April 26, 2011.
PART ONE. ACTIVITY
We have conducted a sociological study as part of “AKSIO” (Agency for Cultural and Social Studies of Society), the second area of activity out of the twelve that we are engaged in. Here are the intermediate results.
As of today, 32 000 questionnaires have been collected; moreover, they were collected with complete regard for all the laws of sociological research: not within the CPRF’s (Communist Party of Russian Federation) ranks and not within our supporters’ ranks, but in commuter trains, in cafés, etc. The questionnaires were collected in a way fitting for a sociological study that is capable of characterizing the entire country, not just a mega-trend, or just a separate politically active group. There is nothing here for which we could be criticized.
We collected these data from many Russian cities and the surrounding villages; therefore, the territorial, occupational, and numerical coverage was enormous.
About 1500 people distributed the surveys. 1500 people volunteered, after we called for only those, who believe in their strength, for those who were truly ready for this kind of activity. This enormous group of people, who decided to invest not virtual, but their real strength, time, labor, intellect, and soul. We are endlessly grateful to them. We hope for further results in the future, but even this result is already significant.
So, we have these 1500 people, who are ready to work. Not to chatter, not to watch, not to engage in musings while lying on the couch, but to work. That is quite a number. Any organization has comrades in arms, supporters, and sympathizers. The people who are ready to work are already supporters. And we strongly desire for them to become our comrades in arms. We must strive for this.
No one expected such a scale of activity, nor such a quantitative result. Never has civic activity been executed on such a scale in relation to a particular sociological field. Everyone would agree.
Our hotline was ringing day and night, constantly. And not a single call was about asking for help, or to talk about a conflict situation that occurred, be it with the police, with citizens, or with anyone else. This means that the people, who conducted the survey, managed to be both courteous and to conduct it in a very good human style, which is also valuable.
As soon as we receive the final results (which will happen very soon; data analysis is already underway), we will be able to say that we have established ourselves as a worldview-centered community, which is capable of solving specific problems. If a worldview-centered community is able to solve a specific problem like this, then that means it is capable of solving others.
What emerges from all of this? If not problems, then what kind of pitfalls and obstacles will follow? In principle, what does our enemy count on?
The enemy always counts only on the emergence of chaos, confusion, and disarray within our ranks, that along the way everyone will cease to understand one another, or lose the will to cohesion, or that everyone would fragment and stray off into different groups based on profession, social standing, age, etc. Indeed, the enemy counts on this confusion and disarray infiltrating our undertaking. Otherwise, our undertaking will be successful. It is already beyond the point of being unsuccessful.
There are two principles, which are very important for us to adhere to at this stage. I think everyone will understand me correctly. Furthermore, they will not understand if I fail to talk about this. I am simply obliged to specify these two principles.
The first one is to cast out the “Golden Calf”. The “Golden Calf” must be banished. People live in the material world; everyone is immersed in it. Sooner or later, every struggle follows the laws of the material world, the struggle happens not in paradise, but on Earth. I agree. But in the current phase of our undertaking, we must, at all costs, banish the Golden Calf from it! We deliberately want to avoid having any legal entities or any calls for material assistance. This all needs to be banished. It will be banished from our activity just like it was banished from the remarkable feat undertaken by those, who conducted the survey within the “AKSIO” framework. That is fine, I worked through the entire 1970s and ‘80s in the mode of an amateur theater, giving up to 200 performances annually. I know what sort of labor that is. We were younger then, and now we are burdened with much knowledge, which “increaseth sorrow”, as well as with age. But that is fine, we will work like this. We will work like this, and everyone will see that the reason we work like this is because that’s what is necessary.
The second principle is the principle of brotherhood. There ought to be no hierarchy. Trust me and hear me! No hierarchies. No generals, colonels, and soldiers. I know how difficult it is to manage without a hierarchy. But as soon as the principle of hierarchy prevails, everything will be finished. The Golden Calf will come, hierarchy will come, and everything will be finished… Everything will be integrated into the evil of contemporary life, into the social hell in which we all live. But we must lead everyone out of it. Because these are the sprouts of an undertaking that contains within itself the hope of salvation.
I am speaking without any pathos. This is what I really mean. Welders with 3 grades of education, who are interested in Gnosticism and culturology, and the academicians, who have dedicated their entire life to these studies, professors and college students, elders and young people, grandmothers and grandchildren, each and every one should feel like part of a certain brotherhood. Not long ago, a 14-year-old boy complained on the forum that his parents decided that we were some kind of sect, and they forbid him to attend this sect. The responses were humorous and heartfelt: “Stay strong!”
I hate everything sectarian, and I do not want even a shade of sectarianism, but I know for sure that within this undertaking, people with different education levels, life experiences, professional occupations, and social statuses must at once understand that they are brothers.
I do not know how it will happen. Maybe this feeling will come from the enormous sense of danger that has gathered everyone together, from realizing that they have indeed come to the edge. That no academician will achieve anything, if the welder will not stand with him shoulder to shoulder. Nothing will happen otherwise, do you understand? Everything will collapse.
In any case, these two principles must be implemented.
Once we implement these principles, then we shall gather. We will gather without the Golden Calf. We will ultimately find spaces or territories for gatherings and for teaching. And people will come with their own cans of roast beef, and they will cook porridge in kettles. This is better than allowing any pathogen of contemporary life to infiltrate our undertaking and to destroy everything. This cannot happen; this must be banished along with any mutual antagonism and hostility. I swear to you that there will be neither generals nor soldiers here. All will be generals or all will be soldiers.
The principle of equality and fraternity is not romantic; it is pragmatic. If this principle is not implemented, pragmatism will turn into cynicism. Everything will collapse at once, turning itself into another piece of virtual entertainment. I swear that I have enough to do in my life apart from virtually entertaining some audience. I am taking what is happening now very seriously.
Now the main question. I have been asked time and time again, “What is the goal? What is the point of these 12 areas of activity that we are examining? Is this some new institute that is being established?”
No, my dears, this is not an institute; this is not an academic undertaking. This is something completely different. Last time, I quoted from the film Officers, and I referred to people who loved to repeat: “There is such a profession, to defend one’s Motherland!” And I asked at the end of the last chapter, “Did you defend it? You defended it in 1941, but did you defend it in 1991, or not? And what do you experience now? You exist, but your Motherland does not.”
Is there at least an initial tragic experience of what happened? If it exists, then it is a precondition for self-transformation. But if there is no such tragic experience, or if there is a desire to blame someone else or to blame circumstances, etc., then everything is meaningless. Without the will to tell to yourself bluntly, looking into the mirror, “I had chosen this profession, and then the Motherland ceased to exist, but I am still here,” without ability to live this through in your soul, there is nothing.
