On the Realities of Dispersion and the Pragmatic Use of Nostalgia
It cannot be said that Romanticism is a particularly benign ideology, as it emerges at a specific stage of political alienation. Overcoming this distressing situation in a positive and transformative manner is only possible by altering the material relations that cause alienation. Otherwise, this kind of Romanticism is exploited by the ruling powers to foster cynicism. The theories of Nietzsche, Heidegger and others are the product of such a reactionary use. As the close connection between such dark ideas and German fascism lies beyond the scope of this brief note, I shall not discuss it. Since the sole purpose of this text is to make a historical record, its scope will be limited.
I am genuinely sorry to have to quote a metaphor I find effective from someone I do not particularly care for; I really, really do not like this man called Yegor Gaidar! He played an active role in Boris Yeltsin’s government during the process of imposing neoliberal transformation on the Russian people. He ruthlessly implemented a ‘shock doctrine’ – a programme that was, in the truest sense of the word, ‘destructive’ – and swiftly completed his mission by demonstrating the ‘success’ of squandering his country’s economic and social gains, accumulated over years in every sector, in the blink of an eye! In this respect, there is no doubt that he was at least as “successful” as his bosses, Yeltsin and Gorbachev. As a result of these policies of plunder and pillage, thousands of people died of starvation and homelessness in a country that had enjoyed full employment for years. Millions were left unemployed. Nevertheless, I must now agree with a metaphor he used in the final years of his life (2022:23). When such a political order-dominated by an official ideology that has, over the course of history, transformed into a sort of imperial ideology-collapses, if that order had presented itself as if it were to last forever, it is exceedingly difficult for the people living there to believe in the collapse. This situation is akin to a person believing their leg is still there after it has been amputated. The leg has been cut off, yet the place where it used to be still aches! The Russians’ current situation, unfortunately, bears a striking resemblance to this example. The Soviet Union no longer exists, yet they are still suffering as if it were still there.
The Soviet Union was gradually dismantled from the centre outwards as a result of a conscious and deliberate effort, driven by mass support which the leadership of the Communist Party-which held direct power-turned a blind eye to, and at times even encouraged, promoted and incited. This is the very simple and plain truth that today’s Russian elite simply cannot accept or come to terms with.
Contrary to the widespread misconceptions of today, the Soviet Union was not an empire or a geopolitical necessity, but a unique form of a federation of states. It was based not on religion or nationalism, but on ideological and economic unity. This is the second, very simple and straightforward truth that they cannot bring themselves to accept.
Personally, I would not have preferred the collapse of the Soviet Union, especially after seeing its current heirs, who are mere imitations of fascists... Yet it did collapse, and what is more, it did so with the active mass support of the most politically engaged sections of the Russian people at the time, mobilized by the turncoat capitalists at the helm. It bears repeating: they must now come to terms with this bitter reality. It is vital that they return to the real world without delay; otherwise, this social trauma could lead to even more dangerous and genuinely destructive consequences today. We can be certain that this trauma has been used with great success by the current political regime to mobilise the masses. To such an extent that the Russians do not even entertain the thought of overcoming this great social trauma-as it ought to be done-by organising a class struggle starting right now, at this very hour and minute, and settling accounts with their own oligarchs and turncoats! Instead, they are entirely mimicking an imperialist discourse. They are integrating a sort of ‘Stalin glorification’ with this imperialist rhetoric, activating it in line with the current interests and needs of the Russian bourgeoisie, whilst stoking ‘Great Russian nationalism’ to pursue their own brand of politics! What a magnificent Soviet ideology, though! If Stalin were alive, I reckon he’d be fighting these oddballs who think they’re left-wing first and foremost, because his area of expertise is the national question. I don’t for a moment believe he viewed the national question in the same way as today’s admirers of fascist imitations.
