In fact, the term “national-bolshevism”
is much more extended and profound, than the listed
political trends` ideas. But in order to adequately
comprehend it, we should examine the more global
theoretical and philosophical problems, regarding the
defining of the “right” and the “left”, the “national”
and the “social”. The word national-bolshevism contains
a deliberate paradox. How can two mutually exclusive
notions be combined in one and the same name?
Independently on how far did the reflections of historical national-bolsheviks go, which were certainly limited by the surrounding specificity, the idea of approach to nationalism from the left, and to bolshevism from the right is amazingly fruitful and unexpected, opening absolutely new horizons of comprehension of history logic, social development, political thought.
We should not start from some concrete political facts` collection: Niekiesch wrote this, Ustrialov evaluated some phenomenon as such, Savitskiy adduced such argument as, etc., but try to look at the phenomenon from an unexpected point of view, which exactly made it possible, the “national-bolshevism” combination existence itself. Then we will be able not only to describe this phenomenon, but also comprehend it and, with its help, many other aspects of our paradoxical time.
2. . Karl Popper’s inestimable contribution
It’s difficult to imagine anything better for a difficult task of defining the essence of “national-bolshevism”, than a reference to the sociological researches of Karl Popper, and especially to his fundamental work - “Open Society and its Enemies”. In this bulky work Popper proposes a rather convincing model, according to which all the types of a society are roughly divided into two main kinds - “Open Society” and “Non - Open Society” or “Open Society Enemies’ Society”. According to Popper, “Open Society” is based on central role of an individual and
its basic characteristic features: rationality,
step-type behavior (being discrete), absence of global
teleology in actions etc. The sense of an “Open Society”
is that it rejects all the forms of an Absolute, which
are non-comparable with individuality and its nature.
Such society is “open” just because of the simple fact
that the combinations’ varieties of individual atoms do
not have a limit (as well as no purpose or sense), and
theoretically such a society should be aimed at the
achievement of an ideal dynamic balance. Popper also
considers himself as a convinced adherent of an “open
society”.
The second type of a society is defined
by Popper as a “hostile to open society”. He does not
call it “closed”, foreseeing possible objections, but
frequently uses the term “totalitarian”. However,
according to Popper, just basing on the acceptance or
rejection of an “open society” concept all political,
social and philosophical teachings are classified.
The enemies of an “Open Society” are
those, who advance (proclaim, put forward) variable
(different) theoretical models based on the Absolute
against the individual and his/her central role. The
Absolute, even being instituted spontaneously and
voluntaristically, instantly intrudes into the
individual sphere, sharply changes the process of its
evolution, violates (exercises coercion over) the
individual’s atomistic integrity, submitting it to some
outer individual impulse. The individual is immediately
limited by the Absolute, therefore the people’s society
loses its quality of the “exposure (openness)” and the
perspective of free development in all directions. The
Absolute dictates the aims and tasks, establishes
dogmata and norms, violates (coerces) an individual, as
(like) a sculptor coerces his material (stuff).
Popper starts the genealogy of the “Open
Society” enemies from Plato, whom he regards as a
founder of the philosophy of totalitarianism and as a
father of “obscurantism”. Further, he proceeds to
Schlegel, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, Spengler and other
modern thinkers. All of them are unified in his
classification by one indication, which is the
introduction of metaphysics, ethics, sociology and
economy, based on the principles, denying the “open
society” and individual’s central role. Popper is
absolutely right in this point.
The most important in Popper’s analysis
is the point that thinkers and politicians are put in
the category of the “enemies of an open society”
irrespectively of, whether their convictions are “right”
or “left”, “reactionary” or “progressive”. He
accentuates some other, more substantial, more
fundamental criterion, unifying on both poles the ideas
and philosophies which at the first sight seem to be the
most heterogeneous and opposite to each other. Marxists
as well as conservatives and fascists, and even some
social-democrats can be reckoned among the “enemies of
an open society”. At the same time, liberals like
Voltaire or reactionary pessimists like Schopenhauer can
turn to be among the friends of open society.
So, Popper’s formula is as such: either
“open society”, or “its enemies”.
3. The sacred alliance of the
objective
The most felicitous and
full definition of national-bolshevism will be as
follows: “National-bolshevism is a superideology, common
for all open society enemies”. Not just one of the
hostile to such society ideologies, but it is exactly
its full conscious, total and natural antithesis. The
national-bolshevism is a kind of an ideology, which is
built on the full and radical denial of the individual
and his central role; also, the Absolute, in which name
the individual is denied, has the most extended and
common sense. It could be dared to say that the
national-bolshevism is for any version of the Absolute,
for any “open society” rejection justification. In the
national-bolshevism there is an obvious trend to
universalize the Absolute at any cost, to advance such
kind of an ideology and such kind of a philosophical
program, which would be the embodiment of all the
intellectual forms, hostile to the “open society”,
brought to a common denominator and integrated into the
indivisible conceptual and political bloc.
Of course, throughout the history the
different trends, which were hostile to open society,
were also hostile to each other. The communists
indignantly denied their resemblance to fascists, and
conservatives refused to have anything to do with both
the abovementioned trends. Practically, noone from “open
society enemies” admitted their relation to the
analogous ideologies, considering such comparisons as
the pejorative criticism. At the same time the different
versions of “open society” itself were developed jointly
with one another, being clearly conscious of their
ideological and philosophical relation. The
individualism principle could have united the English
Protestant monarchy with the democratic
parliamentarianism of Northern America, where the
liberalism at first was nicely combined with the
slave-owning.
The national-bolsheviks were exactly the
first to try grouping the different ideologies, hostile
to “open society”, they revealed, as well as their
ideological opponents, some common axis, uniting round
itself all possible alternatives to individualism and to
the individualism based society.
On that profound and scarcely fully
realized impulse the first historical
national-bolsheviks based their theories, using the
“double criticism” strategy. The aim of that
national-bolshevik criticism was the individualism, both
in the “rights” and the “lefts”. (In the rights it was
expressed in economics, “market theory”; in the lefts it
was expressed in the political liberalism: “legal
society”, “human rights” and so forth).
In other words, the national-bolsheviks
grasped beyond the ideologies the essence of both the
opposite and their own metaphysical position.
In philosophical language the “individualism”
is practically identified with the “subjectivism”.
If we apply the national-bolshevik strategy
on that level, it can be asserted that
the national-bolshevism is strongly against
the “subjective” and strongly for the
“objective”. It is not the question: materialism
or idealism? The question is: the objective
idealism and objective materialism (on
one side!) or subjective idealism and
also subjective materialism(2) (on the other!).
So, the philosophical policy of the
national-bolshevism affirms the natural unity of the
ideologies, which are based on the statement of the
central position of the objective, which is conferred
the same status as the Absolute, without dependence on
how this objective character (outness) is interpreted.
It could be said that the supreme national-bolshevism
metaphysical maxim is the Hinduist formula “Atman is
Brahman”. In Hinduism “Atman” is the supreme,
transcendent human’s “Ego”, being regardless of the
individual “ego”, but inside this “ego” as its most
intimate and mysterious part, slipping the immanent
grasp. The “Atman” is the internal Spirit, but the
objective and over-individual one. “Brahman” is the
absolute reality, embracing the individual from without,
the outer objective character, elevated to its supreme
primary source. The identity of “Atman” and “Brahman” in
the transcendent unity is the Hinduist metaphysics crown
and, what is above all, it is the base for the way of
spiritual becoming. This is the point, common for all
the sacred doctrines, without any exception. In all of
them the question is about the main aim of human’s
existence, that is the self-overcoming, expanding beyond
the bounds of the small individual “ego”; the way away
from that “ego” either outside or inside brings to the
same victorious outcome. Hence follows the traditional
initiatic paradox, expressed in the famous gospel
phrase: “who ruins his soul in my name, that one saves
his soul”. The same sense is contained in Nietzsche`s
genius statement: “The human is what should be
overcome”. The philosophical dualism between the
“subjective” and the “objective” affected throughout the
history the more concrete sphere, the ideology, and then
the politics and social order specificity. The varied
versions of the “individualist” philosophy has gradually
concentrated in the ideological camp of the liberals and
liberal-democratic policy. This is exactly the “open
society” macro-model, which Karl Popper wrote about. The
“open society” is the final and the most complete
individualism fruit, turned to the ideology and being
fulfilled in the concrete policy. It is appropriate then
to raise the problem of the maximum common ideological
model for the “objective” approach adherents, of the
universal political and social program for the “open
society enemies”. As a result we will acquire none other
than the national-bolshevism ideology.