Now, suppose the emotional precondition is there. The intellectual one then occurs, which must unite with the emotional one. Otherwise, there will be nothing. If emotions and intellect remain separate, then nothing will happen.
“Okay, so I exist, and there is no Motherland. What I am to do? Shoot myself? But I have a family and everything else…” One begins to immerse himself into the contemporary, he aimlessly mopes around in it, and he snaps morally. He dreams of either leaving the country, or to somehow adapt to the existing surroundings… He regrets that he did not start adapting earlier… And that is all! There is no man.
If one burns with only an emotional flame, but nothing happens next, then he simply goes insane, he shortens his life, and his personality becomes deformed (or accentuated, as Leonhard put it) [Karl Leonhard (21 March 1904 – 23 April 1988), German psychiatrist, author of the Kleist-Leonhard classification system of psychoses. Dr. Leonhard is notable for actively saving his patients from the Nazi T-4 euthanasia program by not assigning certain “red flag” diagnoses, such as schizophrenia – translator’s note].
The point is that we must not allow either of these things to happen. It means that from the thesis: “Yes, we failed to defend the Motherland. In 1941 we did, but in 1991 we failed. There is no Motherland, but we exist,” one needs to move to the question: “But why did we not defend it? Why? Did we lose our piloting skills, and start flying worse than the Americans? Did we shoot worse; did we produce less weaponry? Did we run out of officers, who knew how to properly deploy forces on the theater of operations?”
We had all of these. But it happened as it quite often happens in regular wars. One side erects a deeply echeloned defense on a certain segment of the front, and it assumes that the enemy will launch its offensive there. And everyone is prepared for battle there. So much is accumulated there, that the enemy cannot break through. But the enemy elegantly goes around and strikes from the rear.
In this particular case, something much more frightening happened. The enemy did something different. It was as though we were fighting in a one-dimensional space, along one line, and we were thinking about where to put a certain point: here or there? But the enemy suddenly imposed a second dimension upon us. Then a third. And then an eight-dimensional space, in which one must move his pieces. And we were no longer able to move them around an 8-dimensional or a 12-dimensional space! We intended to place them along the line of “military power – military weakness”, but it turned out that there are other lines.
We met strikes of a different nature. With weapons of a different nature. A different kind of army entered onto our territory. A different kind of horde invaded. They used wall breaking machines of a different nature. They used a different kind of armaments, a different kind of “cavalry”, a different kind of “bows and arrows”. And they won… They defeated us as no horde had ever defeated the Rus’ during the Middle Ages. They defeated us like never before! They won because they are a different kind of army, operating by a different kind of law, with weapons of a different nature.
What are we doing now with these 12 fields of activity? We are gathering a new army. We are gathering volunteers for this army. We expect dedication from them, and we are ready to teach them. Because everything is pointless without teaching them. Those who were fighting then, either broke down prior to the decisive battles (then we need to find out what made them break). Or they broke down during the battles, comprehending that they were nobody. Or they defected to the enemy after it already won. Or they pulled their tails between their legs and immersed themselves into their private lives. Or they pretended to comprehend nothing.
But there are new people. The entire country did not surrender. There are young people growing up, who understand what they are being doomed to, and they understand to an even greater extent that the “horde” is preparing for a new… not even raid, but for a most powerful of invasions, a new and final invasion. And after this there will be no country. And we must stop it in its tracks.
I don’t know what to compare it to… Sometimes, people say, “The People’s Militia, Minin and Pozharsky.” [Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and the trader Kuzma Minin were the leaders of the People’s Militia, which repelled the Polish invasion of 1612, at the height of the Time of Troubles – translator’s note]. But everything there did not happen on a new intellectual and organizational basis, but on the basis of morally intact people saying, “We have had it! Let us gather together and march on Moscow.” A simple, holistic, spiritual, and moral action saved everything then. Here it may be a necessary factor, but it is no longer sufficient. And the greatest difficulty is that moral strength and integrity all too often neighbor with simplicity. But there is no room for simplicity! Because we will have to fight with fundamentally new weapons! We will have to master a totally different kind of complexity!
Though any metaphor is always conditional, for me, the metaphor of Peter the Great’s “toy regiments”, which were to later become the main army and to defeat the Swedes, is closer.
These “Swedes” won like Batu did [Batu Khan, Genghis Khan’s descendant and the founder of the Golden Horde, defeated the rival Russian principalities by taking advantage of their failure to unite, even against a foreign invader – translator’s note]. Even worse than Batu, they inflicted a crushing defeat. But not everyone has surrendered. Those who have not surrendered and the new generation, which has grown up, which did not experience this defeat and the resulting trauma, must unite. Sometimes it seems to me that it is the grandmothers and the grandchildren, who must somehow internally pass this relay baton from one to the other.
A new army must be formed. A new army, which has mastered weapons of a different nature, and which has gone through a different kind of training. We must prepare this army. If we do not teach the people, then everything is pointless. People never come without understanding what they will receive. People will never spend their last remaining energy and time on something, if they do not understand what for.
We are saying that after a year of practice, the sophistication of which we will slowly but steadily increase with every day and every month, you will be different. You will master things which you do not know. You will be capable of conducting political warfare. It is very difficult to be a politician, very few people are ready to engage entirely in politics. Some are good with charisma and rhetoric, but they do not have sufficient content. Others have content, but they lack charisma and rhetoric. Some write good articles, but they cannot speak in front of groups. Others do fine with public speaking, but they cannot write anything. Still others become lost, because they do not fully comprehend the volume of the problem that has fallen on their shoulders. They do not see the entirety of the threats, challenges, and risks, which have already become a part of our life, and which are advancing upon us.
Guess what, anyone can do what another has done. We must learn, learn, and learn. And if this new political learning shall become the core content of these 12 fields of activity, learning “hands on”, learning through political struggle… To learn, to act, and to learn again, nonstop, in an open university, in an open intellectual space; this is our call; this is what we are gathering for; this is what we believe can change the current situation.
We will try to create many things. We are prepared to create many things. Our success will depend on our supporters. But if we succeed (once again, I am using a symbol here, a clarifying metaphor without direct parallels) to create a new encyclopedia, not like the Big Soviet Encyclopedia for references, but like the Encyclopedia, which in the great 18th century led to transformations first in separate countries, and then of the entire world, an encyclopedia like this; if we manage to create this corpus of new systemic knowledge, and if it connects with political activists, if it is “internalized” (let in deep inside), if people can acquire a new degree of argumentativeness, a new quality of worldview, then we can count on our victory.
Yes, we need a living experience of communication for this. Television broadcasts alone are not sufficient. So we need to develop other forms of communication in addition to those that we are developing now, and to link them to one another. Perhaps we need to meet and discuss each of these 12 fields of activity. And perhaps, we need to record all of this on camera and demonstrate it. Perhaps this is what needs to be done.
