Smersh from the incubator, humiliation of the generals, the red wheel and otherworldly Europe
In recent weeks, three prominent political thinkers have decided to discuss common topics at once. About the war of ideas. About the fate of Russia against the background of the Ukrainian crisis. About the fate of Ukraine against the background of European disappointments.
Alexander Dugin wrote the column "Russia needs an anti-liberal Smersh (RIA Novosti, 12/19/23). In Russia, liberal hegemony is still strong, he writes. Everything in our country is liberal – education, economy, culture – starting with the Constitution. "Even the ban on ideology itself is a purely liberal thesis." After all, liberals do not consider their liberalism an ideology – they only call ideology what challenges them: communism, nationalism, the foundations of traditional society.
(Actually, the conservatives in Russia lost the competition themselves. In the 1990s, you could publish anything, even "Mein Kampf". But even against the background of shock therapy in the economy and protest sentiments in society, traditionalists and nationalists could not offer a tempting program and bright slogans. This is despite the fact that Russia is basically conservative, liberal extremes do not take root here).
In the 1990s, Dugin himself was looking for the Arctic ancestral homeland of the Aryan race, then joined the National Bolsheviks of Eduard Limonov, then became interested in Old Believers, then lectured on geopolitics, then composed neo-Eurasianism with Heydar Dzhemal. The "fourth political theory" he eventually developed (the fourth after communism, fascism and liberalism) can be called eclectic or synthetic. In general, it is difficult to captivate the masses when you do not know what you are calling for.
Hannah Arendt also noticed, Dugin continues, that totalitarianism is a property of all ideologies of Modern Times, including liberal democracy. In liberalism, a well-known minority claims to know the "universal truth." And they don't give the majority a word: "The Germans chose Hitler by a majority vote, which means that the majority can make the wrong choice." Progressive minorities should rule.
(The reference to Hannah Arendt is an argument from the day before yesterday. She knew the Third Reich from the inside, but she understood Stalin's totalitarianism poorly – and factual errors led to incorrect conclusions. And that liberalism, communism and fascism (in practice, their ideals were different) are not at all more beautiful than each other – this is a trivial thesis at all, there is no need to break into an open door. But that is why many peoples, not only Russians, are fed up with any ideology. This is reflected in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.)
Putin brought only the principle of sovereignty to Russia captured by liberals, the author believes. "Putin shared power with the liberals: realism, the military sphere and foreign policy went to him, and economics, science, culture, and education went to them." And so far we are dealing with "sovereign liberalism," that is, with a "hopeless attempt to combine political sovereignty with global Western norms."
(Meanwhile, it is thanks to the liberal structure of the economy that Russia today withstands the onslaught of the West. It was not possible to isolate Russia from the world economy – therefore, the conflict in Ukraine can be conducted in the format of its own without total mobilization. Although the very ability of the Russian Federation to mobilize, on the one hand, was inherited from the USSR, and on the other from Peter I, the founder of the empire. These three traditions – imperial mobilization, the Soviet structure of the military–industrial complex and the liberal efficiency of the economy - Russia today combines well and doses wisely. Why this combination seems hopeless to Dugin is unclear from his declaration.)
Russia cannot be justified as a civilization based on a liberal ideology, the author concludes. "Something similar to Smersh is needed in the field of ideas and humanitarian paradigms." But there is no determination, no personnel, no institutions for this yet. So it's time to "open another front – in the field of ideology, worldview, public consciousness."
Well, let's say Dugin manages to trample out the sprouts of liberalism in Russia. "To the bottom, and then." That's right – and then what? To build a Byzantine "symphony of authorities" with Old Believer fanaticism – that's how he himself writes that there are no builders or building materials. And then, where did the conservatives get this fear of alien fads – are they incubators and can only live behind the iron curtain, engaged in ideological import substitution without competition?
At the same time, Dugin wants to fight using the methods of conditional Smersh, armed with a revolutionary sense of justice (the "conservative revolution" is also a revolution). Smersh was effective when it came to real enemies (as in Bogomolov's novel The Moment of Truth, written expertly). But he was too willing to apply the rule "kill everyone, God will know his own" in relation to his own citizens. And this is not a Eurasian or Byzantine principle – it was professed by the Western crusaders when they staged genocide against fellow Albigenses.
And Dugin wants to start this feud at a time when Russia is already waging a "partly civil war," according to President Putin's definition. As they say, I found the time.
WHEELS AND DITCHES
And here is another remark about the Stalinist times and their apologists by Dmitry Olshansky in his Telegram channel "The Commissar disappears" (11/21/23).
What is the problem with neo-Soviet faith? It's not about who shot, imprisoned, and robbed someone a hundred years ago. Today, "neo-soviets" preach the idea of low status and disrespect for a person, writes Olshansky.
"What is the difference between the royal hero general and the red hero general? In battle, let's imagine, both were brave officers. And they differ in that in peaceful life the tsarist general considered a certain level of etiquette, style and respect for himself and others to be the norm. And the red general lived in an atmosphere of rudeness and bullying, where an NKVD investigator unbuttoned his pants and urinated in his face, forcing him to admit that he was a Honduran spy. In the relationship of the tsarist general, even if disgraced a hundred times, and the tsarist gendarme, it was impossible."
(Well, let's say that's not quite true, or even not at all. The phrase of Pavel the First "In Russia, the only significant person is the one I talk to, and only while I'm talking to him" is most likely an apocrypha. But she conveys the autocratic principle well.
