National capital does not exist.
The nature of capital is
international. It ignores all obstacles to economic profit.
Any
restrictions to freedom of markets are an obstacle to this profit.
This
includes state, national, confessional, and other divisions.
Fascism, which
misunderstood its own essence as far as the necessity to combine
nationalism
specifically with socialism, fell victim to this monstrous, unforgivable
delusion. Nationalism cannot be market-based or liberal.
This ideology
appeals to immaterial, collective, supereconomic life.
Communal life is both
at the center of nationalism and at the center of socialism.
Capitalism is
based on a radically different, irreconcilable position, the
concept of
material profit, effectiveness, rationalization of the present,
momentary,
objective world. Let us remember that early national-socialism
was based on
a radically socialist, rigidly anti-bourgeois concept of Ernst
Junger, the
Laborer, Der Arbeiter.
But it is completely
unnecessary to constantly turn to German and
Italian experience. Contemporary Russian nationalism must
rethink its own
historical experience. And, given a proper approach, it
will become obvious
to us that the Soviet order, bolshevism, was indeed a consistent,
finalized,
perfected expression of radical Russian national tendencies in
the conditions
of a terrible and paradoxical twentieth century. Bolshevism
in its very
essence, its deepest logic, its spirit was none other than
national-bolshevism. If we take a close look at the history
of the Communist
Party, we will instantly see that no abstract internationalism
ever existed
in its ranks. Ever since the times of the populists, "internationalism"
was
understood to be an all-Eurasian, imperial, socialist nationalism,
which
completely coincides with the universal, world-historical mission
of the
Russian people, as a people carrying not so much the principle
of blood,
ethnicity, but the principle of special spiritual and cultural
ideal.
Russian nationalism has always been integrationist, superethnical,
ethical,
and messianic. Not racial, not regionalistic, not local.
Just like
bolshevism.
What does this hold
for the patriotic movement? We need to radically
reassess the Soviet period, work out a special historiographic
model, and use
its framework to rewrite Soviet history in a third variant.
So far, we are
aware of two approaches - anti-Soviet and Soviet. Soviet
approach reflects
Soviet history in Marxist terms, remaining hypnotized by an alienated
and
complicated scholastically communist methodology, muddled up
as a result of
numerous leaps and periods of development of socialist doctrine.
More than
that, the main line of strictly Soviet historiography has been
cut due to
collapse of the Soviet Union, and in its place appeared a plethora
of
sect-like, marginal historical groupings entangled in terminology,
clashing
with each other, unable to come to a unitary ideological picture
of the
Soviet stage.
The second ideological
approach coincides with the anti-Soviet view.
It has two positions. One is widely known, "democratic,"
"westernist."
According to this theory, socialism is a delusion and an evil,
the Soviet
period is an anomaly rooted in dark, archaic conditions of underdeveloped
totalitarian Asiatic masses inhabiting north-west Eurasia.
Another variety of
anti-Soviet model is monarchist, "White."
According to this model, normal development of a peculiar European
power was
artificially interrupted by a conspiracy of alien fanatics, who
carried out
an anti-popular coup and ruled using force and terror for
long decades until
the system rotted through to the end.
Different interpretations
of bolshevism in these two main
perspectives - Soviet and anti-Soviet - are well-known, but there
is also
awareness of their internal discrepancies and inherent stretches.
In fact, what we possess
so far does not give the main, true approach
to the bolshevik phenomenon.
Such an approach can
be formed only in the event of recognition of
fundamental unity, spiritual and ethical kinship between national
(especially
Russian) idea and the basic pathos of communism as an ideology,
including
Marxism. Other approaches radically distinguish nationalism
and socialism
(communism), view them as ideological antitheses, incompatible
tendencies.
And the conviction in this incompatibility is projected further
on the entire
course of historical reconstruction. The consequences are
known - essence of
the phenomenon is lost, contradictions fall on top of each other
creating
endless stretches and misunderstandings. It may be that
the only approach
close to the truth is extremist Western liberalism, characterized
by maximum
russophobia in conjunction with the utmost hatred for any forms
of socialism
or communism. Only here - although in a negated form -
is correctly noted
the surprising solidarity, consonance of bolshevism and the Russian
Idea,
deep kinship to the other side of external forms.
The problem boils down
to working out not a negated form, as in the
case of russophobic anti-communists, but a completely positive,
apologetic
historiographical model of bolshevism as a phenomenon organically
combining
in itself national and communist traits. I principle, the
basis for such a
construction was laid down by Mikhail Agursky in his priceless
book "Ideology
of National Bolshevism" and especially in its complete English
variant "Third
Rome." Surprisingly, this brilliant work was not followed
by a serious
development of the given subject by other authors. Nothing
but scraps,
fragments, details. Although, it would seem that the creation
of an entire
historical school, armed with Agursky's methodology and having
in its
possession a multitude of reasearch works of radical russophobic
anti-socialists, whose outlines can be used as ready blocks with
an automatic
replacement of the ethical value of one and same phenomena from
a minus to a
plus, is calling for itself.
Perhaps, it is necessary
to wait out for some time, until the
political agiotage of supporters and opponents of socialism passes,
until
numerous extremely talentless historians, filling all institutions
during the
dismal period of late Brezhnevism(they indirectly furthered surrender
of
socialism!) move to the sidelines. Now, with an increasing
tempo, the
"monarchists" historiographical method is being discredited,
while the
liberal-russophobic position, notwithstanding its domination
ever since
perestroika, will soon become physically insecure in a situation
of desparate
condition of the Russian people and an inevitable social explosion.
The last refuge of
scoundrels remains national-capitalism,
anti-socialist, anti-communist, rightist fascism (as a rule,
linked with
racism, xenophobia, etc.) It is contradictory and irresponsible.
It is
absolutely untrue and leads nowhere. This theorization
of an unnatural
compromise is conceptually and historically doomed. It
is a deliberately
amoral and unintelligent dead end, mixed up on ressentiment and/or
paranoidal
complexes.
On the contrary, all
paths are clear for national-bolshevik
historiography. It is the only one that has a future.
It is an approach in
which the passion for historical truth is tied with a fitting
ethical choice,
national pride, and an exalted social ideal.
It can already be seen
that in the future the barest necessity to use
the term "bolshevism" with prefix "national-" will go away.
Bolshevism is
already in itself national-bolshevism, since no "non-national bolshevism"
has
ever existed. |