We will add some other things to what we already have, and then we will qualitatively transform all that we are doing now. We will bring about its transition to a different quality. We will deploy and begin the offensive, because there is nowhere to retreat.
Now I will move from general topics to specific ones.
It looks like we are clear with the field of “Territorial Integrity”. The category has been created, and it is the first subsystem of our intellectual and political activity. We have a section on our website. There is a person, who will manage it professionally. He will read all of the materials, collect the most important ones, moderate the discussions, improve the level of organization, and reject subpar materials. And he will keep in permanent contact with me. Therefore, I will be aware of everything that is happening within this subsystem.
For the “AKSIO” field, we also have a person, who will constantly monitor and organize materials. He also keeps in contact with me constantly. I have known the people I am talking about for decades. They are my closest comrades in arms.
The same will be done for each of the 12 fields.
Now, because I promised that in each chapter we will discuss at least one field of activity, setting a specific plan of action, let us discuss the tasks of the “AKSIO” field. “AKSIO” must engage in the following (apart from what it is already doing).
First of all, it must engage in the collecting information regarding the processes unfolding in contemporary Russia. Analogies are always imprecise; but in a way, we need our own alternative Goskomstat [State Committee for Statistics – translator’s note]. A Civic Committee for Statistics. We must know what is really happening in all fields of industry, culture, education, agriculture, healthcare, and so on. What are the real trends? Of course, we will use only publicly available data. But we will make sense of these data, analyze, verify, check them against each other, and monitor them. There are numerous methods to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate information. We need to create the proper classification system, already during the stage of data collection. Within how many parameters shall we collect information, and about what kind of activity… We are waiting to hear from you, and we will make our own proposals. This activity classification system must be formed soon.
Next. We need information that is unavailable. Information about what the contemporary Russian populace represents. I hesitate to call it a society. Is it a society, or are we dealing with completely disjointed social environments? To what degree has the regress affected these separate social strata? What scale and what direction do both regressive and counter-regressive tendencies have? How deep is the regress?
One of surveyors told us, “We came into an office, and started the survey… A well-off, active, young, and hip girl quickly scans the questionnaire and says, ‘I am for de-Sovietization.’ Well, I had been instructed that I have no right to influence anyone’s opinion, so I tell her, ‘Okay. Here is my phone number, in case you want to talk later.’ The following morning, she calls and says, ‘Would you come over to our office?’ So, I do, and five more people ask, ‘Give us the questionnaires.’ She tells me, ‘I figured everything out; I thought at first that it was a mystification. I couldn’t even imagine that these people could come up with something like this! Of course, I am against all of this. I’m convinced that you are right.’ And after that the real conversation with her begins.” In other words, things appear one way on the surface; but in the depth of the human personality, things are different.
Therefore, the question cannot be reduced to what quantity of people have been affected by regressive tendencies, what proportion of the country’s collective body surface area has been injured or irradiated. The question also lies in how deep this damage has gone. This is impossible to measure with regular polling! We need both focus groups and socio-psychological studies.
We want to conduct a full study gamut, which will answer the questions we consider important. What kind of mentalities are forming? What is happening to people at the level of the cultural core? How does the cultural core correlate with the periphery? What is the “mosaic consciousness”? How can we overcome it? How does the Ideal actually function within the consciousness of different groups of our compatriots at the given moment? What is happening with the identity?
We must answer all of these questions. And this is another large block within the “AKSIO” framework.
But we cannot pursue this work without the theoretical instrumentarium. The point is not in constantly condemning Rakitov. The point is to know much more about cultural matrices, cultural codes, the functional principles of society, and the principles of how the Ideal functions within systems than do those people, who are busy adapting their rather fragmented, and amateurish knowledge (Rakitov is no Gurevich) to the requirements of the current moment, to their own ideological whims.
In Judgment of Time, we spoke, with help from historians (to whom we are endlessly grateful), with a certain degree of professionalism on a various array of historical topics. Now we need to prepare a database on a much wider range of relevant issues, in such a way that this database would enable us to speak with much greater competence than before. And to prepare the core of activists, who would be ready to speak with this competence. And to prepare a theoretical apparatus. A theory, which is practically oriented on solving the problems at hand, and which would enable us to do all of this.
Without opposing ourselves to anyone, we want to address a wide range of problems: from the narcotization and alcoholization of our populace, to demographic crisis, suicide, aggression, and everything else. We want to know this. We naturally want, first of all, to use the knowledge that already exists, to collect it, to increase its density, and to organize it into a system.
But we also want to obtain new knowledge. We need the most complete theory of regress. A theory of anomie. Durkheim is not enough. We need contemporary works. We need new researchers, who could make their contributions to this research. We must be at the forefront of this research. Seriously and respectably, without any attempts to reinvent the wheel, we must reach this forefront, having mastered its practical apparatus.
We need no arrogance. We understand quite well, that the people who are now attempting to finish Russia off are well prepared. And we have yet to prepare our activists. But we are on our own land. If not smarter, we are at least deeper than those, who are trying to snatch our country from us. These people are trying to wage another asymmetrical, intellectual-political, intellectual-psychological, and informational “blitzkrieg” against us. There will no longer be a blitzkrieg. The blitzkriegs are already failing. We are entering into a scenario of protracted battles, into a war of nerves and intellect. We must win this war. It is already unfolding. World War III is at its height, it is just that no one has noticed.
We want to know the degree to which our reality is pathological. We want to know the grounding points within this reality. We want to know among which groups we may find support. We want to know the specific real counter-regressive points that we can lean on, and with which we may develop contacts.
Having aggregated information from open sources, having added our own research, and having connected all of this with our knowledge base, we want to create models. We want to know the society that we live in. A year from now, we cannot keep speaking the language of whether we are “thriving” or “perishing”. We need the evidence that will deal a crushing to defeat to any new likes of Mlechin and Svanidze [Sergey Kurginyan’s opponents in the Judgment of Time television program – translator’s note], as well as to all who stand behind them. The evidence must be absolute. Irrefutable. And we need people who have mastered it. We need models. We need to identify the tendencies, trends, and macro-tendencies in our society.
Our society must know what the degree of its illness is, and what its perspectives are, because everyone will not leave the country. Very many people want to live here, or they cannot live someplace else. And we are addressing these people not so that, after seeing the extent of the negative tendencies, they would become depressed and grab a bottle or a gun. Our purpose is to have them understand how they can fight, to have them understand that not fighting is not an option, and to have them also understand what they must fight against. This is the most important thing; because so far, there is no real depth and precision to this understanding. Everything is estimated roughly, everything is an approximation. This is not how one fights in the 21st century; this is not how someone wins in the 21st century. This is how you lose and capitulate. We want something different.