As anyone with even a basic grounding in Marxist-Leninist theory knows, annexation is the most fundamental form of national oppression. Moreover, if this annexation is carried out to safeguard the global interests of the powers behind it-or, to put it more plainly, to protect coastal regions (the Rimland) on a geostrategic level-its imperialist character becomes entirely transparent. I would suggest that those who never cease to mention the word ‘Soviet’ should return to the preface Lenin wrote for the 1917 Russian edition of his essay “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”. At one point in this preface, Lenin states quite explicitly (1978: 8);
Now, in these days brimming with freedom, I find it difficult to reread these lines, which were once hidden away out of fear of tsarist censorship, squeezed into an iron vice and reduced to a compressed state. To demonstrate that imperialism was the immediate precursor to the socialist revolution, that social-chauvinism (being supposedly socialist yet in reality chauvinist) constituted a complete betrayal of socialism and a full-scale flight to the bourgeoisie, and that this division within the workers’ movement was linked to the objective conditions of imperialism, etc., I was indeed compelled to use the language of a ‘slave’; I would advise readers interested in this subject to consult the articles I wrote abroad between 1914 and 1917, a new edition of which is due to be published shortly. In these pamphlets, particularly on pages 119–120, I was compelled to use the example of Japan in order to explain to the reader, in a manner that could pass through the censors, the shameless lies of the capitalists and how the social-chauvinists-who had joined their ranks (a stance Kautsky opposed in a highly inconsistent manner)-unabashedly concealed their own capitalists’ annexations in the matter of annexations. The attentive reader will have no difficulty substituting Russia for Japan, and Finland, Poland, Courland, Ukraine, Khiva, Bukhara, Estonia and other regions inhabited by non-Great Russians for Korea.
I suppose even these few words on the subject are more than enough to shed light on the crux of the matter.
Russia’s Neoliberal Transformation and the Resurgence of the Oligarchy
From the late 1980s onwards, an eclectic, abstract and agitational discourse on ‘democracy’ came to dominate in Russia. The demagogic atmosphere created by this situation, coupled with the pressure exerted by the prevailing political will following the country’s major disintegration, forced a sudden shift towards neoliberalism on the economic front. Various hybrid governance models were tried in an attempt to achieve this transition. Consequently, in accordance with the rules of political science and as was to be expected, a "constitutional crisis" emerged. Moreover, it soon became clear that this "choice" (or should one say "imposition"?) would not be compatible with Russia’s structural characteristics. Nor could it have, because capitalism has followed its classical path of development in Western Europe. In other countries, it has taken different and unique paths, assuming conflicting forms and characteristics. Particularly in old-style multi-ethnic empires such as Russia and Turkey, we always see hybrid, mixed forms. Following a disastrous crisis period lasting approximately ten years, relative political stability was established in the country, and the identity crisis that had unfolded was attempted to be overcome through constructed ideologies. Foremost among these is Russian Eurasianism.
The only thing the Russian elite are trying to do today is to attempt various maneuvers- both political and military (which, in my view, are extremely dangerous)- in order to secure sufficient capital accumulation and keep their country together. Reviving imperialist ambitions, exploiting various religious interpretations for political ends, and exporting all manner of reactionary ideologies to neighboring countries are some of these ‘methods’.
Yet if these people love the Soviet Union so much that they would mourn it and indulge in nostalgia, they simply needed to do two things. Firstly, they would have waged a class struggle against their own oligarchs, opposing all forms of imperialist mission and ambition. By launching a broad political campaign, they would have examined the dynamics leading to fragmentation within their own ranks and settled accounts with the circles behind them. In this context, they would have examined the problem of cadre development caused by a bureaucracy organised along class lines. In my view, there is only one reason behind this, and that is nationalism. For this reason, they would have condemned bourgeois nationalism, but they cannot do so; indeed, all they have done is to align themselves with it. Secondly, they would have opposed the politicisation of religion. They would have developed a resolute and long-term strategy on this issue. They would have condemned governments that conduct politics through religion. They would have become the bearers of true progress, something sorely lacking in the world today. What has been done so far is the exact opposite. National oppression, imperialist domination and every form of reactionary ideology, regardless of religion, are now primarily supported by Russia, and it is everyone’s duty to stand against this. Every imperialist project in the world must be condemned without exception. There is no other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment