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.



Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )


Ansluter till %s