law”). The ideal of legal progress is the peaceful transformation of legal institutions on the basis of legal definitions. It is impossible to deny this ideal of reasonableness and attractiveness.

However, the tamping machines at the disposal of the legal idea are not effective enough to turn the wavy, picturesquely rough, thorn-and-rose-strewn field of history into an immaculately smooth sidewalk…

The element of power in the state is deeper, more fundamental than the inoculation of law. It is no coincidence that they speak of the “reason of the state” (raison d’Etat) when state power transcends the limits of the legal norms binding it, makes “breakthroughs in law.” Bonaparte’s Brumaire 18, Bismarck’s budgetary conflict with Parliament (1864-65), Stolypin’s June 3, the application of the clausulae rebus sic stantibus in international law – that is the logic of the state. It cannot be avoided, and the absolute mastery of the power of law always remains an eternally elusive goal, an “endless task” …

“Bread and circuses” – from ancient times the crowds shouted, overturning the principle of “legitimate succession” of legal institutions. “Thy kingdom come!” – exclaimed the Church at the dawn of the Middle Ages, taking up arms against earthly law. “My homeland is above all!” – declares militant nationalism, flaring up with boundless plans and tearing up treaties like scraps of paper. “Long live peace and brotherhood of nations!” proclaims the modern international, declaring all the old law to be sheer “bourgeois prejudice” subject to forcible demolition.

And it is just as fruitless to oppose an abstract legal principle to all these slogans, just as, say, it was absurd to convince Christians by referring to the spirit of the Roman code. A different approach, different planes…

When a new force enters the world, a new big idea, it tests itself by the dignity of its own goals and knows nothing but them. The path of law is not for her, she acquires law only in case of victory (“the normative force of the factual”). It gives birth in pain, tearing the legal covers, destroying the continuity of legal development. It is fraught with its own ethos and is capable of not only coercing, but also convincing.

However, even in normal, peaceful times, there are sometimes “gaps in the law” that are not filled in by formal legal content, and are not provided for by the constitution. What about, for example, a parliamentary state whose head (monarch or president) suddenly fell ill with a serious illness on those days when the ministry loses its majority in the chamber and resigns: a new ministry can only be called by the head of state, who is practically powerless to do this, and the old cannot remain in power after a vote of no confidence.

Within the framework of the positive law of a number of parliamentary states, this issue is unresolvable, just as the well-known case of Russian history was legally unresolvable: according to the decree of Peter the Great on succession to the throne on February 5, 1722, the heir is determined by the will of the reigning emperor; but the emperor himself died three years later without appointing himself an heir. I had to resort to fiction that he “silently” appointed his wife as his successor, who succeeded to the throne.

Lawyers in such cases speak of “gaps in the law.” These gaps, legal voids, vacua are filled with facts. Power appears on the stage as an extra-legal and supra-legal force, guided in its actions by considerations of state expediency. Sometimes these same considerations, as we have seen, force it to act even directly contrary to the “active” positive law. Of course, she must be extremely careful in appropriate decisions in order to be able to deflect criticism from herself in the spirit of the above words of Iering. As a rule, it is forced to justify itself by referring to the highest moral considerations, or to “historical necessity”, or to the “vital interests of the state.” And she is right: every living and viable organism cannot but be alien to the doctrinaire, decadent principle – “

“There are two ways to fight,” wrote Machiavelli, “one through laws, the other through force. The first is characteristic of people, the second unites us with wild animals. The sovereign must be able to fight in both ways. Achilles and other ancient sovereigns at the centaur Chiron, with his double appearance of a man and a beast, instructing the rulers to use in turn the weapons of both of these genera; for each of them, not supplemented by the other, will not bring active benefit “(Prince, ch. XVIII).

At present, we understand this testament of the great teacher of politics not as a wingless, creeping encouragement to the animal side of human existence, but as a sober, penetrating account of our real nature and a keen call to subordinate its animal elements to human tasks. Strength is not given by nature for free. Power is a great, albeit terrible, thing, and it must be directed to the service of good. The element of power must be organized and enlightened under the sign of concrete awareness of the real hierarchy of values.

Even while violating the law, insofar as this is temporarily required by an exceptional situation, the state continues to remain itself. In its life and activities, it can be guided not only by legal principles, but also by moral ones, higher than legal ones. Great historical movements allow direct “shaping” precisely by moral, aesthetic and religious categories to a much greater extent than by legal ones. Often they are driven by love, “which both burns and destroys,” but which also creates and gives life. Law then becomes an instrument, an instrument of higher life goals and values, acquires its true instrumental nature. The right is recognized to serve the good.

Modern legal consciousness insists, however, that all these higher principles, sometimes capable of breaking through the system of existing law, should be transformed as soon as possible by the state that has adopted them into a new legal system.

Thus, summing up, it should be noted that if power is the primary and necessary feature of any state, then the concept of law should be introduced into this definition with some reservations.

The state is a territorially limited, organized unity, an association of settled people in a certain social sphere. Savigny wrote that “the state is a form, a bodily image of people’s communication.” It is concrete, it represents a certain integrity of life relations, social ties.

The state is a society or union of people living in a certain territory and united by submission to a single dominant power. This is the most common formal school definition.

The Curious Case of Japan’s Post War Recovery by Ex Non Grata (guest writer)

Ex Non Grata YouTube and Telegram channels

Unlike the eventual Democratic collapse that was seen in the Weimar Republic after the first world war, and the slow but steady process of democratic backsliding that was seen in the post-soviet republics, the defeat of Japan after the second world war yielded a much different aftermath. For starters, not only was democracy in Japan relatively preserved but the nation went through an unprecedented economic recovery and their rising National prominence has been kept until arguably the 90s. The reason why this is significant is because when compared to other historical events, the case of Japan becomes an anomaly. In the essay that follows, not only will the exact precise change be expanded upon, but the geopolitical context that necessitated such changes will also be given much focus.

Essentially, the focus will be just as strong on the postwar recovery of Japan as it will be on the ways in which the victorious powers brought about such a recovery in the first place. The best way to conceptualize the degree to which Japan made its recovery is to contrast it with a similar example that brought about a much different result. As mentioned in the introduction, the contrast with Weimar is evident on multiple levels; the Americans managed the defeated Japan much more differently when compared to the treatment of the second Reich. These differences included the massive financial input as well as the dedicated effort to shape the political landscape of Japan. This was essentially how the Americans were involved in the process of nation-building: in taking control of Japan’s political destiny, not only did they rewrite the Constitution, they took away much of the Emperor’s powers and completely did away with the military.

All of this is of course unheard of in the previous world war in which the Americans opted for a more isolated approach where they went as far as to leave the League of Nations. But the most important difference was not so much the degree to which the Americans were involved but the manner. Essentially, both after the first world war and after the cold war, the United States made sure to implement substantial changes to the political and cultural realms of their defeated enemies but did not make the effort to preserve the appearance of said politics and culture. This distinction between substance and appearance may seem hard to comprehend just as to what its exact meaning is but put in examples, the significance of preserving the appearance while changing this substance is all too important.

And for this, the comparison to the Weimar Republic must once again be brought back to make things easier to understand just what I mean by substance and appearance. When it comes to the ways in which Japan was assimilated into a liberal democracy, much of what happened could be understood by knowing a single pattern: the foreign powers have reconstructed Japan in substance, and preserved it in its outer appearance. This is to say how the country presented itself remained the same, while the way it functioned changed. In Japan there was no regime change when it came to representatives of power. The same representatives still held their positions, only their actual power was negated. In the art of changing the political status quo, it will become clear in the following paragraphs that preserving the leadership while negating their power to truly lead is key in quelling popular discontent and counter revolutionary elements. Therefore, in the case of Japan, the Emperor remained as the head of state, he has appeared to keep his place. The substance however, was negated. His divinity was taken out, the substantial essence was gone while the outer appearance remained. This isn’t to say that there wasn’t change in appearance at all.

This isn’t to say that there wasn’t change in appearance at all. In fact, there was unprecedented amounts of change. Never before in Japanese history was there the level of political freedom and individual liberty that existed after the war. In the 1960’s for example this newfound mass politics saw a huge wave of protests and clashes with the state. Along with this unprecedented level human and political rights, there were also unprecedented political instability and division.

Left wing movements, now gathered uncensored by state police would congregate mainly in the universities. These student movements would commit arson, take people hostage as political prisoners and most eventful of such examples would be the time communist students as young as 17 highjacked a plane in order to land in North Korea to start a worldwide communist revolution. On the right wing of the spectrum, apart from Mishima literally trying to restore the Japanese Empire, the political assassination of the leader of Japan’s socialist party was caught on live air. So, there were big changes but despite all this, despite Japan being altered and divided political and culturally, at the very least, on the most superficial level, with regards to the head of the state, the politicians, and so on so forth, things were the same. This is to say as things got way too out of hand, the Americans would step in and make sure that Japan would not deviate from the American agenda. Chaos was tolerated until it defied American interests.

As a comparison, whereas the Weimar Republic had its substance and appearance negated, Japan, only had its substance negated. The Kaiser was dethroned, the same could not be said for Japan, a republic was established in Weimar, the same could not be said for Japan. Thus, an outer shell of Japan, with its emperor and much of the politicians running it retained their positions which is the realm of appearance, but not so much their power which is the realm of substance. Therefore, the car remained to be a car, it kept its colour, and one way or another it kept on moving, but its engine was replaced. A similar case followed in the aftermath of the Cold War in which many of the post-soviet states now had much of their communist appearance negated. The fact of the matter is, when looking through historical examples, especially in the last century or so, it becomes clear that in regards to regime changes and nation building, the pattern seems to be that when the appearance changes then the assimilation process is much harder to replicate.

This line of thinking was actually echoed in the wake of the second world war as well when Winston Churchill himself said that one of the biggest mistakes in the Treaty of Versailles was to depose the Kaiser as it negated the chance for the Germans to have an entity to anchor themselves around as they went through the process of democratization. Essentially, be it the Kaiser, the Showa or whoever, the key is to have a representative of the past status quo under the control of those who want to establish the new status quo. Such measures often make the process of ensuring stability much easier. As a matter of fact, there is also a general pattern that exists across the globe in that constitutional monarchies do tend to be more stable democracies than republics. This might have to do with the fact that in a republic, the head of state is partisan and thus the appearance of the state is more influx, making the preservation of a monarchy all the more important to the victorious foreign power.

In any case, moving onto the financial sphere, the specific details are again of significance. Unlike the Versailles treaty the financial reparation was nowhere near as heavy and this relieved the disintegrated state of Japan of much burdens. In fact, when it came to the finances, there was in fact much input made by the Americans. This was known as the Dawes Plan and essentially it was a very similar if not almost identical to the Marshall Plan in which to stabilize the new regime, there was much investment made from the Victorious Nations which basically funded the prosperity of the fragile new state. The significance here lies in the fact that one might wonder why there was such a difference in financial input compared to the aftermath of First and Second World War. The obvious answer might lie in the fact hindsight is 20-20 and one might argue that many policymakers had the aftermath of the first World War in mind when they worked to address the defeated states of the second World War. However, a much more interesting yet just as valid answer is the global climate in the broader sense after the first world war which mimicked much of the ways in which the United States and their allies treated the defeated states (in terms of the lack of investment and involvement) directly after the cold war.

The common denominator in these two cases is the lack of a strong Russian state in both the immediate aftermath of World War 1 and after the Cold War. During these two times, the Russian state was in disarray and this may have led to the hands-off approach when it came to the treatment of the defeated countries in the war against the central powers and the war against communism. If the Russian state was much stronger, this meant that the newly defeated states were susceptible to the Russian sphere of influence. Therefore, after the second world war, when the Soviet Union was perhaps one of the one of if not the strongest nations in Europe (if the union can be considered a nation), the United States did much to fund and invest the defeated countries. Therefore, the bottom line is that if a strong potential adversary was in range of bringing in weak states into their sphere of influence, the Americans were much more likely to invest so that it can put those very set of defeated countries into their own sphere of influence. Thus, this pattern is very much reflective in the broader global geopolitical situation and it might explain why Germany was heavily invested by the British French and Americans after the second World War but not the first. Thus, perhaps it was in the context of the state of Russia, that the Americans, who were very isolationist prior to the first and second world war suddenly became involved in the Korean War Vietnam War and so on so forth.

In conclusion the international support that resulted from the United States occupation contrasted sharply with the isolated approach that occurred right after the first world war and right after the Cold War. It was this style of occupation which was characterized by less reparations and increased effort into financing the defeated State that ultimately allowed Japan to have its postwar recovery. Essentially, much of the recovery was due in large part to how the victorious powers had to finesse their way by engaging in a simultaneous effort to change the substance of the politics and culture all the while maintaining the outer shell of the appearance. This approach was done in light of various geopolitical interests namely the specter of communism and the fact that a more hands off approach contributed greatly to the second world war in the first place. As a result, in the end Japan has become second strongest economy until the 90s and is now only outweighed by China and of course the United States. Unfortunately, due to the current trajectory of international politics, the economic and geopolitical prominence of Japan will only go downhill from here but that is a story for another essay.