Once we find all of this out, once we have created the models and presented them in full, we will answer for ourselves the questions regarding sociogenesis, i.e. what we are gathering for the purpose of counteraction, and the questions regarding specific political activity. Not only the question of what we support, but also the question of what we oppose and how. And if we adequately prepare ourselves, we will find the means for this combat. Believe me, we will find these means.
Having gained complete understanding of where the issue lies, having proven this to others, having united with them, having armed them with knowledge, having stepped forward into the masses with this knowledge, we will gain a more precise understanding of what we need to do, and we will act. Through action, we will deepen our connection with the society. Through deepening our connection with the society, we will deepen our specific understanding of our society.
Marx had the formula “commodities– money – commodities’ ”, we have the formula “knowledge – action – knowledge’ ”, and then “…action” ” and so on. We will not keep our research without attention. The study that we have already conducted must become public knowledge. This is a separate field of activity. Why did 1500 people spend their strength, time, and soul? Why? So that we could bring our knowledge to the society. And we will. We can achieve this only through a collective effort. And we will achieve this. This applies not only to this particular study that we have conducted, but to all of the research that we intend to conduct. We will advance constantly on this intellectual-political front, and we will expand our advance. Because a defensive stance in such cases means the death of the undertaking. We have begun, and we do not intend to rest on the laurels of out achievement.
Now I transition to the second part: “Relevant Politics”.
PART TWO. RELEVANT POLITICS
I would like to introduce you to a text that belongs to Stanislav Belkovsky [a political analyst previously employed by multiple oligarchs including Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, notorious for his bizarrely controversial statements, including a plan to split off the Northern Caucuses and to divide the Russian Federation into seven “Russian republics”, as well as calling for an US nuclear strike against Crimea after its referendum to rejoin Russia – translator’s note].
Stanislav Belkovsky, “The Kremlin stands at the crossroads: Stalin or nationalism.”
Lev Gulko: Hello. Our conversation today with political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky is dedicated to politics itself. We have three topics. All three are related to what is called by the fancy word “politics”. Hello, Stanislav.
Stanislav Belkovsky: Hello.
LG: Let’s begin with this one. Ogonyok magazine published an article called “The sublimation of Stalin”. Some time ago, the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights introduced its plan for de-Stalinization. Arguments, of course, began immediately. What is the purpose, is this the right time to do it? Maybe this should absolutely not be done now? And most importantly, according to the polls, Iosif Vissarionovich [Stalin] is not falling in popularity. They do not know him at all. I don’t know, who are they to him: great-grandchildren? But he is popular. And quite honestly, I don’t really understand how to explain all of this. Where is such popularity coming from?
SB: I think that the only way to de-Stalinize Russia is through nationalism, as strange as it sounds. But let’s go step by step. Why is Stalin popular? I have already spent many years on this problem. Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fedotov’s proposal is not the first attempt to dethrone Stalin. De-Stalinization began in 1956, at the 20th Party Congress, and it continued with removing his body from the Mausoleum. Then, in the era of perestroika, everything possible was said and written about Stalin and his crimes. Finally, The Gulag Archipelago was published in massive editions. During the first years of perestroika, it really seemed that Russian consciousness would change cardinally, as soon as The Gulag Archipelago would be published.
LG: On a massive scale.
SB: However, today there are way more Stalin supporters than those who remember who wrote The Gulag Archipelago, much less those who read the book, even its excerpts. And it is clear why Stalin is popular. Because, within the imperial paradigm, which dominates over us throughout our entire history, it is impossible to dethrone him. Stalin is an imperial ruler, a ruler who brings everything that the imperial consciousness needs.
LG: Pardon me, Stanislav, is Stalin popular by himself, or as the embodiment of a ruler?
SB: As a type of ruler. In the Russian political consciousness, which formed over many imperial centuries, there is no demand for a kind state. There is demand for a mean and tough state. For a teacher who forces you to study and to work. Because in absence of such a teacher, you will drink yourself into oblivion and die under a fence. The Russian does not demand kindness, aid, or mercy from the state. He demands heroic acts from it, victories, and great accomplishments. This is exactly why Russian political consciousness respects tyrants, who performed these heroic acts and achieved these accomplishments. But those who were gentle and kind to Russian people are somehow not terribly respected in Russia. (What is this about? It is about how you have a bad mentality. Your mentality troubles Belkovsky; it is imperial, and it has the “wrong” demands for a ruler. – S. K.).
LG: Nationalism, as far as I understand, is then the polar opposite?
SB: Absolutely correct. To blame Stalin… In this sense, the Council’s attempt is again doomed to failure. For what else can one say after Solzhenitsyn? How can anyone do a better job explaining that Stalin is bad? With all my respect to Mikhail Aleksandrovich Fedotov, he is unlikely to surpass this genius (of Solzhenitsyn. – S. K.).
But from the nationalist standpoint, one can prove that Stalin is bad. In order to do this, one needs to say that Russia rejects its continuity with the empire, its own imperial paradigm. That the empire was an instrument for sucking the lifeblood out of the Russian people and for its extermination. That Stalin exterminated what is called the creme de la creme of the Russian people. This is his historical transgression.
Along with this, the nationalist paradigm (Belkovsky’s, do you understand? Belkovsky’s paradigm! Familiarize yourselves with this personality. – S. K.) brings with it certain disadvantages, which today’s elite consciousness today may not be quite ready for. First of all, it is the revision of the results of World War II. Because along with Stalin’s dethronement, it will become obvious that the victory was unnecessary and that the war was unnecessary. And maybe it would have been better to make peace with Hitler. Additionally, the nationalist paradigm’s victory, one way or other, must vindicate General Vlasov; for if Stalin is bad, then Vlasov is good by default [Vlasov was a Soviet general and a traitor who joined Hitler’s forces and presided over Hitler’s Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia – translator’s note]. On the other hand, we will have to admit (and such attempts are already being made; take the film “The Priest” and other things, which are now emerging in our cultural space), that Russians on [Nazi-] occupied territories were living better than under the Bolsheviks. It means that victory did not meet the Russian nation’s interests in the slightest form. What did meet these interests was to overthrow Bolshevism, which could be achieved through an alliance with Hitler. (In other words, everything begins with Fedotov and Karaganov, and then moves onto the Russian cultural matrix. And here I demonstrate what the next step looks like. It is all the same. Is there enough of mental ability to put everything together and to realize that it is all the same? – S. K.).
LG: But this immediately throws the state back into hell knows where. It means there is no way out. We should not disturb this. We do not need this de-Stalinization.