Together with the radical novelty of that
philosophical division, made in this situation
vertically toward the usual schemes (such
as idealism-materialism), the national-bolsheviks
mark the new boundary in the politics.
Both the lefts and the rights are themselves
divided into two sectors. The utterly
left, communists, bolsheviks, all Hegel*s
successors “from the left” are combined
in the national-bolshevik synthesis with
the utter nationalists, estatists, “New
Middle Ages” idea supporters, in short,
with all Hegel`s successors “from the
right”.(3)
The open society enemies return onto
their metaphysical ground, common for all of them
4. . The Metaphysics of
Bolshevism (Marx, look “from the
right”)
Now we will refer to the
clarification of how we should interpret both parts of
the term “national-bolshevism” in a exclusively
metaphysical sense.
The term “bolshevism” has at first
appeared, as it is well known, during the discussions in
RSDRP (Russian Social Democratic Labour (Worker’s)
Party) as a definition for the fraction, which took the
part of Lenin. Let us remind, that Lenin’s policy in
Russian Social Democracy consisted in the unlimited
radicalism orientation, compromise refusal, accentage on
the elite character of the party and on “Blankism” (the
theory of a “revolutionary conspiracy”). Later the
people who did the October Revolution and seized the
power in Russia were called “bolsheviks”. Almost
immediately after the revolution the term “bolshevism”
has lost it’s limited meaning and has become to be
perceived as a synonym for the “majority”, “all-national
policy”, “national integration” (“bolshevik” can be
approximately translated from Russian as a
‘representative of the majority’) . At a certain stage
the “bolshevism” was perceived as purely Russian,
national version of communism and socialism, opposed to
the abstract dogmatics of the abstract Marxists and,
simultaneously, to the conformist tactics of other
social-democratic trends). Such interpretation of
“bolshevism” was, at large degree, characteristical for
Russia and almost exclusively dominated in the West.
However the mentioning of “bolshevism” in a combination
with a term “national-bolshevism” is not limited to
these historical sense. The question is about a certain
policy, which is common for all the radical left
tendencies of the socialist and communist nature. We may
call this policy “radical”, “revolutionary”,
“anti-liberal”. The aspect of the left teachings, which
Popper reckons in the “totalitarian ideologies” or in
the teachings of the “enemies of the open society” is
meant here. Thus, “bolshevism” is not just a consequence
of the Russian mentality influence on a
social-democratic doctrine. It’s a certain component
which is constantly present in all the leftist
philosophy, which could develop freely and openly only
in Russian conditions.
In these latter days the most objective
historians more and more often raise a question: “And
whether the fascist ideology is really “right”? And the
presence of such a doubt, naturally, points to an
opportunity of interpretation of “fascism” as a more
complex phenomenon, possessing a great deal of typically
“left” features. As far as we know, the symmetric
question - “And whether the communist ideology is really
a “left” one?” - is not raised yet. But this question is
more and more urgent. It is necessary to raise it.
It’s difficult to deny the authentically
“left” features in communism - such as the appeal to
rationality, progress, humanism, equalitarianism and
etc. But alongside with it, it has the aspects, which
unequivocally drop out of a framework of the “left”, and
are associated with a sphere of irrational (surd ?),
mythological, archaic, anti-humanist and totalitarian.
It is this set of “right” components in the communist
ideology is what should be named “bolshevism” in the
most common sense. Already in Marxism itself its two
ingredient parts looked like rather doubtful, from the
authentically “left” progressivist thinking point of
view. It’s the heritage of the utopian socialists and
Hegelianism. Only the Feyerbach`s ethics drops out of
this “bolshevik” in its essence Marx’s ideological
construction, giving to all the discourse a certain
terminological coloring of humanism and
progressivism.
The utopian socialists, which were
undoubtedly included by Marx in a number of his
predecessors and teachers, are the representatives of a
specific mystical messianism and forerunners of the
“Golden Age” return. Practically, all of them were the
members of esoterical societies, inside which an
atmosphere of radical mysticism, Eschatology and
apocaliptical apticipations prevailed. This world was a
mix of some sectant, occult and religious motives, the
sense of which was reduced to the following scheme: “The
modern world is hopelessly bad, it has lost it’s sacred
dimension. Religious institutes have degraded and have
lost God’s blessing (the theme which is common for
extreme Protestant sects, “Anabaptists” and Russian
old-believers). The world is ruled by evil, materialism,
deception, lies, selfishness. But the initiated ones do
know about a soon upcoming of a new golden age and
promote this upcoming with the enigmatic rituals and
occult actions.”
The utopia socialists reproduced this
common for western messianist esoterism motive on the
social reality and gave to a coming gold century the
social and political features. Certainly, there was a
point of the eschatological myth rationalization in it,
but at the same time, the supernatural character of the
coming Kingdom, Regnum, is obviously seen in their
social programs and manifestos, in which one could
easily detect a mention of future communist society
wonders( navigation on dolphins, weather operation,
common wives, peoples flights in air etc. ). Absolutely
obvious, that this policy has almost traditional
character; and such radical eschatological mysticism,
idea of return to the Beginning, makes it absolutely
logic to name this not just a “right“ component, but
even “extremely right“.
Now what regards Hegel and his
dialectics. It’s widely known that the political beliefs
of the philosopher himself were extremely reactionary.
But this is not the point. If we study Hegel’s
dialectics more closely, to his philosophy base method
(and it was the dialectical method what Marx borrowed
from Hegel at a greater degree), we shall see a concrete
exactly traditionalist and also eschatological doctrine,
using some specific terminology. Moreover, this
methodology reflects a structure of the initiatic,
esoterical approach to the gnoseological problems, apart
from just profane, every day logic of Decart and Kant,
who relied on “common sense”, gnoseological
specifications of a “every day consciousness”, which, as
we notice a propos, all the liberals and Karl Popper in
particular are the apologets of.
Hegel`s philosophy of a history is a
traditional myth version, integrated with purely
Christian teleology. The Absolute Idea is alienated from
itself and becomes the world (Let’s recollect Koranic
formula: “Allah was a hidden treasure, which has wished
to be learned”.).
Being incarnated throughout the history,
the Absolute Idea affects the people from the outside,
as a “ruse of the World Intellect“, predetermining the
providential character of tissue of events. But finally,
by means of Lord’s Son advent, the apocaliptical
perspective of the Absolute Idea total realization
unveils itself on the subjective level, which due to
this becomes “objective” instead of “subjective”. “The
Being and the Idea become one.“. Atman coincides with
Brahman. And it takes place in a certain chosen Kingdom,
in an empire of the End, which German nationalist Hegel
identified with Prussia.
The Absolute Idea is the thesis; its
alienation throughout the history is the antithesis; its
realization in the eschatological Kingdom is the
synthesis.
The Hegel`s gnoseology is based on such
vision of the ontology. Apart from the usual
rationality, based on the laws of the formal logic,
operating only with the positive statements, limited by
the actual cause-and-result relations, Hegel`s “new
logic “, takes into account the special ontological
dimension, integrated with potential aspect of a thing,
inaccessible to “every day consciousness “, but actively
used by mystical schools of Paracels, Boehme, Hermetists
and Rosicrucians. The fact of a subject or statement (to
which Kantian “every day” gnoseology is reduced)is for
Hegel just one of three hypostacies. The Second
Hypostacy is the “denying” of this fact, and interpreted
not as pure nothing (as the formal logic sees it), but
as a special superintellectual modality of existence of
a thing or a statement. The First Hypostacy is Ding fuer
uns ( “a thing for us “ ); The Second is Ding an sich (
“ a thing in self “ ). But apart from Kant`s vision,
“the thing in self “ is interpreted not as something
transcendent and purely apophatic, not as gnoseological
non-being, but as the gnoseological in-other-way-being.
And both these relative Hypostacies result in the Third
one, which is the synthesis, embracing both statement
and denying, the thesis and antithesis. Thus if one
considers the process of thinking consistently, the
synthesis occurs after “denying”, as the second denying,
i.e. “ Denying of denying “. In synthesis both the
statement and denial are taken. The thing co-exists in
it with its own death, which is evaluated in special
ontological and gnoseological view not as emptiness, but
as the in-other-way-being of life, as the soul. The
Kantian gnoseological pessimism, the root of liberal
meta-ideology, overturns, unveils as “thoughtlessness”,
and Ding an sich ( “ the thing in self “ ) becomes Ding
fuer sich ( “ a thing for self “ ). The reason of the
world and the world itself are combined in the
eschatological synthesis, where existence and
non-existance are both present, without excepting one
another. The Earthly Kingdom of the End, ruled by the
initiated ones` cast ( the ideal Prussia), is integrated
with the descending New Jerusalem. The end of a history
and era of Holy Spirit comes.