The Conservative Case for Class Struggle Part 3: Rising Classes

It is becoming more and more clear now that End of History that Neo Liberal theorist Francis Fukuyama once envisioned where liberalism was the final evolution of government and society is not the end of history or evolution like Fukuyama predicted. With the rise of illiberal countries like Russia and China, slowly bringing us to a multipolar world. Along with America the global hegemon slowly weakening both globally and internally with strong disruption of trade because of Covid and Russia Ukraine war, the fall of Afghanistan, former allies like India, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil turning their backs on the United States refusing to condemn or sanction Russia for its activities in Ukraine. Along with these “allies” refusing to supply the global market with more oil. At home increasing shortages, crime, inflation, political tensions, family, and community disintegration, cultural, and class divides that have rapidly increased due to Covid 19 lockdowns, 2020 race riots and now the Russian Ukraine war has made many of problems worse and have shown the problems of relying on global trade.  ‘

This has hopefully put the nail in the coffin for the Liberal idea of progress and globalization. Even some within the American ruling class like BlackRock CEO Larry Fink believe that the Russian Ukraine War has marked the end of globalization. With that being said this marks the Beginning of the end for the American International Capitalist class especially its most progressive element that dominated America people and the world for so long, at least on an international level. This does not necessarily mean an end to the American capitalist class as the capitalist have been able to revive their rule through economic reforms like the new deal in the past, but it could still lead to decline in coming decades if it cannot solve problems on the home front or be able have new creative energies. This article will discuss the possibilities of progressive capitalist maintaining rule in America and possibility of new classes coming to power.

On some final notes when talking about classes we should not become delusional on ideas of this being the final class of classes. Such delusions had led to the predicament that the International Capitalist or the predicament that Marxist got into when the USSR collapsed and the nations once a part of the USSR became capitalist. When Marxists believed Socialism came after capitalism and Socialism only led to communism, a classless society. Classes like empires, nations, organizations, and individuals all have lifecycles. They can rise then fall or be born then die. The Conservative socialist cannot forget this, or it will lead to the doom of the society, off the delusion of being the “last evolution of class and society.”  

It is also possible that all classes in this text will become the new ruling class at some point or a class not mentioned in this text will come to seize the moment. However, after research and careful consideration I believe it will be one of these classes mention in this article.   

The possibility of current ruling class maintaining power

I will not go over the rise of the international capitalist class and evolution of liberal ideology as I have already done in my article called “In defense of Nationalization and Small Businesses.” The Palo Conservative writer Samuel T. Francis, decades early did a more in-depth look on the rise of international capitalist class as well called “Leviathan and its Enemies.” Patrick Deneen also wrote a good book on the matter of the evolution of liberalism called “Why Liberalism Failed” for those who want to read more on the subject outside this blog. All be it I do not agree with all conclusions of the authors.

  There are numerous problems that the progressive international capitalist class must fix from social to economic problems if it wants to stay in power. This will be divided into 7 major points of the most concerning problems. This is not to say the conservative socialist or the working class should support the progressive capitalist if these changes are made but rather to say if the capitalist were to make these changes they could hold onto power and different approach to power maybe be required for the working class and Conservative Socialist.

  1. To accept that Russia, China, and India are rising powers, and multipolarity is coming and is here stay. Instead of trying to prevent the inevitable and wasting billions of tax dollars and manpower on foreign wars and conflicts. The elites should focus on the American sphere and growing internal problems. American sphere also includes those countries that surround the United States.
  2.  The return to a more national and local based economy. This allows the country to not rely on other countries, bring back jobs, and help to avoid the mass trade disruptions that we have experienced in the last couple of years.
  3. The Nation need to find alternatives to rare minerals. Many rare minerals are used to make are phones, computers, hard drives, certain types of cars, alternative energy such as wind turbines and much more. These minerals are not only rare that can run out, but the rare mineral trade is dominated by China, a growing competitor of liberalism. If the International Capitalist class can find an alternative this will not only move the economy in a more national direction but also cause a hit to China market for a time. Alternatives to fossil fuels should also be investigated for very similar reasons but should not stop using fossil fuels until an alternative is as effective if not more effective than fossil fuels. Along with being able to provide as many jobs as fossil fuels does.
  4. There is a need for social cohesion in American society. America has been plagued with cultural, racial, economic and gender conflict. The international capitalist needs to find a way to unite everyone and form a common identity. For starters the corporate media needs to stop race, cultural, and gender hustling. The corporate class needs to accept the nuances on things like hate crimes instead of just blaming one group like whites or another group for all racial problems. Limit immigration so that immigrants who have completely different culture and moral beliefs do not add more to social division. Promote a culture of law and order and refund the police instead of defunding them. Make English the official language of the country along with recognizing minority languages like Spanish or the Native American languages. Along with finding some norm or common moral view that will not only be agreeable but will lead to the creation of communities and families which are two of the most important things for a society to function. In other words, the ruling capitalist class needs to drop radical social progressivism.
  5.  The ruling class needs to find a way to allow people to move more efficiently from classes. So that the ruling class does not become stagnate and inefficient or to keep working class in poverty. Allowing new people in the ruling class will give new creative energies and ideas. Making it easier for people to move from class to class will also help to minimize poverty and prevent class conflict.  For this to happen the ruling class must give up some of its monopoly power to allow new people to come in.
  6.  The ruling class must make it more affordable and more beneficial for people to have families and children.  Family is not only one the basic building blocks of society but also the most efficient organization that raises the next generation. This will not only get the American birth rate up but also make where we do not need to rely on immigration or to people who may have loyalties else were.
  7.  The capitalist should start to favor quality and creativity over quantity and what is most profitable. This will allow society to achieve more permanent or longer lasting solutions. Along with not wasting resources or making problems worse like rushing medicines that will only make people sicker due wanting to have more profit for example.

There is a possibility to see these changes happen. After all the capitalist class has been able to get themselves out of crisis several times since its conception most notably the Great Depression. As stated earlier the CEO of Black Rock for example have stated that globalization has ended and that a return to more national based economy is necessary. There are others like Bill Maher who has recently started to criticize the idea of transgender children. Of course, Maher does not control the direction of the country or the corporation he works for goes but the higher ups at HBO who give Maher’s a platform have shown that they at least tolerate or at most accept criticism of radical social progressivism. Of course, there are many in ruling class who have advocated for alternatives to fossil fuels and having quality above quantity such as Klaus Schwab.

This however is only a minority of progressive capitalist class.  The current President Joe Biden and his corporate backers have double down on trying to contain Russia, wasting billions of dollars of trying to prevent the inevitable, only to have many parts of the world from Brazil to China to Saudi Arabia to slowly move away from the United States. While the American economy continues to decline, and inflation continues to rise.  Along with consolidation of wealth and corporate power, (which Schaub promotes) furthering the bureaucratization and stagnation of the capitalist to solve problems. Even when it comes to social progressivism like less restrictions on abortion and immigration, the ruling class still favors it over any social conservatism or common sense.  They capitalist and liberals ruling class is only following the nature of liberal capitalism which is the consolidation of wealth in hands of a few and the destructions of all traditional social norms, community, family, duty, and identity in the name of profit, “liberty” and “progress.”

Even if the progress international capitalist were to abandon internationalism, progressivism, and wealth consolidation. It would come at the expense of their own power on an international and a national level.  Not to mention if they do abandon their “moral world view” of progressivism the capitalist could possibly face a revolt from the lumpens to progressive middle to upper middle classes who truly believe progressive cause as a righteous one.  Even if the progressive capitalist where to pull all of this off successfully, with them maintaining power, conservatives and the working class would still be at the mercy of the progressive capitalist who would revert to their old ways, when most of their foreign enemies are gone. With that said it is unlikely for the progressive capitalist to change so drastically. More than likely the International Progressive Capitalist will continue to double down until they are eventually destroyed both internally and externally. There is however a more right-wing section of the capitalist who at least seems a bit different, which leads us to are next group.

The “Right Wing” Techno Capitalist Class

There is a minority of the capitalist class particularly of a small section of the new techno/ internet section of the ruling class that does hold onto some more right wing or “conservative” positions compared to the rest of the capitalist class. Some examples are Peter Theil, Elon Musk, and Curtis Yarvin just to name a few. They tend to range from center right liberals like Musk to right-wing and anti-democratic ideologies like Neo Reaction like Yarvin and Theil, who has financially supported Yarvin. What tends to unite this section of the ruling class is capitalism, technological advancement, opposition to both to government bureaucracy, and radical social progressivism. How different are the right techno capitalist to their progressive international capitalist counterparts? While Yarvin is anti-democratic preferring a monarchy and all of them being against government bureaucracy and being a little more nationally orientated instead of abolishing the nation state like what their progressive counter parts want. Other than that, nothing really.

I will not go over similarities and problems of liberal conservatives since I covered that in the last article of the series. I will rather go over the problems and similarities of Curtis Yarvin’s Neo Reaction to modern Liberalism. Yarvin despite his critiques of democracy, globalization, government bureaucracy, and radical social progressivism is not very different from the current neo liberal system.  Yarvin himself believes in a Techno Monarchy that is elected and kept in check by corporations. While this may sound like a radical reactionary change but if we look closer between liberal democracy and Yarvin Techno Monarchy, all that Yarvin has done is removed the government bureaucratic middleman and thrown out democratic moralism but did not remove the corporations who have been responsible for the process of globalization and destruction of traditional social norms. Liberal Democratic governments are controlled by corporations, politicians are lobbied by them, laws are passed for their benefits, wars are fought, and treaties are sign for corporate expansion.  Yarvin despite his claims of understanding how the liberal system or in Neo Reactionary terms the Cathedrals works, he ignores the active role that corporations have played in the breakdown of the nation state and traditional social norms. Along with claiming Neo Liberals like Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher were dissident when they help to expand the liberal system globally due to their policies of deregulation and support for global military intervention that allowed expansion of military, government, and corporate power. Yarvin and other neo reactionaries fail to understand why elites support social progressivism. They do because it’s a social justification for market expansion and break down of any barriers that stand in the corporation way. Yarvin despite claims of being a localist is allowing one of the main drives of globalization to stay in power. Ironically Yarvin idea of the role of corporations is very similar to global liberal economist Klaus Schwab’s idea of Stakeholder Capitalism, where the corporations are supposed to play a greater role in governing society. The only difference being is that Schwab’s is still a believer in “democracy” and globalization while Yarvin is not.

If we look at Curtis Yarvin or his backers like Peter Thiel or other techno capitalists like Musk, we find they do not differ much from Progressive Capitalist much on social issues like Gay Marriage, or the legalization of drugs or even abortion in the case of Musk. When it came to Covid 19 lockdowns, Yarvin supported the lockdowns even though the lockdowns destroyed small family businesses, churches and accelerated social/ community disintegration. Not to mention increased government intervention and control in the private life.  On foreign policy Theil like his center right counterpart Elon Musk is all for antagonism against China and other enemies of Liberalism, along with Theil having his start in politics by being funded by the intellectual founder of Neo Conservatism Irving Kristol. In the end neo reaction is nothing more than a capitalist sham and bastardization of Antonio Gramsci and the Italian Elitist School. a “right-wing” capitalist ploy to remove the government middleman and would at best slow down the process of decay or worse become an even more authoritarian and even more global system than the liberal state, having most of wealth consolidated in a few corporations, who have no interest in preserving the family, culture, identity, or religion. In others word anything that a conservative or reactionary is supposed to care about.      

  The Rise of the Narco Aristocrats  

With increasing economic problems in United State and lack of authority and security in American cites and at the border with Mexico. This give a opportunity to Mexican cartels and other Latin American criminal empires to expanded northward more efficiently than in previous years. Cartels have had been power houses in many Latin American countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, Brazil, El Salvador, and many more for several decades now. Many of these organizations who started off in the mid to late 20th century and leaders who I dub the Narco Aristocrats due there immense wealth and family orientation when it comes leadership positions, started off from both the working class such as Pablo Escobar or part of the capitalist class such as Fidel Castano, that got involved in the illegal drug trade and other criminal enterprise such as extortion, prostitution, human trafficking etc, making millions to billions of dollars off these enterprises.  

If we look deeper into the matter on how cartels have become so powerful, we find that has to do with poor economic conditions of Latin America society, with most wealth and property consolidated in the hands of corporations and landlords. Along with poor wages, lack of regulation on the treatment of workers, and government corruption makes these areas breeding grounds for criminality and cartels to expand their ranks those who nowhere else to go.

It is not only due to poor economic conditions that the Narco Aristocrats have been able to take advantage of but also Capitalist America sloppy Latin American foreign policy, especially during the Cold War. During the Cold War and afterwards the American government and International Corporations headquartered in America who had business interest inside Latin America funded many different governments and paramilitary groups to fight against communist and left-wing nationalist rebel groups (some of whom were involved with drug trafficking like Shining Path) who threaten American and corporate hegemony in the region. These governments and paramilitary groups are but not limited to Noriega Panama, Nicaragua’s Contras, Columbia’s AUC, Pinochet’s Chile, and the Federal Security Directorate of Mexico just to name a few. However, many of them were involved with drug trafficking and drug cartels, not only helping cartels to traffic drugs but also provided protection and information on opponents. While all these groups are gone now but they help the cartels gain a lasting influence in government and corporate circles in Latin America, not to mention making them rich off being able easily traffic their narcotics and others merchandise.

There are even some allegations that the American Government particularly the CIA and DEA are actively and knowingly supporting the drug trade or cartels such as the Sinaloa Cartel. These accusations have been made by a variety of different people including former Bolivian president Evo Morales who claimed the DEA was actively supporting the trade in Bolivia and even by former DEA agents Hector Berrellez who accuses the CIA of working with Mexican Drug Cartels and being responsible for the death of DEA agent Enrique Kiki Camarena. There is also been confirmed reports that many members of the notorious Los Zetas cartel were once apart of Mexican Commandos and received training from US special forces. Most recently Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has shut down counter narcotic unit that worked with US for having criminal elements with the unit weather US was aware of these cartel elements remains to be seen. When it comes US corporations such as Texaco, Chiquita, Coca Cola, and Drummond Coal were alleged or confirmed to have funded drug trafficking paramilitary groups such as AUC and MAS to protect and fight against communist rebels, even after the AUC was designated a terrorist organization by the United States. Both groups also had ties to cartels such as Melian and Cali cartels along with the local Columbian elite, government and military.    