SB: Yes. If the Kremlin wants to preserve the traditional imperial paradigm, then we should not touch Stalin. But if we touch Stalin, then we need to prepare to shift onto nationalist rails and to cardinally change our concept of the state. It seems to me that the Russian authorities lack the adequate understanding of the depth and complexity of this crossroads, which the Kremlin stands on today.
LG: But when will they forget him? After how long?
SB: When Russia will turn itself from an empire into a nation state like, let’s say, the Czech Republic or Estonia.
The key phrase here is that victory did not meet the interests of the Russian nation at all. What met these interests was to overthrow Bolshevism, which could be achieved through an alliance with Hitler. As other liberals said, “It’s a shame Hitler didn’t win… (Mr. Minkin, I think, said so) … We would have been drinking German beer.” This is what people like Belkovsky and Minkin say.
Everything begins with liberal horror, and it ends with glorifying Hitler. And it is one chain, one idea. It inevitably leads from point A to point B. And the whole purpose of “Relevant Politics” is to prove that this is a single route, a single line.
A few more words about relevant politics. Not long ago, a rally under the slogan “Stop feeding the Caucasus” took place in Chistye Prudy [a park in central Moscow ̶ translator’s note]. It is exactly the same as Belkovsky. The issue is not that some kids are outraged by insolence on the part of a certain group of individuals from the Northern Caucasus or the Caucasus in general, and that they are fed up. The issue is how the consciousness of these kids is subsequently being programmed. It is being programmed for self-destruction. In this sense, rebellion and revolution are antitheses. Rebels play into the hands of those who want to destroy the country, just like loose lips sink ships.
Any human indignation can be channeled into a direction that is incompatible with life for the indignant person. Protest can always be redirected so as to have the protester kill himself without anyone’s assistance, so that one could later tell him, “You did it yourself, buddy!”
The Caucasus falls away… “We’re not feeding you anymore, so to hell with you!” is not Yermolov’s policy [Aleksey Petrovich Yermolov was a general of the Russian Empire during the 19th century, who played a decisive role in the conquest of the Caucasus ̶ translator’s note]. Yermolov was not a “nationalist a-la Belkovsky”; he was an “imperial idiot”. According to Belkovsky, our ancestors conquered the Caucasus like idiots. They were all idiots, except for Belkovsky, who wants to reduce Russia to Estonia or the Czech Republic. I wonder, within what borders? For they do not finish their phrase!
If a new territorial disintegration begins, the Caucasus will fall away. This will lead to a radicalization of Islamic tendencies, and the Volga region will explode. This would lead to the territory splitting in two. Then every sane person must answer one question for himself: has he, as a matter of fact, look at the map? Does he understand what this kind of self-isolation means? Today it is “stop feeding the Caucasus”, tomorrow it is “stop feeding the Yakuts”, then the Buryats, the Tuvans, then the Tatars, the Bashkirs, and everyone else. One only has to begin… It is the first step that counts! The domino effect will do its work. It is all one quilt. And then the others will say, “Stop feeding Moscow!”
This is the same as to say in a family, “stop feeding our child”, or “stop feeding our elderly mother”… They have become a burden.
As soon as something important has become a burden to you, then next step is for the state to become a burden for you… And then it becomes evident that life is a burden, too. Ultimately, these are all clever ways to activate the Russian Thanatos [in Greek mythology Thanatos was the personalization of death – translator’s note].
Those Russian nationalists, who understand what is what! Go and explain to those kids that they are being driven insane, that they are being forced to commit harakiri. That their natural indignation is being transformed into a mechanism for self-destruction. That those, who declare it necessary to amputate the Caucasus, are driving not the Caucasians to suicide, but these kids. Tell them what it all means using their language. We have no quarrel with nationalism. We have a quarrel with “nationalism a-la Belkovsky”. In other words, with shrinking nationalism. With the program for Russian self-destruction.
We will wage war against this program of Russian Thanatos through all possible intellectual, spiritual, and other means. But right now we have no dispute with nationalism. If this nationalism is sovereign, and it thinks at least in terms of maintaining territorial integrity, then we have no disputes regarding the main issue. We will discuss everything else later. Now you must stop the destruction. This is your business and your territory Act immediately, before it is too late.
Now it is time to transition to political theory.
PART THREE. POLITICAL THEORY
I will be brief this time, for I need to talk more seriously about Modernity and political philosophy.
I want to say the following about political theory. It has become very popular now to express one sort of protest or another. People are indeed outraged by multiple detestable things of different proportions. And it is wrong to talk them out of it, to tell them “don’t be outraged”. On the contrary, if the protest is just, one should support it through any means. Yet inside of these increasingly rebellious sentiments, there is a virus of primitivity, which has already killed the country once.
The problem lies not in the protest taking too acute of a form, resulting in anxiety and desire to “calm it down”. The problem is that we want to refine the protest into politics. Because protest in and of itself does not yet equal politics.
People are protesting against corruption and domination by the mafia. Is this protest just? Of course. Has corruption in our society taken on terrible forms? Of course. Do we need to fight it? A hundred percent. Will it kill the country if we do not fight it? Absolutely.
But that which has taken shape in our country is now something more than just corruption! And it is no longer just a mafia! I was among the first to study the mafia in the Soviet Union, and then in the Russian Federation, from the political standpoint. I intend to prove, that today we do not have a mafia. We have new forms of social and political organization of society.
Corruption exists in all the countries of the world. But when the criminal underworld replaces the functions of civil society, and enters into a closest of symbioses with the authorities, this is no longer corruption.
The source of what is transpiring is that very third level that I continue to direct attention to. If the first level is the leaders, if the second level is the institutions, then the third level is the classes. The authorities as the leadership institution and the political system depend on a certain class for support (Fig. 16).
I know many decent and upright people, including those in the highest strata. But the strata as a whole functions as though it is entirely criminal.
Let me use an example that is meaningful to me from geophysics to explain this property. Suppose you have a piece of solid ore that contains some kind of sulfides. The ore itself does not conduct electricity at all, but the sulfides conduct it very well. If there are impregnations of sulfides, then the entire piece of ore behaves like rock. But if there is at least one vein of sulfides, then the entire piece has the conductivity properties of sulfides.
So you see, we are dealing now with these “veins”. I have no intention of painting all of these people the same color, but the whole is a criminal class, a phage-class. What does it mean to fight corruption within the limits of this class? It’s too late to shut the stable door after the horse ran away. What corruption, wake up! What fight against corruption! What do you mean? Suppose it will be revealed that such-and-such government organizations have spent the wrong amount of money on such-and-such works. So what?
This is a class that will certainly devour the country, because it is bottomless pit. In Viktor Rozov’s play In Search of Joy one woman tells another, “We need to buy this, that and the other… But once we will have it all…” The third woman interrupts her, “You will never have it all.” – “Why is that?” – “Because you are a bottomless pit!”