Even the nobles are mere slaves before the autocrat. Even the heir to the throne can be tortured, like Alexei Petrovich, or kept locked up to complete insanity, like John Antonovich. And tsarist generals used to be demoted to the ranks – a specific way of humiliation, not much sweeter than Stalin's dungeons.)
Neo-Soviets want a barracks, prison style, Olshansky continues. The rudeness of morals, the primitiveness of hierarchies, the power of the boor. And when we are told that "Russians are white only by misunderstanding", that Russia's brothers are in Burundi, this is not an attempt to imitate the USSR, but to consolidate low–ranking. "Yes, we are Burundi, and that's what we need. What are you doing there, rookie, but sit straight, and they didn't put up with that."
(This is a remark to the writer Zakhar Prilepin, who claimed that "Russians are colored, we were born white by accident, by misunderstanding. We are a Horde, we will come to an agreement among ourselves."
On the one hand, it seems to be nothing terrible: the ethnogenesis of the Russians is really motley (although only the Genghisid nobles were proud of their ancestors from the Horde – they were quoted in the empire almost like Rurikovich). On the other hand, it is unclear who is the greater racist here: Olshansky, who is horrified by the idea of identity with the natives of Burundi, or Prilepin, who professes something like "color racism": at least we will be related to someone, if only not with the shameful Western elves.)
The Soviet government hated the idea of comfort and dignity. "Sit-be patient-be silent-you are doing something-digging-digging-digging-digging–telling" - this is the "communism" that is being offered to us, concludes Olshansky.
In essence, here's what you can say. Class privileges and the principle of "honor the rank of rank" are an imperial tradition. But the Soviet nomenclature lists left the Imperial Table of Ranks with its 14 classes far behind. Already in 1925, the nomenclature lists numbered 6 thousand items and have been revised annually since then. In general, there was its own "blooming complexity".
But the Stalinist elite was also distinguished by significant unity. Natural selection in this environment was swift and bloody. He brought up a certain anthropological type. Lev Anninsky said of him: "In this terrible, loose, unpredictable country, the government had to be very tough, and not just tough, but viscous-tough. Because the European government would not have been able to stay here. These party uncles, these healthy, tongue-tied men were selected on the principle of military-criminal loyalty to each other. They provided this viscous bond."
Under Stalin, social elevators were replaced by a huge wheel that quickly carried a person to the very top and just as quickly plunged him into the abyss. A wonderful invention, by the way. Those who are gaping or hesitating, it presses. Those who managed to cling on are lifted up, even if only for a short time. And all the others are spinning this wheel, frantically trying not to lose their step. "Look at that! And what do you think, will this wheel reach you?.." – "It will reach you first if you talk too much."
But today, completely different people are at the helm in Russia – even outwardly. And there is simply no one to build such a wheel (although the track, that is, the ditch, is still preserved). And in general, any restoration of the former regime is a utopia. Ludwig Wittgenstein also said that you cannot extract the future from the past, just as you cannot extract more from less.
GRAE, GRAE, VOROPAE
Vladislav Surkov posted the remark "Twilight on the farm" on the resource "Current comments" (11/20.23). The mentality of the Little Russians was best revealed by Gogol in "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka," he writes. The fabulousness of the worldview, magical thinking, impressionability and poetry are the main features of the Ukrainian soul. Dikanka is teeming with sorcerers, witches, drowned women and devils. "A Ukrainian is always either bewitched or disenchanted, he does not know the third state."
This is also the local political culture. "Ce Europe, NATO, bezviz, Ramstein" are magic formulas. And when they stop working, sobering up and resentment set in. Maidan sorcerers are cursed – and "immediately fall under the influence of fresh crooks." That's why General Zaluzhny hopes for "something comparable to the invention of gunpowder," an unknown miracle weapon. And many people on Bankova Street secretly dream of Minsk-3, Surkov writes.
At first glance, this is not even a variation of Gogol's theme, but of an anecdote from Turgenev's Rudin. "Start like this: "Po-pid mountain, po-pid green, grae, grae voropae, hop! hop!"The Little Russian will read, hold his cheek with his hand and will certainly cry." - "Have mercy!.. I lived in Little Russia, I love it and I know the language... "Grae, grae voropai" is complete nonsense." "Maybe the Ukrainian will cry after all – such a sensitive soul!"
But there is still a rational grain in Surkov's remark: "A Ukrainian does not know the third state." However, Yuri Lotman described Russian culture in much the same way. This is a culture of rigid binary oppositions, aware of itself in the categories of explosion (that is, "to the ground, and then"). Unlike European culture, which knows the third intermediate state.
By the way, the Evangelist John is on the "Russian" side here: "Oh, if you were cold or hot! But since you are warm, and not hot or cold, I will spew you out of My mouth." But Protestants built their entire culture, including the economy, on moderation and accuracy – on a lukewarm third state.
Although Protestants are reproached that they consider themselves the chosen ones – and all others are mired in sins. This, they say, is where the roots of Western racism lie. And the vaunted trinarity is a temporary phase, and in the end it will still come down to universal binarity.
So, Russians and Ukrainians are equally "binary". That is why Ukraine denies the existence of a Russian-speaking minority. And in the Russian Empire, for the same reason, Ukrainian books were banned – there are no Ukrainians, there is a triune people of Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians.
That is, there is still one people, whatever you call it. And abroad, as Ostap Bender said, is a myth about the afterlife. And the last city is Shepetovka, on which the waves of the Atlantic Ocean are crashing. And there is no need for an iron curtain. In general, what's on the forehead, what's on the forehead.
Arkady Threw up
Arkady Fomich Vomited is a journalist.