Whether the American government knowing or unknowingly fund groups that were involved with drug trafficking, to fight against its political opponents is not important. The fact of the matter is that drug trafficking groups have widespread influence in many central and southern American countries due to the foreign policy of the American Government and the International capitalist ruling class. Narco Aristocrats have influence in many Latin governments from infiltrating police, military, and bribing politicians. Even when it comes to legitimate businesses such as avocado and lime farming the cartels have started to become involved in, taking over many local Latin American economies. The Narco Aristocrats of Latin America have not only expanded to other American countries but also to Europe, Africa, and Asia making many of these cartels billions if not trillions of dollars . The only successful counter measure that the US has taken against the Narco Aristocrats is breaking any single monopoly that one Narco Aristocrat may have on their country drug trade. But even if the US and its allies cut off one Narco Aristocrat head several more will take its place with very little changing when it comes to the black market. If the American Government and International Capitalist class continues to become weaker both internally and externally, along with the Latin American countries not finding an alternative to the unsuccessful American and capitalist way of dealing with the Narco Aristocrats hegemony. Then we should expect that many Latin American governments will fall to the barbarism of the Cartels and even gain immense influence inside the United States itself, especially in the border states. With there already being claims of gangs in California infiltrating Los Angeles Police department, which means the cartel have a good chance of infiltrating if they have not already infiltrated local police and other government institutions. It has also been known that Cartels and gangs have infiltrated the US and other militaries as well as training and smuggling arms out of US and Mexican bases. Some of these cartels such as Jalisco New Generation Cartel have even equipped there troops with uniforms and heavy weaponry. Fortunately like all class however, Narco Aristocrats cannot, nor will they rule forever.

There are numerous problems that the Narco Aristocrats have, for starters they solely rule by fear. The cartels are known for their extreme brutality against their opponents. Many Narco Aristocrats do not rule by grand ideas, and many do not try to become folk heroes to their people with some exceptions like Pablo Escobar but even then, they largely rule by fear while not trying to solve problems inside their own society. In other words, if Narco Aristocrats do not improve the economic and security conditions, along with continuing to rule with fear and brutality then they are allowing their areas to be breeding grounds for revolts weather by other cartels or by popular masses of working-class people like what happened in 2012 with rise of self-defense forces in Mexico that pushed out the Knights Templar Cartel out of the Mexican state of Michoacan.

The Narco Aristocrats despite making billions off the drug trade and other illegal activities are not industries that lead to improvements in society but gets people addicted to drugs that deteriorates people all around health, creates mistrust and breaks down one’s community. Prostitution and human trafficking also do not improve society but is one of the most exploitive parts of the black market. Tuning the women who becomes a prostitute or sex slave into nothing more than objective that are to be bought and sold. Even if the man or women willingly becomes a prostitute does not change the fact that STDS have been able to spread more rapidly due to prostitution or the fact it degrades the relations between men and women into something that’s too be bought and sold, not companionship and procreation of the species.   

The cartels also face another problem, each other. Many of these groups wage full scale wars against one another leading to destruction and death. This has for time being has hindered the cartels from taking complete control of their countries having not only defend off against governments but also against one another. If they cannot find unity, then they may never achieve victory against government, or their victory will be very briefs and will lead to many more decades of barbarism and anarchy.

Luckily for the people of Latin America there seems to be some effective opposition that is popping against the Narco Aristocrats from both the Left like Sandinista Nicaragua, Communist Cuba, and Zapatistas in Mexico and from the Right like Bolsonaro Brazil, Bukele El Salvador, and the El Salvadorian right wing vigilante group Sombre Negra or Black Shadow. There are even non-ideological groups like self-defense forces of Mexico and similar groups in Guatemala. While many groups have many problems, they are still going in the right direction when it comes to fighting against the Narco Aristocrats and cartels. Even in the United States there has been increasing talk of law and order that has been coming from the right. It is possible that this talk will eventually lead to action to the growing Narco Aristocrat threat. The only problem being the progressive side of the capitalist elite who are doing everything to deteriorate security from weak immigration policy to weak economic stability to even arguably trying to take over the drug market themselves with the supporting of the decriminalization and legalization of harder drugs in progressive capitalist strong holds like Oregon and Washington. Like usual however this only leads to the disintegration of society and contesting of the liberal capitalist rule. This does as well create the conditions for the social conservatives and working class to take hold of their own destiny and expel not only the Cartels but international capitalist order itself.  In the long run all these anti cartels groups should form an alliance to combats these groups.    

             The Workers

The final class we will discuss will be on none other the working class itself. I define this as wide-ranging group that are small producer i.e., small business owners to people who work that do not own the means of production. The workers have been seen as for a long time to be the real revolutionary force to take on the capitalist whether it be from Marxists like Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin to Conservative Revolutionaries like Ernst Niekisch and Henrich Laufenberg to Communitarian/ populist like Christopher Lasch. The workers and masses are the people who make every revolution possible without their support change will fall flat on its face. Of course, the workers need guidance and strong leaders to lead them in the right direction which is what the masses lack at the moment.

The current working class is misguided, divided, and confused on what direction it should take. This is probably the biggest issue the working class is facing; it is completely divided into two camps the Democrats and Republican without realizing that neither one server their interest but that of the capitalist. The working class especially amongst its conservative members are realizing more and more how the economy is not benefiting them both in the social and economic realms.  Some have even notice this within the Republican party such as Tucker Carlson, but Carlson seems to be a moderating force of this new wave of conservative anti capitalism instead of a radical force.

The working class and honest conservatives most realize that 1 capitalism is inherently a progressive and international force and will continue to do so as long as it exists. 2 this means that capitalism will continue to destroy any traditional social norms so it can expand more and have more marketplaces and to have people rely more and more on capitalist institutions. 3 that the capitalist will do whatever is profitable even at the expense of the community, nation, and jobs of the working class. The only way to end this decay is the end of the international capitalist order itself, which cannot be done by any of the two parties but rather by an alternative. An alternative that understands the importance building blocks like family, community, identity, religion, and responsibility is to a civilization.  An alternative that has the economy based around the community, nation, and family, not just what’s profitable to the individual or corporation but the whole society. Conservative Socialism is my answer, but other similar ideas exist to like communitarianism, distributism, Sorelainism, guild socialism, 4th political theory, national bolshevism, and many different forms of populism. Which should be discussed and debated.

If the masses do rise but is a social libertarian force or is a free market orientated, then it is doomed to end up back where it started. If it is a genuine anti-capitalist social conservative force, then it will not make the same mistake again that our current society has made. There is the possibility of a bureaucratic class forming if the state is to centralize and there also the possibility of society being too disorganizes and weak due to decentralization. A middle ground is needed to stop either one of these events from happening, but this will be question that needs to be face after the conservative anti-capitalist comes to power. With that side the workers despite it being the most noble group on this list is the least likely to take power due to its divisions, lack of organization, institutional power, and guidance.

      Secession and Conclusion

Despite the similarities between the left wing and right-wing liberal capitalist, there has been growing calls for secession on both sides most recently in Texas where secession became a part of the Texas Republican party platform. Threats of secession have been used by both side for a long time now, but this has been first time in many years that one party has put secession in their platform. While this could be another empty threat but with claims of the presidential election of 2020 being rigid by the Republicans, along with economic decline, and social disintegration becoming more prevalent. It is possible that these empty threats will become action depending on weather the political situation becomes worse.

If secession does happen it is possible, we will see all classes mention if not more take power in certain parts of the country. The Conservative Socialist and workers should seek a policy of expansion if this were to happen. The reason for this is because large nations who control many resources and have many people, can out compete smaller nations who have less resources who will more than likely eventually come under larger nations influence due to their power. Meaning in the long run the conservative socialist have the possibility of uniting the entire country again. If the conservative socialist nation remains small however it must pursue a policy of self-efficiency as much as humanly possible. It is possible for small nations to still resist larger nations such example are North Korea and Cuba, but this is because they have large nation allies such as China and Russia, who recognize them and do trade with them. In other words, the populist, workers, conservative socialist or whatever one likes to call this group should pursue a similar policy so that large nations like Canada or remnants of the American liberal international order do not come crashing down on the small nation.

With that said both ruling sections of ruling and masses still have a chance to prevent this from happening. If ruling class were to finally act mature about the situation instead of inflaming it, which is unlikely. The masses have the chance of creating a mass movement nationally with right leadership and organization. Overcoming international capitalist, the narco aristocrats and national disintegration. However, it still has a long way to go before the working class and conservative socialist can achieve this noble goal.  


Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

Leviathan and Its Enemies by Samuel T. Francis

How Serial Entrepreneur Peter Thiel Became a Billionaire

Plan A for the Coronavirus by Curtis Yarvin


Russian version can be found here

“Ewig bin ich dein Ja”F. Nietzsche

1. Despot Stalin

Stalin is such a large-scale figure that any appeal to his personality, his function, his mission in history immediately poses immense problems for us. One can speak of Stalin from a geopolitical point of view – as a major Eurasianist-practitioner; it is possible with the ideological one – as an outstanding, key figure in world socialism; it is possible with the state – as about the creator of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. But often Stalin is associated with the emblematic, iconic figure of tyranny and despotism. And this cannot be avoided even if we are interested in other aspects of his personality. What is the underlying reason for this – tyrannical – trait of a great figure in world history?

2. Sociologist Stalin

Stalin is steadily associated with purges, repressions, demonstrative state terror. When it comes to explaining the nature of this phenomenon, we are faced with primitive versions made up by the standards of banal thinking and philistine outlook – personal paranoia, innate sadism, cruelty, manic megalomania, inhumanity of the Bolshevik ideology, etc. Everything banal is a lie, and therefore, everything will have to start over. What did Stalin’s purges serve, from a sociological point of view? The leaders of the USSR themselves each time explained them in different ways, proceeding from the “relevance of the moment.” It is clear that this was the “Aesopian language”, and its detailed and reliable deciphering would take us too far into the labyrinths of historical details. There is a fact: permanent waves of purges in the highest echelons of the Soviet leadership. It doesn’t matter how they were substantiated every time, it is only important that this is a stable phenomenon, apparently closely connected with the very sociological structure of Soviet society in the first half of its cycle. To explain the phenomenon of “purges” it is most useful to resort to the theory of the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, who formulated the principle of “elite circulation”. According to Pareto, in every society – no matter how it is called and no matter what ideology it is based on – an unchanging social law is clearly traced. It lies in the fact that any society – both democratic and totalitarian – is always controlled by a minority, which is its “elite”. This elite has a strictly fixed mechanism of cyclic development. Its roots go back to some opposition (“passionary”, according to Gumilyov) group, which is deprived of power and authority by the existing elite, but by all indications is capable of exercising central functions. Pareto calls this original “elite”, “passionaries'”, who have not yet reached the heights of power and are concentrated on the periphery, the “counter-elite” or the “elite of the future.” At a certain moment, the “counter-elite” overthrows the old ruling group and seizes the central positions in society (the state), becoming in turn just an elite, losing the “counter” particle. At the beginning of its reign, the “new elite” acts actively and adequately, strengthens society, develops it, and gives a new impetus to social and state life. Then she starts to freeze. The second generation of the same elite already consists of more passive elements, replacing the first active, fanatical wave of passionaries’ in a calm era. In the third generation, the elite is deteriorating, striving in every possible way to privatize the functions of power in society, despite the fact that decay, laziness, corruption, incapacity, a parasitic attitude to power as a privilege, as capital, and not as a public service, make it inadequate nominal functions and then it becomes an obstacle to the development of society. Then, according to Pareto, the “counter-elite” of passionaries’ is again formed on the periphery, and everything starts from the beginning. Both Lenin and Stalin were familiar with the theories of Pareto, a fashionable author at that time in European socialist circles. There is nothing surprising that the Bolsheviks, faced with the specifics of “Realpolitik”, begin to use the theories of the “pragmatist” Pareto, not bothering to reconcile him with orthodox Marxism.

The very coming of the Bolsheviks to power – and Stalin was precisely in the midst of this first, purely passionate wave of the Bolsheviks (that is, he is the flesh of the flesh of the “counter-elite”) – was a radical, total, unparalleled change of elites in scale. Lenin’s purges, revolutionary terror – the first chord of the circulation of the elites, the replacement of the inadequate, decaying elite of the conservative capitalist tsarist Russia with hyperactive people from the social bottom. The Romanov, noble elite had been degenerating (according to Pareto) for more than one generation, so the counter-elite of the Bolsheviks who replaced it was forced to act quite radically. But this stage of Soviet history is connected with Lenin and Leninism.

Stalin carried out his “purges” at a fundamentally different stage, when the passionaries’ of the lower classes had already firmly established themselves at the pinnacle of power. Before the eyes of the Leader, convinced idealists, fanatics of the “new order” turn into corrupt, self-serving administrators and officials; class and party solidarity, the commonality of a lofty ideal, are rapidly being replaced in the Bolshevik elite by new selfish interests. The “bureaucratization” of Bolshevism begins, the inevitable second stage in the solidification of the elite. But Joseph Stalin is not asleep. This is where the cleaning machine comes into play.