This class is a bottomless pit. It is a gluttonous, merciless beast that knows no limits. One must either create a split within this class, and raise a different banner from within its non-comprador part. Or one must form something comparable to this class in size and power, to carry out sociogenesis, and start a careful yet very powerful struggle for the territory that is located between the “old” class and the newly formed macrosocial entity. This precisely is Gramsci’s vision of war (Fig. 17).
Why “careful yet very powerful”? Because if you destroy the entire house during this struggle, then you are just as much of a loser as this class. This class will crawl away somewhere (move to a foreign country and so on), but you will remain among the ruins. Thus, while engaged in the struggle, you have to remember that you are inside a glass house. Therefore, you must carry on the struggle not with rocks, but with the softest of martial arts. It is not a class we are concerned about but the house, because it is common for all of us. It is very easy to lose it. This pertains to Belkovsky and to everything else that is happening now; and of course, it cannot be reduced to Belkovsky.
Again and again, I ask you to look intently into this picture, for it is the basis of political theory. And without political theory, the protest transforms into a circus. They are going to fight corruption in 2011… Too little, too late! Everyone becomes excited and uses it to milk some money. What kind of joke it is amid great tragedy, great sorrow? Will these circuses stop?
Now, having finished with political theory, I will transition to political philosophy.
PART FOUR. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
There is only Russian death point, not several. It is very simple.
If Modernity is identical to development, then the Russians are dead. No need to lie. If Modernity is really identical to development, then we need to die. One cannot go a different path for thousands of years, and then say,“Yes, we will turn down this one.” One doesn’t turn onto such a path. Then that’s it, “stop the engine”. At the very least, it is the end to all ambitions; and along with this, the end to life, for the Russians cannot live without ambitions. A farce of such proportions will begin here, that life will quickly cease.
One really has to answer questions like this from the standpoint of truth. Is Modernity identical to development, or is it not identical? Yes or no?
To answer this question, one needs to examine Modernity. There is no other way.
For the last 20 years, every time Russia hit a road fork, and it had to choose between two paths: a more complex or a more simple one, we went with the simple option. May we, at least once, turn to the complex path? All the simple paths lead to an abyss.
Those who voted for my position in the program Judgment of Time often exclaimed, being upset by Svanidze’s and Mlechin’s statements, “Oh, what the rats they are!” But then Pivovarov joined Svanidze and Mlechin. It turned out that Svanidze and Mlechin were just level 1.
And level 1a is Pivovarov, who already began to refer to the Soviet man as an anthropological catastrophe.
But behind this level, as we have already shown, there is a level 2, which is Rakitov, according to whom Russianness is incompatible with Modernity; and therefore, it must be eliminated completely.
And after him comes Aleksandr Yanov, who, in a certain sense, is Rakitov’s teacher in all that relates to “the Russian evil”. Who, incidentally, works with very powerful American funds. He is one of our emigres, who has long ago rooted himself very deeply into the American intellectual establishment. I do not want to exaggerate his role, but neither do I want to underrate it.
And after Yanov come people like Afanasyev and Batkin. Or others, who for a long time have been saying, “We are sparks within the Russian abyss. We send messages to each other; thousands of kilometers are between us; but sooner or later, we will prevail. For this entire Russian misunderstanding will simply drain off, and we alone shall remain.”
And after them comes Bakhtin with his theory of “the low”…
You see, Man always contains a great deal of evil. It is just that there has always been a dispute between Modernity and Russian tradition regarding just how much of this evil there is. Is it possible to overcome it, or do we just need to utilize it? This is where the fundamental dispute lies!
In order to pull Man upwards, one must somehow ban pushing the “downwards” button. To ban appealing to the human evil, to the swine, to the beast which sits inside Man. To ban addressing the pre-human element, which has accumulated inside him for millions of years: this is what must be prohibited.
When political competition has no boundaries (and our democracy is exactly this way) this button gets pushed right away. Therefore, they start guarding this button. Who? Certain elites, which first guard it, but then they push it themselves with extreme force.
Bakhtin, who reduced folk culture to feces, sex, and so on (although Bakhtin was a theoretician of a grand scale, his major works earned indignant criticism from another great theoretician, Losev, who was also very far from communism), was also a toy in someone’s hands. In our own elites’ hands. If one is to believe Yulian Semyonov and others (including Yevgeny Kiselyov, who has insisted that he is informed on this issue), then Soviet KGB chief Yuriy Andropov stood behind Bakhtin.
And where do we go next? Into what depths of this echeloned system?
Fanatics said, “We must break it all and return from the monstrous road we have been following, back to the mainstream road of Modernity.”
But others understood that if everything will be broken, then that will be the end of it all. And they aspired to it, “Then let it all end! If only this hated thing would disappear from the planet and disappear from our culture!” (Then the question can be raised of why and for what sake must it disappear).
For some, Modernity is simply an enemy, and there are many of them. There are people who want to cast Russia into a ghetto of non-development, into archaicity. They understand quite well that in this situation, Russia will simply become a slave to those countries that are developing. Some want it any way. This is Counter-Modernity.
There are others, who attach absolutely unthinkable technologies to Modernity, like Yurgens. “We shall implement Modernity in such a way as no one in the world has done: softly and without hurting anyone at all…” But this simply means that there will be no Modernity.
There is a third kind of people, who use Modernity as a weapon against Russia.
What is this Modernity after all, and what is Russian development? What is the difference?
Man introduces something artificial into his habitat on an immeasurably higher scale than any other living being. He not only creates this habitat, but he constantly transforms it, introducing more and more artificial elements. Sure, he creates it using the natural environment. But he introduces one form of artificiality or another, which eventually increases in scale. Yes, Man uses natural materials like wood and stones while building a house. But he uses these natural materials to build something artificial: a house.
Yes, in the beginning he lived in a cave, which was not an artificial structure like a house, but Mother Nature’s creation. But first of all, it was a long time ago. Secondly, Man introduced something else even then into the environment that Mother Nature gave him. He heated this cave with fire. Or he modified something there, adapting it to his needs. But most importantly, this was a LONG TIME AGO. For a very long time now, Man has been living in a house instead of a cave. And if he built houses from natural materials like stones and wood not long ago, then now he builds them from artificial materials. In other words, the artificiality of the human habitat increases all the time.
There is no question that Man depends on nature to a great degree.
It may affect him adversely, such as in the case of volcanic eruptions or other natural disasters. Blok wrote, “Messina’s end is merciless (one cannot withstand nature’s force) …” But there may be a different kind of dependence. For example, he depends on the earth, into which he still plants wheat and other agricultural produce, on the water (rivers and seas), on the air, on oil and natural gas…
But nevertheless, though Man’s dependence on nature is still very great, it is obviously decreasing before our eyes. Conversely, the degree of Man’s dependence on the unnatural, on the artificial, which he himself had created, is obviously increasing. The Internet has emerged. A second and third virtual environment has emerged, and so on.