This eschatological messianist scenario,
having been borrowed by Marx, was applied to a little
bit different sphere, to the sphere of the industrial
relations. Interesting, why he did so? The usual
“rights” explain it “by the lack of the idealism“ or
“his rough nature“ ( if not by the subversive
intentions). Surprisingly foolish explanation, which,
nevertheless, is popular with several generations of
reactionaries. What is most likely, Marx , who used to
closely study English political economics, was shocked
by similarities between the liberal theories of Adam
Smith, who saw the history as progressive movement
towards the open market society and universalization of
a material monetary common denominator and Hegel's
concepts concerning the historical antithesis, i.e. the
Absolute Idea alienation throughout the history. Marx
has genially identified the maximum Absolute
self-alienation with Capital, the social formation,
which actively submitted the Europe, contemporary to
him.
The capitalism structure analysis, its
development history gave Marx the knowledge of the
alienation mechanics, the alchemical formula of its
functioning rules. And this mechanics comprehension, the
“formulas of the antithesis “ were just the first and
necessary condition for the Great Restoration or the
Last Revolution. For Marx the Kingdom of coming
communism was not just the progress, but the result the
turn-over, “revolution” in the etimological sense of
this word. Not accident, that he calls the initial stage
of the humankind development the “cave communism“. The
thesis is the “cave communism“, the antithesis is the
Capital, the synthesis is the world communism. The
communism is synonymous to the End of History, the era
of the Holy Spirit. The materialism and accentuating the
economy and industrial relations, testify not about
Marx’s interests practicism, but about his aspiration to
the magical transformation of the reality and radical
refusal from compensatory dreams of those irresponsible
dreamers, who just aggravate the element of alienation
by their inactiveness. According to such a logic, the
medieval alchemists could be reproached with the
“materialism” and hunger for profit, if one does not
take into account the deeply spiritual and initiatic
symbolism, hidden behind their discourses about the
urine distillation, obtaining gold, conversion of
minerals into metals etc.
It is this Gnostic tendency of Marx and
his predecessors was applied by the Russian bolsheviks,
who were raised up in an environment, where the
enigmatic forces of Russian sects, mysticism, national
messiaism, secret societies and passionate romantic
characters of Russian rebels were being summoned against
the alienated, temporal, degraded monarchic regime.
“Moscow - Third Rome, Russian people is the God carrier,
the nation of the All-man. Russia is destined to rescue
the world. All those ideas impregnated Russian life,
which had it in common with the esoterical plots
incorporated in the Marxism. But apart from purely
spititualistic formulas, the Marxism offered economic,
social and political strategy, which clear and concrete,
clear even to the simple person and giving basis for
social and political measures.
It was just the “right Marxism“ that
triumphed in Russia, which obtained the name of
“bolshevism”. But it does not mean, that only in Russia
the matter was as such. The similar tendency is present
in all communist parties and movements all over the
world, if, certainly, they do not degrade to the
parliamentary Social Democracy, conforming to the
liberal spirit. Thus, it is not surprising, that
socialist revolutions have taken place except Russia
only in the East: in China, Korea, Vietnam etc.. It
emphasizes once again, that just traditional,
non-progressive, the least “modern” (“alienated from the
Spirit“) and, correspondingly, the most “conservative”,
the most “right” peoples and nations, have recognized
the mystical, spiritual, “bolshevik” essence in the
communism.
The national-bolshevism takes turn of
just such bolshevik tradition, the policy of the “ right
communism “, which was originated by the ancient
initiatic societies and spiritual doctrines in remote
ages. Thus the economic aspect of communism is not
diminished, is not denied, but is considered as a gear
of the teurgic, magic practice, as a particular tool of
a reality transformation. The only thing that should be
rejected here is an inadequate, historically exhausted
Marxism discourse in which the accidental, inherent to
the past epoch, humanist and progressist themes are
often present.
The Marxism of the national-bolsheviks
means Marx minus Feurbach, i. e. minus evolutionism and
sometimes appearing inertial humanism.
http://usuarios.lycos.es/bolcheviques/TEXTOS/NB/Metaphysics%20of%20National-bolshevism.htm