What is it directed against? – Against the social law of elite stagnation. Stalin seeks to continue the rotation of personnel, which has a natural tendency to stall at every stage. As soon as some active group rises to the heights, imitation of activity, clannishness, groupism immediately begin. The Party and the country are faced with the most difficult tasks. The leader is responsible for them. And then there is the inescapable inertia of the social Pareto mechanisms of the degeneration of the elite! In the conditions of a gigantic overstrain of all the forces of the nation, building an unprecedented society of Justice and Happiness, there is no time for nuances. All those who show signs of “the second stage of the cycle of elites” go under the knife. Sometimes there are kinks. But these are details. The sociologist Stalin fully learned the lessons of Vilfredo Pareto. As long as he was alive, the circulation of the elites was guaranteed. harsh price, too harsh a price … But the end of the purges meant an irreversible process of “stagnation”. Today we know what this led to both the party and the state. The Pareto laws have been confirmed today in the most tragic way for the country, the people and the state.

3. Anthropologist Stalin

Humanity as a whole does not like to work. And by definition, it is not capable of working systematically, independently and harmoniously at all. This implies the need for external motivation of labor with its appropriate organization. There are two global solutions: capitalist and socialist. The capitalist approach is that economic terror is considered the most effective coercion of a person to work. Whoever does not go to work is doomed to economic ruin, he cannot buy food, pay for housing and clothing. Of course, this is a form of direct organized violence of the system. Because the threat of death here is mediated, given through a step, the essence of the matter does not change at all.

There is a second solution – the socialist one. Until mankind has grown to real free labor, people have to be forced to work in non-economic ways. Moral pressure is suitable for this, a special work ethic, and finally, direct coercion. Under socialism, labor is not made dependent on money and material well-being. Spiritual, ethical skills are instilled here by forceful methods. Capitalism is cynical about human passive nature, seeks to exploit it without changing it. Socialism perceives the same (indisputable) fact tragically, strives to overcome it, to overcome the unconsciousness of the human being. Hence, there are two ways of violence: the mild, but extremely cynical violence of capitalism, which exploits human weakness, and the harsh, but ultimately transforming, saving, ethically justified violence of socialism ,Joseph Stalin was well aware of the anthropological dualism of the two approaches. On the other side of the irresponsible, armchair-intelligent “humanists” from socialism, Joseph Stalin dealt with reality, and with the internal, disturbed, exposed, naked human reality, turned inside out after the obstetric mystery of the Revolution. Non-economic coercion to work, rigid ethical anthropological therapy – the second level of understanding the purges.

People must be punished, they must be forced to work, their inert nature must be transmuted by force, turning it from lunar-passive to solar-active, from consumer to labor, from old to new. Socialism will cease to be socialism if it abandons this most important mission. Stalin understood everything. And embodied the principles of “new anthropology” in life.

4. Philosopher Stalin

The philosophy of socialism is based on a fundamental principle – the secondary nature of the individual in relation to some organic, integral, collective reality. The individual is just a molded part. The matrix is ​​society. Individual – serial stamped products. Moreover, in the socialist perspective, society itself does not consist of individuals, but, being primary, creates individuals, establishes them as its continuation, as something secondary. Bourgeois philosophy, on the contrary, puts the individual at the forefront. And he considers all collective forms to be the product of the agglomeration of atomic individual individuals. Hence the idea of ​​a contractual, artificial, contractual, secondary basis for any associations – nation, state, class, etc. Two incompatible philosophical approaches predetermine two views on terror, form two philosophies of terror.

Bourgeois society considers terror as a necessary measure, carried out on a contractual basis against those individuals who overstep the bounds in respecting the individual rights of other citizens or violate the social contract accepted by these citizens. This is the basis of the liberal theory of law.

The socialist approach is different. Not recognizing the primacy of the individual, socialism sees the very nature of terror in a completely different way. Terror is an inalienable prerogative of the social whole in relation to each of its separate fragments, as long as this fragment refuses to recognize itself as the otherness of the whole and declares (by word, deed or hint) its own self. In other words, socialist terror is essentially directed against the “autonomous individual”, against the special philosophical and existential orientation of man. This is the socialist counterpart of what the German Romantics, Organists, and Russian Slavophiles called “holism” or “catholicity.”

It is absurd to measure the legal and ethical model of socialism by bourgeois norms and criteria. When Soviet leaders or ordinary people, unjustly tortured in the dungeons of the NKVD, after humiliation and torture, prison deprivation and moral sadism, before being shot, shouted “Long live Stalin!”, “Long live socialism!” – they did not prevaricate and did not beg for mercy. They affirmed the great socialist philosophical truth: the individual is nothing in the face of society, but not of any society, but of a socialist one, which puts the “ontology of social being” (D. Lukacs) at its foundation. Joseph Stalin turned the philosophical principle of “the primacy of social being” into a pedagogical (almost metaphysical) praxis. Like Ivan the Terrible, who considered the tsarist terror a necessary tragic element in the social “economy of salvation”, Stalin, through the practice of repression, asserted the most important spiritual, soteriological truth.

5. Dulce et decorum est pro Stalin mori

Stalin’s words to General De Gaulle were quoted many times in response to his congratulations on the Victory – “In the end, Death wins.”

Yes, Death!

What kind of a thesis is this, vaguely reminiscent of its system of deep religious truth? Death is a reality that puts a limit to the separateness of individual existence. This is where the temporal and spatial fluttering of a separate, atomic being end. As if we are entering a solemn, dark hall, where sublime peace reigns, the soft structure of an unshakable, eternal, triumphantly frozen being. Death is the highest stage of differentiated universality.

Even during their lifetime, neurotic individualists try to clutter up the purest expanses of death with fragments of plots and ups and downs, laid out by analogy with this world, to make posthumous regions an arena of senseless mouse fuss of miserable, lazy and unsightly human souls in a campaign with equally “human – too human” angels or devils. But just as the most correct sleep is a dreamless sleep, so is the most correct death – death as a dark silence, as a real and strict, noble peace. What follows death has nothing to do with what precedes it. In the syncopated moment of the rupture of the fight, the agony turns into a Gothically calmed non-existence. Death is the secret engine of life, it is precisely this that gives spiritual saturation to everything that in this world seems worthy, noble and interesting. What could be purer than the samurai cult of death, which is the life-giving basis of loyalty and honor, the code of a noble warrior.

Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori. “It is sweet and noble to die for the Fatherland.” If we take a closer look at this formula, we will see that the emphasis in it is placed not so much on the ethical load of an act as on the fact of death, which in itself ennobles everything else. In general, all things for which it is considered worthy to die, already in themselves carry something of Death. Fatherland, Motherland – this idea is associated with dead generations, with the quiet world of those who once, sacrificing themselves, created a beautiful, harmonious state structure out of the chaos of landscapes and territories. The Romans considered the empire sacred (not contractual), and therefore died for it with readiness and joy. “It is sweet and noble to die for Justice.” “It is sweet and noble to die for the lofty ideal of the Whole.” Anything that transcends individuality worthy of giving his life for it. Death does not conquer being, it conquers only individuality, the individual illusion of being. Everything else remains. Both on this side and on that side. In a secret harmony that binds together everything that is truly valuable.

Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, – in whose name millions of Russian, Soviet people went to certain death, in whose name generations worked in monstrous conditions, overcoming the unyielding, inert flesh of stubborn matter, in whose name the terrible strap of the Gulag was humbly and embittered, both the right and the guilty, with the name of which the fanatics of the Great Dream of all nations fought against the humiliating entropic dark laws of Capital – had an inexplicable connection with the last mystery of History – with the mystery of Death.

It seems that with half of his being he is intensely peering into the impenetrable dark horizon. Without cheap oratorical tricks, without petty-bourgeois Central European torches (reminiscent of gay pride parades), without the sugary mysticism of sham knights with cardboard swords, without caricatured pseudo-priesthood and pseudo-ritual, strict and secular, modest, short Georgian, he was a real messenger from the highest authority of the world, a carrier secret news, news about Death, about its mysterious, enveloping element, news about Silence, about the strange dignity of that which has left the sphere of transformations. Great Stalin. The silent messenger of Death.

One Indian philosophical text “Majjimanikayo” hints at the essence of this mystery:

“The one who understands death as total death, and accepting death as total death, thinks from the primacy of death, thinks about death, thinks exclusively about death, thinks “death is my last goal,” and who constantly rejoices in death, he … will never know death.”

This means that Stalin is alive, secretly alive in each of us.

Nietzsche and Hardship: First Impressions on Nietzsche After Watching the Alain De Botton Documentary

The philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche was famous for believing that living in hardship was preferable to living a life of comfort. Nietzsche would be notorious for telling his friends he wishes ill will upon them not because he hated them or out of spite but, because Nietzsche believed that through hard times creates the conditions for one to better themselves. Along with achieving things they would not have achieve if they have lived comfortable lifestyles without the struggle. Nietzsche unlike many philosophers during his time and before his time, who believed that happiness came from avoiding pain like ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus for example. Nietzsche on the other hand believed that diminishing hardship would diminish joy as well. Without pain there is no gain according to Nietzsche, for one to truly achieve great things, one must go through hardship, pain, have setbacks and whole load of other problems to achieve great things. Of course, the individual that is going through these hardships most have self-reflections and be able to harness their emotions properly, to do creative and great things as Alain De Botton pointed out in his documentary of Nietzsche.  This will not only lead to one being more productive but to be truly happy over the great achievements he or she made during their time of struggle and hardship.

 I have to agree with Nietzsche that hardship does create happiness for three reasons. During hardship you have to be more active, using your head, and constructing stuff with your hands. This keeps your mind and body going. Along with learning new things or improving on old skills. While if you live in complete comfort your more than likely not to learn new things or even lose your knowledge since your mind becomes duller and body becomes weaker.

 This leads into my second reason and that is living a life of complete comfort will eventually be a life of unhappiness. Hardship and problems give us meaning, and something to do. If we live a life of complete comfort with no problems, we will soon become bored and eventually sadden because we have lost all meaning. We have lost all drive to do something with our lives.  This unhappiness ends up becoming a new hardship, a struggle for meaning. In other words, whether we like it or not hardship will eventually pull us back in and it is up to us to find our way out of it once again.

  The third reason for agreeing with Nietzsche is because like Botton’s Garden analogy just because are situation maybe horrible or ugly does not mean we cannot make something great or beautiful out of it.  A plant for example starts out as a dull little seed. When we plant that seed in the ground and pour water on it, the seed will eventually get roots. While the roots may look ugly if we keep watering the root it will eventually grow into a plant that may get flowers or grow fruits or grow into a giant tree that can provide shad or allow people to build a tree house inside the tree. As long as we are consistent with watering and other activity to help the seed, the seed will not be a seed but something more amazing. In words outside of gardening we maybe in an ugly or horrible situation but if we keep trying, we will eventually get out of it and turn a horrible situation into something wonderful as long as we keep putting effort into it.

                One area I disagree with Nietzsche on this subject is on Christianity. Christianity to Nietzsche is like drinking licker, it may feel good in the short term but in long term “dulls the pain” as Alain De Botton puts it.  I would agree with Nietzsche if we were talking about a certain type of Christian, who believes that Jesus loves everyone and we do not have to change our selves to become followers of Christianity. To put all of Christianity under this category I find to be wrong. For starters Christians in biblical times and afterwards had to go through immense struggles that eventually lead to some of them dying.  Whether it be Jesus original disciples to the ancient Christians who spread the religion all across the world to more modern times in the Middle East, where Christian Communities are in a life-or-death situation when they have to go up against the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. On a personal level the religious writings of Christianity do tell us that we must change our old sinful ways into a more moral way of living our lives in the Christian sense of the word moral, which does require struggle and change in oneself.  Other than that, I largely agree with Nietzsche that happiness does come out of the struggle and hardship. This has peaked my interest on Nietzsche and I plan on reading him soon.

Alain De Botton documentary 06 – Nietzsche on Hardship – Philosophy: A Guide to Happiness – YouTube

Syrian Social Nationalist Party of Lebanon 2022 Program

Translated by Grematoo

A necessary introduction to the nationalist party The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is a ideological struggle of a political party that emerged to define the national identity and confront foreign ambitions. Its goal is to resurrect a renaissance that stops the disintegration of our country and rid our people of their sufferings to advance their lives for the better with the values of truth, goodness and beauty, and to restore to our nation its vitality and strength, amid the struggle of nations, blocs and major companies existing in the world, and in our region, over influence, resources, markets, and unprecedented climate threats that ravages the planet. With the founding of the party in 1932, the Social Nationalists formed the vanguard of our people’s struggle to gain freedom, sovereignty, and independence from foreign occupations, and a model for the new man, the social man, victorious over sectarian, faith, tribal, clan, and regional affiliations. The Syrian National Social Renaissance embodied the general movement of the land and the people, emerging from the country’s material and spiritual talents. Since the movement saw the light, the nationalists who are scattered in every city, village, town, sect and faith throughout the country and the diaspora have paid a heavy price. They endured imprisonment, torture, exile, oppression, execution, confiscation of property and books, and displacement , in a bitter and violent struggle with the regime in Lebanon and the regimes that were established after the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and with the forces of sectarian, feudal, commercial, and mercantile divisions and faith division between the country’s members , traders, and capitalists in the country. into

categories , and with the external occupation in all its forms, and the uprooting Zionist settlement project, starting with Palestine in 1936 . The martyrdom of the party’s founder, the thinker Antoun Saadeh , (the first rebel in the world against the emerging international regime after the Second World War, by confronting the “ Tablain ” oil
pipelines, the establishment of the ephemeral Jewish state, the partition of Syria, the establishment of a sectarian regime in Lebanon , and the execution of two of them). Within hours , at the hands of the Lebanese regime at the dawn of July 8, 1949, which implemented external will by eliminating the impulse of the renaissance and the
launcher of the first national revolution, this constitutes a disgrace in the history of Lebanon, our country and the world. The assassination of Saadeh in the prime of his youth represented the missed opportunity that which cost Lebanon and the nation in the last century and prevented the nation from achieving its renaissance in the state of the
nation, society and citizenship .

Campaigns of ideological distortion and moral and material persecution have been waged against the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (not the last of them in the past 20 years), and false accusations have been made against the nationalists and their party of hostility to Lebanon and work to annex it to the Syrian Arab Republic , on the grounds that the party is “Syrian” in relation to the republic. While the truth is that the party is Syrian in relation to the name of the Syrian nation that extends over the area of the Fertile Crescent , which was preceded by the pioneers of the “Renaissance era,” including Gibran Khalil Gibran and the teacher Boutros Al-Bustani, whose Lebanese
people sing praises of their Lebaneseness, and the “Talbanon” conceal
and distort their other ideas. But the nationalists practiced their faith by working to secure Lebanon and considering it a guarantee of thought , so the martyrs of the social
national renaissance were the only martyrs of independence in
Lebanon in 1943, from Said Fakhr al-Din to Hussein Abdel-Sater and
Adib al-Baini .

The productive role of the nationalists did not stop at any stage during the past decades, but rather they formed the solid mass of the literary, intellectual, cultural and journalistic modernity . The National Renaissance produced the flags of poetry, music, theatre, painting, literature and sculpture in Lebanon, the Levant, and Palestine. Creators’
papers, melodies and works are still a source of radiance and pride for our people and the focus of admiration and inspiration for peoples, from Saeed Taqi Al-Din to Mustafa Farroukh, Zaki Nassif and many others .

When the occupation reached southern Lebanon and then Beirut ,the courage and steadfastness of the nationalists triumphed over the weakness of their capabilities and the technical and military superiority of the enemy. The hero martyr Khaled Alwan fired the first shots at the Wembi platform . Then the confrontations followed with the
phenomenon of explosive bodies , a weapon of violence against the advanced war machine and international silence, and it was Sanaa Muhaidli, Wajdi Al-Sayegh, Malik Wehbe and others and other heroes of the national resistance who came from every village, town, religion and sect . In the July aggression, the nationalists advanced to take their natural place in the conflict, with their modest capabilities . The nationalists did not engage in the Lebanese war , except under coercion and in self-defense first, after they were subjected to displacement, abuse , kidnapping and killing by all the sectarian
forces that took control of the various regions with the outbreak of sectarian fighting, and then to prevent the divisions and attempts to overthrow Lebanon and establish it. And turning it into a platform to target the entire Syrian depth. And when the threat of terrorism intensified on Lebanon, the nationalists stood on the lines of fire in the eastern outskirts to expel the takfiri groups along with the Lebanese army, Hezbollah and other
resistance forces, after they planted martyrs on all fronts of confrontation in the Levant behind the imaginary borders, on the side of the Syrian army.

The social nationalists accepted the Taif Agreement , on the basis of ending the war and resolving Lebanon’s official position in the conflict with the enemy by establishing the right of resistance and protecting it, consolidating the relationship with the national depth , and implementing radical reforms in the Lebanese sectarian-feudal
system, which constituted the violent causes that even declared the war and the first cause The state, since the year 1840. It was hoped that the introduction of reforms would ensure the dismantling of the sectarian structure in the structure of the regime and contribute to strengthening the national identity, so that the tragedy of fighting
would not be repeated every time, and the state and society would elevate integration.

The experience of the party’s participation in governance in Lebanon, even if it was a marginal participation in terms of decision- making, is an experience in which the tide of the bad is tipped over the tide of the good. It requires a continuous review and treatment of the effects and results, which is what the nationalists keep in mind. The
party was able to enter Parliament with a parliamentary bloc more than once and reached the limit of six representatives in the 1996 elections. In addition to adhering to the national constants and protecting the option of armed resistance and some proposals for laws, despite their importance and the party’s leadership in them, especially the voluntary civil marriage laws and the electoral law on the basis of a single
constituency without restriction The sectarian bloc had to relentlessly in order to impose its projects that emanate from the ideology, the reformist principles of the party and the fundamental reforms of the sect, to mobilize public opinion, build the popular current, and form a national front from allied forces and to confront the economic approach that led Lebanon to collapse. The bloc gradually shifted to represent the government, and some of the former symbols got involved in the new cycle of corruption, so the party’s political practice moved away from its creed and principles, and tended to appease
reality and engage in it.

A year or more ago, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party shrugged off the burden of the past years, choosing a new path of struggle to revive the Renaissance and save our people in Lebanon and the nation from the internal devastation it had reached. So he elected a new leadership that expresses the will of the nationalists and their desire to take the path of jihad for the good of the people and the land, to gather his forces based
on freedom, duty, order and strength, adhering to his radical discourse and his popular movement in the cities and countryside to implement awareness and production plans.

The Lebanese Question, the Total Collapse, and the Opportunity The regime in Lebanon was built in 1920 on a corrupt building with a foreign will, to bring religious groups together in a quota partnership under the umbrella of mutual fear. It links the network of external interests with the political and economic interests of the groups and
the centers of religious, feudal and partisan power, through opportunistic capitalists, exclusive agencies, commercial brokers, brokers, members of bank boards and senior officials, and the presence of the privileged holders themselves in power, and this continues to this day in Parliament and the government.

This pattern prevented the establishment of the national state, brought down the economy and the national currency, tore the bonds of society apart, governed foreign wills, squandered national resources and capital, and brought the current state to clinical death. This is what the social nationalists have struggled to prevent since the founding of their party, without their calls and warnings being heeded. Instead of benefiting from the experience of war and the civil peace agreement, reconstruction and building on correct national scientific foundations and rules, and keeping pace with the rise of the resistance force leading to the liberation of southern Lebanon, the Taif reforms remained ink on paper. The philosophy of “six and six bis” was enshrined in the state and society, with a systematic political plan and a malicious urban economic policy in preparation for surrender agreements that did not come. So borrowing, renting, receivables, and quick profit became rampant, banks became entrenched, and the
culture of import, consumption and dependence on the outside prevailed. An orderly dollarization of the economic cycle took place, the capitalists accumulated double wealth, and corruption, poverty, hunger and disease spread.

The eruption of the current collapse three years ago and its intensification today, is a natural result of the fragility of the experience produced by the Greater Lebanon formula with its multiple transformations, and its reach to bankruptcy on various levels. Bankruptcy has made our people lose their savings and institutions to the account of the network of bank owners and monopolists, and threatens to sell state properties and the country’s capabilities and to mortgage wealth before extracting it in implementation of the ambitions of abroad, which threatens the achievements made by our people at the level of armed resistance, scientific, medical, and cultural achievements. It is also a reflection of the extent of the external influence that takes advantage of the internal
loopholes and strengthens them to impose international deals to bring the people to their knees, distribute influence and rob resources. The danger of this collapse increases, in light of similar collapses and difficulties in other Syrian entities, with the varying experiences of course.

In view of these harsh conditions and the intensification of threats, the collapse poses a challenge to our people in Lebanon, and in the rest of the Syrian entities, to rise up for a better future and get rid of political, economic and sectarian dependencies, and an opportunity for progress and the building of modern development, struggle, struggle and
agriculture After proving the mentality of the past, its inability and failure to protect the country internally and externally. The historical events that afflicted our country in recent decades, the global attack against the Fertile Crescent and the failure of the partition
regimes have confirmed the reality of the Syrian nation and the interdependence of Lebanon and the Levant, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Kuwait and Cyprus, with an organic and existential bond and a single destiny. Our people maintained a strong bond on the various shores of imaginary borders, derived from the unity of geography, social history,
interest and bonds, despite the great effects that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had and the effects of bloody conflicts on the conditions of society, governance, culture, economy, privacy and in all other Syrian entities of our two peoples in Lebanon .
Parliamentary work and the electoral law Parliamentary work is the legislative and political means, and the space devoted to the struggle of ideas between parties and political blocs, and their translation into laws and legislation that reflect the progress
of society and constitute a catalyst and control for this progress, and opposition, loyalty and plans are based on the basis that the interest of the nation is above all.

However, the Lebanese Parliament always emerges from sectarian and regional electoral laws that are detailed in accordance with the lords of money and sects, depriving a large segment of our people, who have overcome sectarian diseases and narrow identities, from representation and participation in making the future and confirms divisions within society. The current electoral law is not excluded from sterile laws, but rather it is the worst because it empties the meaning of proportionality, with small circles and one vote, on the basis of sect and sect. The current law also imposes the interest of access to parliament on the political agreement between the blocs, so that alliances become for the purpose of securing the access threshold, not for the sake of weaving joint projects. Nevertheless, access to the parliamentary session remains a duty, first in the short term, to extricate our people from the effects of the accelerating economic collapse, to address the current urgent dilemmas, to hold those responsible for the current outcome accountable, and to confront the projects prepared in advance for the future of the political system. In the short, medium and long term, to face the ability of sectarian and foreign-backed forces to pass

parliament’s decision, to present projects, pass laws, monitor their implementation, reform the mechanism for the emergence of power, protect public and private liberties, mobilize national forces to form parliamentary and party coalitions, raise public awareness of public opinion, lead the community, and expose the government to the
media. Corrupt, lifting the cover for the corrupt and obstructing them, confronting foreign greed in agreements and legislation, protecting public and private resources and properties, people’s rights, and setting public policies .Provided that the representatives of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party truly constitute the representatives of the nation, and a productive moral and scientific model, working for the good of all people, helping
all people and defending the sovereignty and advancement of the country, not to make political concessions or truces, or for regional services, not progress and progress. It satisfies the instincts of power, prestige, and individual selfish interest.

Main points of the programme:

  1. Securing and preserving Lebanon to guarantee basic and human
  2. Lebanon’s integration with its national surroundings in terms of
    economy, society, currency, the defense and protection resources
    and their investment, and cooperation with the nations of the
    Arab world and friendly nations.
  3. Separating the religions from the state, preventing clerics from
    interfering in the affairs of the state and the judiciary, and
    removing barriers between the different sects and faiths to build
    the national identity and the national spirit.
  4. Regulating the economy on the basis of production, the
    overseeing of food, medicine, energy and water, and the
    preservation of land for the nation’s interests, the homeland, the
    people of the community, the nation and the state.
  5. Preparing a strong army that will be practical and effective in
    determining the fate of the nation and the homeland.

The plan for environment and ecology:

It is not possible for any people, society, or state in the world to formulate political issues and social and economic, without talking about the environment and ecology. And in our time, rapid climate change, global warming, and its dangerous repercussions on the planet, the extinction and semi-extinction of many species, and the exacerbation of air pollution. Soil, water, and large population growth are the most prominent indicators
in global plans, economically and politically. Climate conferences have become the round table on which the future of the world order is decided, and nations struggle on its basis to preserve their shares by force, diplomacy, and to secure resources and control them by subjugating the people and robbing them of their rights and sovereignty. In the case of Lebanon and the Syrian nation, the Fertile Crescent will be subject to, in the next ten years, to severe climate waves that exacerbate the damage caused by human activity. These will expand desertification, make water sources seriously scarce, causes the green cover to recede, it will change the life cycle of many species, food sources and seasons. This will push the temperate climate to extreme levels, which threatens the destruction of one of the most important characteristics , the environment in Lebanon and the crescent regions in general.

It is certain that these waves complicate the process of developing the state, the advancement of society, confronting foreign interference and resource protection. This will cause social and political waves of displacement , fighting , and the spread of poverty, ignorance, disease and extremism. This will necessitates all the living forces of our people, to respond quickly to the call of the Syrian Social National Party to
cooperate and implement its plan, and extricate our country from a dark fate, instead of succumbing to laziness, helplessness and brokenness. The chapters of political, social, economic, and environmental reform are closely linked, and they integrate surprisingly
well. If one of them is disrupted, the entire building will be disrupted. It should be noted that the plan of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party includes parliamentary work and revival work between the ranks of the people and the community.

Political reform

Identity and building a civilized nation-state: Building the national state requires a complete separation of religions from the state, and the state accompanies social reform by abolishing sectarianism, forming the national identity through unitary
legislation and laws, and extending the spirit of unity to all other sectors of society, public and private. The system of “six and six bis” is reflected in the sharing of public sector employment, the corruption in the administrative and ethical system of employees and contributes to the deterioration of morality in society, creates loyalties to non-states and secures loopholes for espionage and dependence on the outside.

Must work on:

  1. An election law outside the sectarian limitation on the basis of
    proportionality and a single electoral district.
  2. A national law for parties and associations.
  3. Abolishing sectarian norms in trade unions and removing them
    from the grip of political domination.
  4. A national law to abolish sectarian quotas in civil and military
    state administrations.
  5. A national law to organize the affairs of religious institutions
    and strip them of political influence.
  6. Implementation of the criminalization of sectarian practices.
  7. Amending administrative divisions on a national basis.
  8. Rehabilitation and support for oversight institutions to protect
    loyal elements in the public sector and strike corruption and
  9. Reviving the Ministry of Planning.
  10. Limiting any decentralized mechanism, by improving the
    reality of administration, taking into account the unitary role of
    the state, and rejecting any expanded forms of decentralization.
  11. Developing the municipal law and abolishing sectarian and
    familial customs in their formation to ensure the unity of

Political reform will not be achieved and the balance of justice will be
straightened, unless the judiciary is established from the womb of
social unity to express the conscience and interests of society and the
role of the state in controlling violence, enforcing just laws, and
supporting the stubbornness of individuals in the interest of public
affairs, and unifying the rights and duties of individuals before a just
and unified judiciary.

  1. Complete independence of the judiciary from political and
    religious influence.
  2. Granting judges deliberate allowances and special insurances to
    prevent bribery and nepotism.
  3. Developing penal laws to match the development of social
    sciences and spirituality, and replacing prison sentences for
    violations and some misdemeanors with social service.
  4. Organizing prisons and transforming them into a place for social
    reform, not the spread of crime and despair.
  5. Develop the work of the police and security services to match
    the conditions of protecting society and the rights of citizens,
    combating abuse, and inflicting severe penalties on
    perpetrators of torture and violations.
  6. Regulating lawyers’ affairs and keeping the syndiactes away
    from sectarian norms.

Political sovereignty over land and resources – armed force:
Power is the final say in establishing the rights of the nation. In the
presence of the ephemeral Jewish state on our land, its constant
ambitions, its existential threat to Lebanon and our country, its
constant quest to steal our resources, displacing our people, replacing
settlers who occupied its place, and attempts to deceive into making
settlements under the name of “peace,” and with the foreign and
societal powers seeking to interfere with foreign agents and society, To
secure the loyalties and alliances of the fragmented groups of people, it
is necessary to:

  1. Adhering to the option of conflict with the enemy to liberate
    the entire occupied land and to drop any attempt to conclude a
    normalization or peace agreement with it.
  2. Activating the mandatory service in the Lebanese army for the
    younger generation.
  3. Training the general citizens on the use of weapons and the
    implementation of military and civil logistical tasks in case of
    war to form mobilization forces in the defense system.
  4. Preparing the physical and spiritual infrastructure and the
    internal front to withstand the conditions of war.
  5. Seeking to arm the Lebanese army with the appropriate
    weapons to deter the ongoing Zionist aggression.
  6. Besieging the expansion of foreign agendas in state institutions
    and in society.
  7. Protecting the security of the state and society from theft,
    leakage and internal and external exploitation.
  8. Protecting the armed resistance and securing its political, legal
    and popular incubator.
  9. Integration between the army, the security services, and the
    resistance forces to combat espionage and foreign intrusions.
  10. Severe penalties for agents, spies, and typists.
  11. Adhering to Lebanon’s position in the conflict and
    integration with other Syrian countries by signing agreements
    of military cooperation and security coordination, and rejecting
    false calls for “neutrality”.

Foreign policy:

  1. Coordination and integration with other Syrian countries in mutual
    affairs, national positions and global issues.
  2. Cooperating with friendly countries to ensure international stability,
    non-aggression, rejection of hegemony, and support for friendly
    peoples’ causes that confront the ambitions of foreign colonialism.
  3. Not to comply with the decisions of international unilateralism.
  4. Support the principles of justice and human cooperation between

Social Reform

Building a nationalistic and patriotic spirit to overcome sectarian and
faith fanaticism and abolish all forms of discrimination requires an
exceptional effort in all fields of society and the formation of the state
as the only reference for obtaining rights from it and carrying out duties
towards it equally.
• Remove barriers from society
• Adoption of a unified mandatory personal status law.
• Adoption of the Civil Marriage Law.
• Protection of public and private liberties.

• Transforming religious holidays into public occasions celebrated
by the general public.
• Criminalizing practices of discrimination between members of
the same people.
• Dissemination of the spirit of brotherhood, compassion and
solidarity among the sons of the same people.
• Generalizing the spirit of the national interest and the public
space on personal interests, individual tendencies and
utilitarian profit goals.
• Preventing class warfare in society.

Women are the mother of society:

Women’s rights in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party’s doctrine are
among the rights of the citizen/citizenship protected by the
constitution, and it is a reflection of the fact that women are the
mother of society, and its leader on the psychological, spiritual and
material levels.

  1. Equality of women with men through legislation, rights and
    duties without any exception, while giving women privileges in
    the state’s insurance systems to bear the burdens of pregnancy
    and childbirth and to maintain family cohesion.
  2. State agencies and society urge women to advance and
    encourage them to play their role and overcome the effects of
    patriarchal heirs in society.
  3. Disseminate the culture of integration and participation
    between men and women within the family in raising children,
    domestic responsibilities and securing income.
  4. Severe penalties for honor killings.
  5. Addressing the causes of domestic violence.
  6. Combating social norms and the culture of rumors and gossip,
    which allow violations against women or men and strike the
    social spirit.

Social Security:

  1. Preserving the Social Security Institution and enhancing the benefits
    to ensure the tranquility of society, the adoption of comprehensive
    health coverage, and the issuance of a unified health card for all
  2. Acknowledgment of a pension within the basket of social benefits.
  3. Reconsider all labor laws in order to immunize workers.
  4. Taking into account people with special needs in all state and social
    affairs organizations.


  1. Expanding the government hospitals department and enhancing
    its role and support to outperform private hospitals within the
    comprehensive health coverage.
  2. Eliminate monopoly in the market for medicine, equipment and
    medical supplies, and impose the most severe penalties against
  3. Preserving the body of doctors and nurses, limiting their
    emigration and redressing them.
  4. Develop health and medical sciences and integrate with other
    Fertile Crescent countries and friendly countries.
  5. Striving to achieve sovereignty over medicine by protecting the
    local industry and reducing its costs, regulating the establishment
    of laboratories for the production of medicines and vaccines, and
    integration with other Fertile Crescent countries and friendly
    countries .
  6. Combating drugs and poisons and setting a national policy to
    establish centers for the treatment of addiction in all its forms.
  7. Combating the scourge of smoking.
  8. Establishing official psychiatric clinics and clinics and spreading a
    culture of concern for mental health.
  9. Combating the causes and spread of cancer.
  10. Prepare for the risks of epidemics and viruses.
  11. Approval of a technical health plan.
  12. Controlling the use of anti-inflammatory drugs.

Education and Sports:

  1. Imposing free and semi-free compulsory education up to the
    secondary stage in the public school.
  2. Producing a national educational curriculum to build the new
    generation on the basis of the unity of the people and society,
    preserving the natural environment, and teaching agriculture and
  3. To protect and develop the public school so that it is superior to the
    schools of religious, private and foreign institutions.
  4. Protecting and developing the Lebanese University in order to
    surpass private universities and constitute an actual place for national
  5. Directing secondary students towards production specializations in
    energy, agriculture, industry, technology and cultural industries.
  6. Supporting the National Scout and encouraging sports and physical
  7. Supporting national teams, separating sports from religions, and
    supporting intellectual sports.
  8. Controlling the invasion of technology and its effects on the
    upbringing of children and young adults.

Cultural and Heritage:

  1. Protecting archaeological monuments and inflict severe penalties on
    antiquities smugglers and threatening historical elements.
  2. Encouraging internal and external tourism to historical monuments
    and preparing the necessary infrastructure and culture to receive those
  3. Supporting literary, artistic, musical and cinematic cultural
    production to convey the country’s message to the world and obtain a
    moral and material return.
  4. Encouraging public libraries in villages, neighborhoods, theaters and
    cinemas, and building a national opera house.
  5. Disseminate the culture of conflict and intellectual competition
    instead of bloody infighting.
  6. Encouraging the young woman to read, theatre, draw and write.
  7. Protecting cultural identity from threats and attempts to obliterate
    and building cultural sovereignty.
  8. Restore all stolen artifacts displayed in international museums.
  9. Introducing the people and the world to the makers of the cultural
  10. Controlling imported artworks on the basis of cultural sovereignty.


  1. Commitment to national standards in media work and the abolition
    of sectarianism in media discourse.
  2. Respect for freedom of information and expression.
  3. Protection of journalists from prosecution outside the Publications
    Court and the development of the law.
  4. Adjust advertising and entertainment programs in line with the
    national spirit.
  5. Banning astrology programs.

Economic reform

Overcoming the collapse and the effects of the previous stage,
distributing losses equitably and stopping our people’s immigration, so
we can move towards the future. It cannot be based on the same
economic bases in rent, indebtedness, services, commissions, import,
consumption, utilitarian profit and monopoly, at the expense of
production, waste and theft of resources, impoverishment of the
people and stripping them of their personal wealth. and expel
him. Therefore, adopting the option of an agreement with the
International Monetary Fund, with its conditions and experiences in
more than eighty countries, constitutes a continuation of the old
policies and a means to subjugate and impoverish the people in order
to control resources and achieve political influence for the countries
controlling the Fund and the World Bank. This option must be
confronted at the legal and popular levels.
Rescue requires urgent and strategic steps.
Urgent steps

  1. Opposition to the agreement with the IMF.
  2. Opposition to violating state properties and gold reserves.
  3. Repatriation of funds smuggled abroad.
  4. Conduct a criminal audit.
  5. Protecting the rights of depositors.
  6. Adoption of a phased recovery plan.

Strategic steps
Currency and Monetary system:

  1. Reviewing the monetary and credit law and the structure of the
    Bank of Lebanon and adopting laws to develop the banking
  2. Raising national capital and foreign exchange reserves.
  3. Linking the national currency to national production and capital
    and freeing it from the effects of pegging to foreign currencies.
  4. Seeking to create a strong, unified criticism among the
    countries of the Fertile Crescent.
  5. Protecting and developing gold reserves from other precious
  6. Implementing laws and inflicting the most severe penalties on
    manipulators of national currency.
  7. Retrieve the smuggled funds abroad and impose the most
    severe penalties on the smugglers.
  8. Striving to end public debt.
  9. Reviving state-owned banks such as the Agricultural and
    Industrial Credit Bank and developing the Housing Corporation
    within the comprehensive housing plan.


  1. Abolishing the random income tax and approving a progressive
    income tax.
  2. The tax on public services is proportional to its quality.
  3. Control of levying, combating customs evasion for major
    traders, monopolists and sectarian institutions, and imposing
    the most severe penalties on fraudsters.
  4. Reducing taxes on owners of small productive enterprises.

Justice for the Workers:

  1. Maintaining the rights of workers and employers, production
    and abolition of monopoly and exclusive agencies.
  2. Raising the minimum wage and securing transportation and
    food allowances.
  3. Respecting rest time to ensure family bonding, well-being and
  4. Coordinating vocational and university education with the
    requirements of the labor market and production to eliminate


  1. Expand economic sovereignty over energy resources.
  2. Establishing energy sovereignty through the establishment of
    electric production stations and keeping pace with the
    transition towards alternative and renewable energy.
  3. Establishing electricity plants on the basis of natural gas, Wind
    Turbine stations and solar panels in appropriate areas, taking
    into account environmental conditions, and supporting and
    developing the “Al Litany” project and other projects for the
    production of energy through water.
  4. Establishing oil and gas refining stations to obtain self-
    sufficiency and financial returns from export.
  5. Cooperating with companies of friendly countries to establish
    power stations and extract resources from land and sea, taking
    into account the terms of sustainability and environmental
    conditions, and not limiting cooperation with Western
    companies, and instead start investing in Russian, Chinese and
    Iranian expertise, for example, to develop a sector for it.
  6. Integration of energy projects with energy projects in other
    Syrian countries, exchange of experiences, and technical and
    material support.

Relationship with major companies:

  1. Adjusting the relationship with major companies under the roof
    of sovereignty and the supreme national interest.
  2. Develop sovereign agreements that guarantee the employment
    of national labor and small percentages of foreign labor.
  3. Prevent companies from political influence.

Import and Export:

  1. Balance the import and export rates.
  2. Putting severe restrictions on the import of goods that compete with
    local goods.
  3. Forming seasons and commodities for export to multiple markets to
    ensure competition and continuity.
  4. Putting severe restrictions on the quality of imported goods and
    ensuring their compliance with environmental and health standards.
  5. Putting high taxes on consumer goods to combat the culture of

Transportation and Vital Facilities:

  1. Establishing transportation networks on a national basis to enhance
    socio-economic interaction and achieve development in rural and
    urban areas.
  2. Connecting central transportation networks with other Syrian
    countries to activate the economy and national integration.
  3. Establishment of railway networks for individuals and goods from
    Beirut towards Damascus and towards the north and south, linking the
    north with the Bekaa and the Syrian depth, linking the south with the
    Bekaa and the Syrian depth, linking the coast with the coast and the
    Syrian interior.
  4. Establishing bus networks for public transport and securing jobs for
    public drivers in them.
  5. Developing a road network on a national basis.
  6. Determining the number of cars for one family and encouraging a
    culture of joint movement to face overcrowding and suffocation.
  7. Securing shipping lines between ports .
  8. Reconstruction of Beirut Port, developing other ports, constructing
    new ports, if needed, and linking them to the transport and railway
  9. Developing Beirut Airport, enhancing its national role, and
    developing small airports for relief and agricultural work.
  10. Protection of facilities from external domination.
  11. Control smuggling and trafficking in contraband and develop the
    customs system.

State property – public space – beaches:

  1. The restoration of the beaches and their return to the public domain.
  2. Protection of state property from foreclosure or sale.
  3. Investing in public spaces to enhance the unity of society, confidence
    in the state and the development of patriotism.

Agriculture and Food:
Develop an agricultural plan with the necessary laws affiliated to it in
parallel with the laws of field rehabilitation and land arrangement,
within the principle of “food is a right, not a commodity.”

  1. Supporting ecological agriculture to achieve food sovereignty.
  2. Support and educate farmers, including seafarers, and take care of
    small farms.
  3. Ensuring the sustainability of animal and vegetable protein sources
    and starches through local production and integration with the Syrian
  4. Separating strategic commodities such as wheat and grain from the
    game of profit and loss and considering them as sovereign
  5. Raising and developing national herds.
  6. Cultivation of all possible public and private spaces in the appropriate


  1. Supporting light, medium and aggregate industries to compensate
    for the lack of resources for heavy industries.
  2. Integration with other Syrian countries in industrial production.
  3. Supporting cultural and technological industries.
  4. Supporting and encouraging crafts and food industries.
  5. Protection of environments and not consuming the resources to
    heavily affect it.
  6. Establishing factories and workshops for military industrialization.


  1. Establishing the necessary infrastructure for tourism on the coast,
    mountains and inland, and benefiting from geographical and historical
  2. Maintaining the quality of tourism services and observing
    international prices to attract tourists.
  3. Supporting ecotourism.
  4. Integration with the Syrian countries to benefit from the extensive
    tourism programs and exchange the Lebanese experience with
    investments from other countries.
  5. Signing tourism cooperation agreements with friendly countries and
    benefiting from extensive tourism projects.

Environmental Program

Water and Sanitation:

  1. Develop a systematic plan to confront the decline in precipitation
    rates and the threat of global drought, at the level of the Fertile
  2. Protecting the remaining water sources from pollution, misuse and
    waste, especially the waters of Al Litani, Al Orontes, the Lesser Rivers
    and Lake Qaraoun, and the santization of river basins and springs.
  3. Controlling the drilling of artesian wells and ensuring management of
    sewers , so it doesn’t threaten the quality of groundwater sources.
  4. Work to establish small and medium ponds to individuals or
    collectives and encourage farmers and municipalities.
  5. Dissemination of the culture of rain collection in the countryside and
  6. Develop sewage networks and refineries to stop the pollution of
    drinking water and sea water.
  7. Replacing dams by investing in existing water sources and improving
    transportation networks.
  8. Establishing awareness campaigns on the issue of water.
  9. Ensuring the equitable access of drinking water to the general public
    and developing the laws and customs of water distribution.
  10. Combating the commodification of drinking water and restoring
    state control over the sector instead of private and international
  11. Imposing severe penalties on polluters.


  1. Reducing the production of waste and to strike on the negative
    aspects of consumption.
  2. Dissemination of the culture of household sorting and reuse.
  3. Gradual phasing out of the use of plastic.
  4. Establishing waste treatment centers to address the crisis of random
    landfills and developing a long-term plan for re-sorting the accumulated
    waste and stopping the incinerators.
  5. Production of agricultural fertilizers from organic waste.
  6. Recycle as much as possible.

Forests and Species:

  1. Adoption of a plan for the integrated management of forests
    and natural reserves and the cessation of urban expansion.
  2. Efforts should be made to combat the receding of the green
    cover and to fertilize the bare areas that have lost their cover.
  3. Protection of local plant and animal species.
  4. Establishing a grain bank and centers for the propagation of
    local seeds and wild species and the control of genetically
    modified seeds and species.
  5. Establishing centers for breeding and rooting local livestock.
  6. Banning hunting for several years and preserving the remaining
    animal species and preventing them from extinction.
  7. Cooperating with the Syrian countries to protect the species in
    the Fertile Crescent.
  8. Putting restrictions on the import of live species and subjecting
    them to studies and sterilization before allowing entry into the
  9. Gradually phase out the use of chemical cleaning agents, toxins,
    pesticides, agricultural nutrients, and chemical fertilizers.
  10. Encourage the production of fertilizers and environmental

Urbanization and real estate and civil regulation:

  1. Reclaiming state properties, especially marine properties.
  2. Approval of a comprehensive housing plan.
  3. Declaring taxation on unused real estate.
  4. Adoption of a new property law.
  5. Reconsidering a comprehensive plan for arranging the lands in a
    way that is commensurate with social justice, the unity of the
    community, and the protection of the ecology and the
  6. Stop random construction and support ecological architecture.

Russia in the Far East by Nikolay Ustryalov

Russian version can be found here and was taken from Ustryalov collective writings called “Under the Sign of the Revolution.”

Nikolay Ustryalov wrote this article sometime in mid 1925 when relations between the Soviet Union, China, and Japan were improving. Ustryalov examines weather the Soviet Union was growing more stronger with far east or was weakening its position. Ustryalov analysis is a very interesting one to say the least.


The agreements between Soviet Russia, China, and Japan undoubtedly open a fresh page in the recent history of the Far East.

The Russian Revolution temporarily knocked Russia out of her historical position along the Pacific coast. As long as a heavy litigation for power continued inside the country, the unprotected borders of the state threateningly moved deep into the territory. The civil war paralyzed the possibility of a serious national defense.

In 1919, already in Vladivostok, Kolchak had to experience the pressure of the interventionist forces, who felt on Russian soil like a state within a state. Under the banner of “help” to the anti-Bolshevik Russian armies, the Allies naturally pursued their own national interests. And where these interests could be realized at the expense of Russia, Russia was not considered. And the white armies objectively became agents of the dismemberment and disintegration of the country.

The most dangerous adversary of Russia in the Far East was undoubtedly Japan, since its government tried to use the Russian turmoil in its calculations.

The states, territorially uninterested in Asia, and economically relatively indifferent to the area of ​​the Great Siberian Route, evacuated their troops from the Russian Far East soon after the liquidation of the Kolchak government. By the same time, the last echelons of Czech military units left Siberia, having gained sad popularity among the Russian population, as well as among all Russian political groups.

Japan remained, stubbornly holding its troops in all the essential points of Eastern Siberia, covering up the intervention with all sorts of pretexts. And under the protection of the Japanese military force, Russian “white” governments were located in the occupied territory, internally powerless, incredibly mediocre, recruited from openly adventurist, denationalized elements.

In 1920, it finally became clear that the gathering of the country comes from the center, from Moscow. At the moment when the struggle for Moscow ended in victory for the Soviets, the Soviet government historically turned into an all-Russian national authority. Whatever the qualities of its policy, on the outside it alone actually represented Russia. And the white fragments, due to foreign support, still lingering somewhere on the outskirts, in essence were nothing more than outposts of Russia’s enemies on Russian territory.

However, despite all the obstacles, despite the extremely difficult situation, the last five years (1920-1925) were years of a steady, systematic, albeit slow, return of Russia to its Far Eastern positions . The combined forces of the Red Army and Soviet diplomacy overcame one difficulty after another, and at the moment we can safely say that the period of the most difficult trials is already behind us. A little more time will pass, and the last foreign soldier will leave the Russian land (the deadline for the evacuation of Sakhalin is May 15, 1925). At the same time, the Peking and Mukden agreements with China recorded the interest of the Soviet Union in the CER, as an enterprise under joint Russian-Chinese management.

Russia is again becoming an inevitable and extremely essential element of the international balance in the Far East. And although there are still many obstacles and rough edges ahead of her on her further path, although a lot still needs to be done to nullify the terrible fruits of the hard times she has experienced, one can confidently and calmly look into the face of the future: the past five years is a guarantee of that.


When the Kolchak government fell in Irkutsk on January 5, 1920, very colorful events took place east of Lake Baikal. But the main fact still seemed to be the presence of Japanese troops along the Siberian route. As for the KVZhD right-of-way, in March 20, Horvath fell in Harbin and his fall dealt a crushing blow to the Russian influence of the old type in the sphere of Chinese affairs. Moscow tried at the same time to establish relations with the Peking government (the well-known “Karakhan note”), but to no avail.

In Chita and Transbaikalia, Ataman Semyonov was in charge. The Amur and coastal Russian regional governments were guided by Moscow, but in practice their hands were tied by intervention. The memorable “performance” of the Japanese on April 4-5, 1920 was a formidable warning and was intended to show who the real master of the region was. The sad events of Nicholas II served as a good pretext for Tokyo to secure the occupation of Sakhalin and strengthen the policy of intervention.

The fight against intervention could only be partisan. And it was being carried on, it was being prepared, promising to be especially painful for the Japanese in winter. Largely under the pressure of this prospect, in the autumn of the same year 20, the land of the Rising Sun began to retreat. Her troops cleared Transbaikalia and the Amur region, lingering in Primorye. Of course, following the evacuation of foreign troops, the miserable “power” of Ataman Semenov immediately collapsed. His furious comrade-in-arms, Ungern, went with his detachment to Mongolia, where he was subsequently caught by the red units. “Kappelevtsy”, with the assistance of the Japanese, were transported along the CER to Primorye.

Russia returned to the Pacific Ocean. It actually returned, without being formally recognized by the powers, relying only not on itself. Time worked for her.

Manchuria and Primorye, however, continued to live a special life. The situation on the CER was determined by a series of fictions behind which lay the pressure of the great powers. The “Russian-Asian Bank”, having cut off all ties with real Russia, shared the direction of the road with the Chinese government in the name of its imaginary rights. For a long time, the adventurers of the Civil War, the epigones of the “white dream”, looked at the exclusion zone as a convenient “bridgehead” for the development of another anti-Soviet expedition. The “ideological” headquarters of the Far Eastern emigration was also concentrated in Harbin, making every effort to repel the Soviet wave from the regions of the Far Eastern outskirts. “State-minded” deputations now and then scurried to Beijing and Tokyo, inciting them to Moscow. White Harbin tried to become a pistol aimed at Russia.

The situation in Primorye was also unfavorable. The actual master of the situation there was the Japanese occupation corps. “Legally” Primorye adjoined the “Far Eastern Republic” (FER), organized by Moscow on Russian territory east of Lake Baikal. This republic, according to the Soviet government, was supposed to serve as a kind of “buffer” between the RSFSR, which was then still going through the period of “war communism”, and the states of East Asia. The FER had a democratic constitution and a “bourgeois” economy.

In Vladivostok, the regional government was formally in power, headed by the communist Antonov. Naturally, the Japanese did not like it, and already in January 1921, a “coup” began to be prepared, which was supposed to replace Antonov with Semenov. The latter then lived in Port Arthur, was eager to fight again, trumping his “democratism” and maintaining lively ties with the white groups in Harbin.

But when the organization of the coup was already established, it was not the Semenovites who took advantage of its fruits, but the Merkulov brothers, who deftly seduced the Kappelites at the last moment. On May 26, 1921, power in Primorye passed from Antonov to the monarchist and frankly Japanophile government of the Merkulovs.

This was another obstacle in the way of Russia’s return to the Pacific shores. The agreement with Japan was fatally pushed back further and further. China, for its part, has been slow to recognize the new Russia.

The inner squalor of the Merkul government manifested itself earlier than one could even expect. It was some kind of pitiful provincial farce, a backwater game of the ridiculous ambitions of minor “political” characters. As if for this they alone threw out the tricolor flag in order to finally humiliate him, insult him, compromise him. The Japanese could not but feel the falsity of their bet on such Russian “patriots”. Within Japan itself, more and more voices began to be heard demanding the evacuation of Japanese troops from Primorye. Hostility towards the interventionists on the part of the Russian population of the occupied region (mainly the peasantry and, of course, the workers) steadily increased. The hill partisan movement not only did not stop, but assumed a massive character.

At the end of 1921, the memorable Washington Conference took place, which passed a number of resolutions on Far Eastern affairs. Since these resolutions were directed against Soviet Russia (for example, in the field of the CER problem), they turned out to be unviable. Since they rejected intervention in the affairs of Russia, they were historically effective and carried out in practice. After the Washington Conference, anti-interventionist sentiments inside Japan intensified and grew stronger.

However, the long conference between the Far East and Japan in Dairen did not come to a happy conclusion and ended in a break in April 22. The Land of the Rising Sun did not agree to a compromise acceptable to Russia. Even on the question of the evacuation of Primorye, the Russian delegates could not insist on their proposals. Apparently, the idea of ​​pushing Russia away from the ocean and turning the Sea of ​​Japan into Japan’s “inland lake” has not yet been outlived in Tokyo government circles.

But in the fall of 1922, despite the humiliated petitions of the “national” authorities of the Merkulovs and Diterichs with its “non-congresses” and “shortcomings”, the Tokyo government nevertheless decided to withdraw its troops from Primorye. Of course, following the evacuation of the Japanese, the power of the “voivode” Dieterikhs, who had replaced the Merkulovs shortly before, automatically fell, and the region almost painlessly passed into the hands of Russia. It was both a revolutionary and a national holiday. The end of the intervention and the liquidation of “war communism” in the RSFSR made the independent existence of the FER unnecessary, and it was then abolished, merging with Soviet Russia. On November 14, 1922, the vote of the People’s Assembly of the Far East, to the sounds of the “International”, formally completed the national reunification of the Russian Far East with Moscow.

The accession of Primorye to the Russian state was an event of great importance on the scale of the Far East. Firstly, the last on the territory of Russia, the center of the revolutionary civil war, which internally had long since become obsolete, went out, and, secondly, Russia restored its former eastern borders. At the same time, the question of establishing lasting peaceful relations between Soviet Russia, Japan and China was raised closely – not on the ephemeral orders of Washington generals from world politics, but on the specific requirements of the real life situation.

The central point of the Soviet-Chinese negotiations was the Chinese Eastern Railway, the Soviet-Japanese – the problem of Sakhalin.


Even in the Karakhan note of 1920, the Soviet government declared the general principles of its Chinese policy. Resolutely distancing itself from the old line of tsarist diplomacy, it emphasized that it was ready to be guided in its relations with the Chinese Republic by the principles of true friendship and true equality. It renounced the Russian share of the boxing indemnity, the rights of extraterritoriality and consular jurisdiction. It recognized Chinese sovereignty in Manchuria and agreed to draw all the conclusions from this recognition.