Therefore, let us agree to call the environment in which Man lives an artificial environment, as opposed to the natural environment. All the while, we understand that it is artificial only to a very considerable degree, but not completely. Nevertheless, we are referring to it as such; we are introducing this concept after defining its conditionality.
So, in contrast to the natural environment, the artificial environment that man inhabits does not self-regulate and self-renew. Certain human effort is required to renew and regulate it. Man must renew and regulate this environment himself. It is clearly so. Man cannot manage creating the environment he inhabits, nor transforming it by making it more and more artificial (which is Man’s role and his unique trait) by himself. He does this as part of society. A separate human individual cannot do this, but a society can.
Human societies are systems with certain regulators.
The goal of these systems is the creation, renewal, development, and regulation of the artificial environment in which they live. It is also the creation, renewal, development, regulation of: a) societies as systems; b) individual members of society. Consequently, there are three goals:
- The creation, regulation, transformation, and development of the environment;
- The creation, regulation, transformation, and development of societies;
- The creation, regulation, transformation, and development of themselves.
The type of social system that regulates, first of all, itself, as well as its production activity and its cultural activity is defined to a significant degree by regulators. Since human society is a system, then the types of human society are defined by regulators that the given society uses.
History is a process of replacing societies that use one set of regulators with societies that use a different set. Moreover, the societies that use new regulators have to be, in some sense, more effective than the societies that use old regulators.
I reiterate, Man is busy:
- with himself;
- with society;
- with his environment, which is artificial to a great degree.
He creates, sustains and develops these things.
He creates himself as a super-complex system; he, sustains himself as a super-complex system, and he develops himself as a super-complex system. He cannot do it alone; he does this as part of society.
Simultaneously, he creates (again, together with others), sustains, and develops the society.
And finally, he creates, sustains, and develops his environment, which is artificial to a great extent.
The scientists argue about what is more important:
- creating, sustaining, and developing the artificial environment that Man inhabits (those who think that this is the most important always talk about the dominating role of the base of production, productive activity, the means of production, which are created in order to transform, sustain and renew this artificial environment);
- creating, sustaining, and developing of the society (many refer to this as the social-political superstructure);
- creating, sustaining, and developing of Man himself (many, in the narrow meaning of the term, call this culture).
The scientists arguing about this topic disagree only about one thing: the priority given to each of the above levels. True Marxists talk about the base’s priority over the superstructure. Does this mean that Marx did not understand the superstructure’s autonomous significance in society? Of course he did. All scientists understand that each level is autonomous and significant in itself, and that life is a triangle of three levels: the environment (under the environment, I mean the artificial environment), the society, and Man. They all coexist together; one does not exist without the other.
This is a triunity that it is impossible to break. And the separation of one element from the triunity is a vulgarization of Marxism or any other system of thought. If one can vulgarize Marx this way, can he in the same way vulgarize Weber or the theory of cultural-historical types?
If we emphasize the mode of production, i.e. everything used to create, sustain, renew, and develop the greatly artificial environment that Man inhabits, then societies are differentiated by the mode of production, and consequently, by the mode of appropriation. Then we are talking about formations: primitive, slave-owning, capitalist, feudal, and so on. But no one, except for the vulgarizers, refuses to independently study the ways by which the superstructure, the society, and Man as the building block of this society are regulated.
The approach, when society is classified according to the regulators it uses for civic life, is no less warranted, and it is reasonably effective. From this point of view, the societies are divided into archaic societies, premodern societies (or medieval, “feudal” in the language of formations), ones belonging to Modernity, and so on. This is a universally accepted and very effective method of scientific classification.
What is a historical era from the point of view of this classification? It is an era within which societies coexist that are organized differently, by both old and new methods. But it is the new type of social organization that defines the content of the historical era.
If in a certain historical period there still was plenty of archaicity, but a society has already emerged that is regulated by Premodernity, then it means we have entered the era of Premodernity.
If there is plenty of Premodernity, but a society that is regulated by Modernity has already emerged, then we have entered the era of Modernity, and so on.
And so, we have established: that the organization of civic life is its regulation.
Regulation is carried out with the help of regulators.
A society that is organized in a certain way has one set of regulators; a society that is organized in a different way has different regulators.
Several types of society exist in the contemporary world, and they differ from each other by the regulation system they use. But the principal mode, which defines, or more precisely, which defined the content of the era until just recently, is the mode of existence called Modernity. This mode of existence began in approximately 1500 A.D., and now it is ending in front of our eyes. Thus, we are talking about the society of Modernity, about the era of Modernity and so on. This is our era, which is coming to a close.
Of course, there are other societies within the era’s framework. There is the Premodernity, i.e. societies that did not transition into Modernity. There is the Counter-Modernity, i.e. societies, that desire a return to a heavily modified Premodernity. And there is Postmodernity, which thinks that it has overcome Modernity by negating it.
Modernity, as well as Premodernity, Counter-Modernity, and Postmodernity, are types of society with certain norms and principles that regulate social life.
Modernity is a type of society regulated by:
- secular national law;
- the secularization of civic life, i.e. making all of life secular (not only law, but all the aspects of life). Religion is separated from the state, it becomes people’s private business, but its prerogatives are markedly reduced, they are given boundaries. It is atomization, individualization (implementing individualization within the framework of Modernity is very important), industrialization, and so on. The society of Modernity is sometimes called industrial or even bourgeois, but with certain reservations.
Premodernity is the type of society that precedes Modernity, and which is regulated by religion, tradition (which is not the same: “custom is the soul of states”), and estate corporatism (you were born a feudal lord, a nobleman, and you will always be one). It is characterized by the predominance of the agrarian way of life. Premodern society is sometimes called traditional or agrarian.
Counter-Modernity is a type of society that is similar to Premodernity, but it is artificially constructed during the era of Modernity and even Postmodernity. It rids Premodernity of development and humanism. Because when Premodernity existed, it also contained development.
Postmodernity is a type of society that is forming on the ruins of Modernity, and which problematizes the basic principles of social regulation as a whole. If Modernity brought everything to a common denominator, allowing for diversity and then assembling it through rationality, then Postmodernity says, “That’s it, we are not assembling anything. We are disbanding it all.”
Types of society can form spontaneously, or on the basis of a clear vision.
A vision, according to which a society of a certain type is built, is a project. Modernity, Counter-Modernity and Postmodernity were, to the greatest extent, built on the basis of clear visions, which allows us talk about the project of Modernity, the project of Counter-Modernity, and the project of Postmodernity.
