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.