However, while the real influence of Soviet Russia in the Far East was insignificant, China did not show much inclination to negotiate with the Moscow government. The Peking mission of Yurin, later of Paikes, worked in difficult, downright even hopeless conditions. And only when, on the one hand, news began to come from Europe about the conversations of world capitals with Moscow, and on the other hand, Soviet influence made its way to Posyet and enveloped Manchuria from three sides, did the politicians of Beijing begin to talk more seriously and in detail with Russian representatives. For their part, by this time the latter could no longer continue in their speeches that abstract line of revolutionary declarations and irresponsible altruistic gestures, which was so characteristic of Russia in the first years of the revolution, and posed questions more concretely, in depth, and cautiously.

The general style of Soviet policy towards China, however, remained unchanged even when Pikes was replaced by the experienced and authoritative Ioffe. Moscow diplomacy strenuously and deliberately emphasized its complete absence of any “imperialist” tendencies and was guided by the awakening Chinese nationalism. But, renouncing the rights of extraterritoriality, as well as special rights and privileges in relation to all kinds of concessions acquired in China by the tsarist government, Moscow categorically insisted on its deep economic interest in the CER, built with Russian money and being an essential link of the Great Siberian Road.

A year and a half has passed since the restoration of Russian sovereignty in Primorye, and only on May 31, 1924, Karakhan, who replaced Ioffe as Soviet plenipotentiary in Beijing, managed to conclude an agreement with the Beijing government, thereby putting the Washington Protocols in front of a very prickly fact for them.

Of course, compared with the position of pre-revolutionary Russia in China, the May 31 agreement appears to be a step backwards. It clearly reflects the damage suffered over the years by Russian statehood. It would be fruitless to hide that Russia is returning to the world outwardly weakened, exhausted by the terrible crisis that has struck her. Naturally, the new treaties, fixing its state-legal resurrection, cannot but express at the same time some defectiveness of its former power, its former authority. But it must be added that in terms of diplomatic discussions and official proclamations, this inferiority, as we have already seen, receives a coherent fundamental justification: – The Soviet Union voluntarily breaks with the imperialist habits of the policy of old tsarist Russia and bases its diplomacy the beginning of high international justice . Not a sword, but the world brings with it the new Russia…

Internal Chinese complications somewhat slowed down the implementation of the Beijing agreement. Additional talks between the Soviet representatives in Mukden and Marshal Chang Tso-lin were required. As you know, Russia agreed to a new concession (reducing the lease term of the KVZhD by 20 years), and, as a result, on October 3, 1924, with the platonic protests of the Russian-Asiatic Bank, the road actually passed into joint Soviet-Chinese management, and over the embassy and Soviet consulates in China raised the national flags of the Union.

Pondering over the attacks of the Russian enemies of Soviet Russia on her Chinese policy, it is not difficult to uncover two lines of these attacks:

1) “The Soviet government does not protect its state interests well, betrays them, allows the sinicization of Manchuria, gives up traditional Russian positions in China. The Bolsheviks are ready for any concessions for the sake of “recognition”, they are ready to give everything, to give up everything. Chinese influence is established on the CER, they are infringed Russian rights. And each fact of the corresponding order is maliciously emphasized and savored by the Far Eastern Russian emigration.

And along with this line of attack – another:

2) “Soviet power is increasing its influence in China. “Organizes propaganda”, “sends agitators” everywhere, and as a result “China is in danger.” Soviet Russia holds Mongolia behind it with its “tenacious claws”, threatens the border regions of China from Uryankhai. Soviet Russia, in its own interests, seeks to enlist the sympathy of the broad masses of the Chinese people. A stormy sovietization is taking place on the Chinese Eastern Railway, various Soviet organizations are being deployed, feverish work is underway in this direction. Soviet Russia wants to sovietize Manchuria, and if, supposedly, the Chinese authorities do not show her decisive opposition, she this, perhaps, will be achieved. And prayers rush to the Japanese, Chinese, consuls: – watch out!

It is worth reading a couple of any issues of any anti-Soviet Russian newspaper in China to find both of the above “arguments” in them. Both categories of attacks in virgin integrity coexist side by side. And their authors do not seem to notice that these attacks, fundamentally contradicting each other, are mutually neutralized.

In fact: – something perishing one thing. Either Russian influence is falling, or it is increasing. Either Moscow is only engaged in betraying its interests, or it is “cleverly” pushing its claws beyond its borders. Either Manchuria is becoming Sinicized or it is being Sovietized. And, finally, you need to choose a certain ideology! – Either bash the Japanese, the consuls, Washington, cry about the lost “extraterritoriality” – and then there is no point in fawning over the representatives of China, pretending to be more Chinese than the Chinese themselves. Or “enlist” Chinese citizenship – but then say goodbye to Washington! (Oh, those candidates for Chinese citizenship with the Washington stone in their bosom! ..).

And further. If Chinese citizenship, patriotism of a foreign fatherland, then why crocodile tears about Russian interests? And if you care about them, then why yell about Mongolia, denounce Soviet activity, growl furiously about the “work of Moscow agents”? ..

Let us assume that after the Mukden agreement, China really expanded its sphere of influence on the CER. But a huge mistake is to claim that this happened directly at the expense of Russian rights. Russian rights to the road have ceased to be actually exercised since the “gone” old state. Prior to the Beijing-Mukden agreement, cash Russia did not have any access to the road at all, it was thrown away from it. There were not authorized by it, imaginary guardians of its interests in the person of the Russian-Asian Bank and the foreigners standing behind it. In the service of this fiction was a certain number of Russian people cut off from their homeland. Many of them sincerely sought to reunite with her, and this fact gave the fiction a certain positive meaning. But it is a cruel aberration to believe that before the Mukden agreement, Russia, as a state, present in Manchuria. She wasn’t here at all. Now it has appeared, returned in a new guise, with a new program, with less power and outward brilliance than before, but still in the person of its true representatives and in the name of its real interests.

Without the Peking and Mukden agreements, the fictions would still inevitably melt away, disperse, and it was not for nothing that we all witnessed the steady, rapidly growing offensive not only of the Chinese, but also of the Japanese, French, etc. to a false situation, which had nothing behind it, except for the already disintegrated Washington quartet. The return of Russia restored the perishing balance.

The clearer is the inner emptiness and logical depravity of the attacks carried out against the Far Eastern policy of Soviet Russia.

Of course, modern Russia (embodied in the state form of the USSR) is capable of defending only its own interests and defending them in its own way. This or that specific step of the Moscow government can be considered a mistake. His work, his individual speeches, should be subjected to businesslike, “immanent” criticism. But one cannot blame it at the same time for the fact that it renounces the defense of its rights, and for the fact that it seeks to retain and even expand them by all means available to it! ..

Now – on the merits of the attacks. Of course, both mutually canceling reproaches against Moscow’s Chinese policy are equally untenable. Soviet Russia has no intention of “seizing” China, nor is it going to renounce its reasonable interests and just rights, compatible with the dignity of the Chinese people, although, perhaps, irritating the extreme Chinese chauvinists. A conscientious look at the situation that has arisen must admit that in an atmosphere that is incredibly difficult for the Russian cause, representatives of Soviet diplomacy are making every effort to defend every inch of Russia’s vital economic interests in Manchuria. It is very difficult for them, because Russia is state weakened, and the Far East has long turned into a complex, tangled knot of international influences and pressures. They have a very difficult time, and because that in most cases their opponents and rivals are technically more advanced than they are. But within the limits of the possible, they still carry out their tasks. Soviet Russia has renounced the policy of militarism, but it would still not be in a position to pursue it now. It remains to use all the methods of diplomatic weapons that it has. Any other Russian government, under the present situation, would be, in any case, in an equally difficult position.

It is not at all a matter of “revolutionary propaganda” and not of the “agitators of the Comintern”. The point is in the “general spirit” of Soviet Russia’s international policy, in the very nature of its relations with all “oppressed”, semi-colonial and colonial peoples. This policy, which so defiantly opposes itself to “imperialism,” Russia has been state weakened in the Roo.. of the orc civilized world, not only corresponds to the principles proclaimed by the October Revolution, but, under present conditions, it alone corresponds to the real interests of the Russian state. It should not be dogmatized, erected into a fetish, but its expediency at the present time cannot be denied. One must be able to ponder over the true, vital meaning of words. The geometric axiom is far from always applicable to political life, according to which the straight line is the shortest path. In politics more often “takes out the curve.”

Not a single factor here can be neglected in order to achieve the intended goal, even if for useful factors it was sometimes necessary to turn off the main road onto country roads and roundabouts.

The mode of action of the Russian people should now consist not in importunately sticking in the wheels of Soviet foreign policy at every convenient and inconvenient occasion, but, on the contrary, in all possible lightening of the hard work of Moscow diplomacy, although not always successful, but inevitably national in its objective significance. And it should be noted with satisfaction that here, on the CER, the vast majority of Russian employees of the railway contemptuously dismiss the sabotage and treacherous appeals of the “irreconcilable” circles of emigrants, strive with all their might to “Russify”, work loyally with the available representatives of present Russia in the Far East and consolidate the Soviet -Russian influence in Manchuria.


But the real strengthening of Russian positions in the Pacific Ocean insistently demanded a settlement of relations with Japan. As long as no formal knots connected Japan with Russia, a more or less stable balance in the Far East could not be considered secured.

This was well understood by both sides. And the failure of the Dairen Conference did not discourage them from further attempts. In Changchun and Tokyo, Ioffe continued negotiations. The deal, however, did not work out.

Northern Sakhalin remained the main obstacle. Russia insisted on his evacuation. Japan, strongly interested in his coal and oil, resisted. Soviet diplomacy preferred waiting before making concessions. Events have shown that she was right.

Weakened by the terrible earthquake of 23 years and, most importantly, exhausted by a protracted economic crisis, both agricultural and industrial, Japan in recent years has also experienced a number of internal political difficulties. Under these conditions, a sharply aggressive foreign policy on the mainland, which had many supporters among its “military party”, turned out to be beyond its power. Not only the competition with S.-A. C. States, but, mainly, it was the political situation within the country that forced the Tokyo government to seek the establishment of a certain balance in the sphere of the main international factors of the Far East.

At the same time, the Russian revolution destroyed the remnants of fears lurking in Japan about Russia. Of course, the resurrection of old-style Russian politics, which led to the war of 1904-1905, is no longer possible, just as, however, it was unlikely after 1905, when Russo-Japanese relations are taking a sharp turn towards the mutual rapprochement of both powers. Now Russia is in many ways on the path with Japan, and there is reason to believe that the course of events, regardless of the subjective moods of the rulers of either country, will lead both of them to mutual contact in a number of specific issues.

The agreement with China, the recognition of the Soviet government by the European powers, the ongoing internal difficulties – these are the immediate prerequisites for Japan’s decision to agree to the evacuation of northern Sakhalin and be satisfied with the concessions on its territory granted to it by the Soviet government. The last months of the Beijing talks between Karahaea and Yoshizawa were devoted to working out the terms of these mandatory concessions. Several times the conference was interrupted, a break seemed almost inevitable. Mutual concessions led, however, to a successful conclusion of the negotiations. On the anniversary of Lenin’s death, on the night of January 20-21, 1925, the agreement was signed. The official Japanese agency “Toho” deliberately emphasized the kind desire of the Japanese representative to finish the conference by January 21st.

“January 21,” the agency’s characteristic message reads, “is the anniversary of Lenin’s death. Therefore, the Japanese delegate was especially in a hurry to sign the agreement in order to reveal friendly intentions towards the USSR by this step, for which purpose in memory of Lenin on this day to have an agreement of the great country of the Far East – The Empire of Japan and keep the memory of yourself in the descendants.

In terms of its content, the Russo-Japanese treaty is an undoubted symptom of Japan’s rejection of the policy of militaristic influence on Soviet Russia. Three years ago, the terms of the agreement would have seemed incredible even to an optimist. Needless to say, the emigrant press then considered not only northern Sakhalin, but also Primorye to be dead for Moscow. The agreement of January 20 must be assessed primarily in a historical perspective. Its joyful meaning then appears before us in all its indisputability.

Of course, even now people who “fundamentally” do not want to recognize anything connected with the hated Moscow are shouting about Karakhan’s excessive compliance and are ready to see almost “Far Eastern Brest” in the Soviet-Japanese agreement. Not a single Russian government, under the current historical situation, could have achieved more favorable conditions. Japan is interested in the oil and coal regions of northern Sakhalin, and Russia now positively lacks reasonable grounds to oppose at all costs the surrender of the relevant concessions to the Japanese government. In general, even here the agreement sufficiently guarantees the interests of the USSR. What happens next will depend on a number of circumstances and, of course, above all, on the facts of the internal economic and political development of both states.

International politics is not sentimental. No matter how magnificent the verbal shells that cover up real interests, it is the latter that ultimately are the decisive factor.

From this point of view, it is possible to foresee that the solution of the fundamental question of Sakhalin opens up a real opportunity for joint Soviet-Japanese actions on a whole series of other essential issues of the common Far East policy. It is only necessary that the mutual prejudices of the two peoples against each other, prejudices born of the sad era of intervention, should dissipate as soon as possible. I would like to establish once and for all that this era has firmly sunk into eternity.

There is no need to turn a blind eye to the difficulties that lie ahead in the cause of genuine and all-round reconciliation of the Far East. The complexity of the Pacific situation is well known. But one can hardly doubt that the fact of the return of Russia in the recent history of the Far East begins a new and, probably, extremely significant page.