Modernization is all about implementing the project of Modernity. It is that very modernization with which they have again become obsessed, and the passions around which destroyed the USSR. It is for the sake of this modernization that they now intend to carry out de-Sovietization and to strike at Russianness. Modernization it is the implementation of the project of Modernity.
Now, let us list the regulators, in other words, the fundamental principles that ensure society’s structurization, its functioning, and its development within the framework of Modernity.
The first principle is human imperfection. Man’s irreparable imperfection. Modernity declares, “Man is fundamentally evil and imperfect. There is always a swine inside of him, and the proportion of this swine is a constant. We have to accept this as a given. We have to force it to work for progress, for good, for development. The utopia of improving Man is an evil utopia (as Vladimir Putin put it, a beautiful but harmful fairytale). Man is evil. Accepting this as given we must put him into boundaries, within which evil will work for good. The steam that builds up in a boiler can blow a house apart, but it can also move a steam engine. We must use evil for good, and we shall thus ensure progress.”
Modernity is a great project. It ensured progress; it ensured development. Herein lies the most interesting part. But ultimately, it turned out that the quality of Homo sapiens is not changing, and it is even getting worse, while the means production develop almost exponentially faster. This is the so-called uncontrolled scientific and technological progress. And so, we have a situation in which the development of the technical environment, which the Anthropos inhabits, escalates, but the Anthropos stays put (or goes down). “Anthropo-technical scissors” arise: Man does not change, yet the environment develops rapidly (fig. 18).
As a result, technological development approaches a certain critical barrier. The anthropo-technical barrier, sometimes referred to in some circles as “the barrier of Peters” [Thomas J. Peters, is an American writer on business management practices, best known for In Search of Excellence. His barrier concept initially referred to management exceeding its competence due to growth, leading to the business failing. The term was later used, with certain revision, by the Club of Rome to discuss global governance – translator’s note]. “The barrier of Peters” means that any civilization on any planet that reaches a critical gap between the Anthropos’ condition and the complexity of the technosphere it has created, will self-terminate (fig. 19).
Either way, this uncontrolled growth is mortally dangerous, and we are approaching this barrier.
They ask, “then what we are to do?”
There are two options (fig. 20)
Either to start winding down scientific and technological progress, which is what Counter-Modernity is all about. Well, how are you going to wind it down? It is impossible to wind it down!
Or to start building up Man’s abilities, which is what Supramodernity is all about.
This is exactly what the communists were doing! This is exactly what Russia has been doing for centuries! This is exactly why it attracted so much animosity. But now comes the moment when without this type of development, which is no longer Modernity, we will reach the “barrier of Peters” very quickly. And then we will simply “bite the dust” once and for all.
The “anthropo-technical scissors” are only one of many signs that the great project of Modernity is doomed. It is approaching the final point. The regulating principles it offered have been exhausted.
But if this is so, then all that the Russians had been doing (both during the 19th and 18th centuries, and during the communist era), the whole Russian dream that humanity would develop along with the means of production, that one development would complement the other, only now becomes something with no alternative. Only now humanity begins to understand that without this its goose is really cooked.
And at this exact point they again begin to separate the Russians from their know-how, from their great achievements, from their precious contribution, which now assumes a universal human significance. And not just to separate, but to stick the Russians into the periphery of a project that is ending due to objective causes.
Therefore, not only is Modernity not synonymous with development, Modernity is a great undertaking that is reaching its end, and which is being artificially finished off in an accelerated manner. It could have lasted for another 20-30 years; however, they are finishing it off. Even if it will exist in a surrogate form in eastern societies, that is a separate issue that we will discuss next time. Now we will simply say this: those, who claim that Modernity equals development are lying. And we need to discuss this in a specific, detailed, and evidence-based manner.
Moreover, if before one could claim that Modernity is the mainstream mode of development, that “the Russians are engaged in some peripheral studies of development, and no one needs their experiments because successful development is possible without them,” then now Modernity is finished. The end of Modernity as an era has come. Everyone is talking about it.
But then the Russian know-how comes to the forefront automatically because its competitor has collapsed. The Russians wee not pushing for this to happen. Modernity’s collapse is happening due to natural causes and because the global elites, who dream of non-development, are actively finishing it off.
All that humanity has left from the field of alternative development is the Russian know-how. And it is at this moment that they need to destroy both the Russian civilization and the Russian know-how. The question arises: what is this all for? What does the actor, who is pursuing this, want? For the sake of what did it engage against the USSR with such diabolical power, and why now is it engaging Russia again?
Because it does not want to leave humanity a single chance for development that is compatible with life. Schiller’s King asks the Grand Inquisitor, “For whom then have I labored?” He answers, “For the grave rather than for liberty!”
Therefore, all those who babble about liberty, who talk about it, who whine and make strange noises about Modernity, which already resemble something closer to delirium rather than clearly presented ideas, are actually puppets in the hands of others, who are gravitating toward fundamental evil. See Belkovsky’s thesis about how it would have been better under Hitler. Especially for Belkovsky.
Source (for copy): http://eu.eot.su/2018/06/07/essence-of-time-chapter-13/
Essence of Time: The philosophical justification of Russia’s Messianic Claims in the 21st century
Experimental Creative Centre International Public Foundation
Essence of Time is a video lecture series by Sergey Kurginyan: a political and social leader, theater director, philosopher, political scientist, and head of the Experimental Creative Centre International Public Foundation. These lectures were broadcast from February to November 2011 on the websites, www.kurginyan.ru and www.eot.su .
With its intellectual depth and acuity, with its emotional charge, and with the powerful mark of the author’s personality, this unusual lecture series aroused great interest in its audience. It served at the same time as both the “starting push” and the conceptual basis around which the virtual club of Dr. Kurginyan’s supporters, Essence of Time, was formed.
The book Essence of Time contains the transcriptions of all 41 lectures in the series. Each one of them contains Sergey Kurginyan’s thoughts about the essence of our time, about its metaphysics, its dialectics, and their reflection in the key aspects of relevant Russian and global politics. The central theme of the series is the search for paths and mechanisms to get out of the systemic and global dead end of all humanity in all of its dimensions: from the metaphysical to the gnoseological, ethical, and anthropological. And as a result, out of the sociopolitical, technological, and economical dead end.
In outlining the contours of this dead end and in stressing the necessity of understanding the entire depth, complexity, and tragedy of the accumulating problems, the author proves that it is indeed Russia, thanks to the unusual aspects of its historical fate, which still has a chance to find a way out of this dead end, and to present it to the world. But, realizing this chance is possible only if this becomes the supreme meaning of life and action for a “critical mass” of active people who have in common a deep understanding of the problems at hand.
Dr. Kurginyan’s ideas found a response, and the Essence of Time virtual club is growing into a wide Essence of Time social movement. In front of our very eyes, it is becoming a real political force.