In our defense, and my light-mindedness and Dugin’s botching can be presented the fact that NBP ideology in itself was the entire “Limonka” newspaper, particularly its rubric “The Legend”. We expropriated heroes of equally national and red movements of the beginning of the century, successfully interbred Lenin with Hitler, Savinkov with Che Gevara, Mussolini with Makhno and Dzerjinsky, plus we added the esthetic extremism of Pasolini, Mishima, Burroughs, Genet, interbred Bob Denar with members of the RAF and “The Red Brigades”. In a word we assembled in a single successful whole all the heroic enemies of the System. That was new, striking, interesting and most importantly – right, because all these heroic people were destroyed by the stupid, bestial, depressing, boring and dead capitalism. So “Limonka” and mostly its rubric “The Legend” was our ideology. We wanted everything: and to take over Urga with Ungern in Mongolia, and to experience the Beer Hall Putsch with Hitler, and to take Leningrad with Lenin and to fight with Che in Sierra Maestra. Only an idiot could have reproached us the fact that our ideology became the heroic impulse, protest, revolt, revolution! It is the revolution that we needed! We hated the System. And the program, well, program, so what, it’s paper…Hitler did not change his 26 clauses from the time when they were formulated in the early 20s. However at every step he contradicted the clauses of his program. Mussolini changed several times the program of the fascist party. The same did Lenin. The program is not important.
We wrote, naturally, in “Limonka” also what we wanted after our victory. Obviously to have revenge on those who had offended us in those years when we could not get revenge for ourselves. Obviously we wanted to build a new society but our supposedly principal ideologist Dugin limited himself to general festive stirring words. And even me, I started to think about this later. And how will it be concretely: will there still be frozen cities, what types of residences will there be, will there be a family, how will the family of the future be, – we did not write about this or wrote little. The objective of this book, assembled from the lectures intended for NBP members, is precisely to give the outlines of the future. In prison the time for that appeared. While the investigators dig me a hole, I will dig the hole of the investigators’ civilization.
So for what do we have to fight? For what, exactly, society of the future? For what, exactly, program?
I remember that the book of Boris Savenko “Memories of a Terrorist” had a big impression on me. The unforgettable characters of the Poet “Ianek” (Ivan) Kaliayev, Egor Sozonov and even the gloomy provocateur Iavno Azef. And the iron man Savenko himself, at 23 years of age sending his friends fighters-SRs to an heroic death is a remarkable character. He found his own death a quarter century later in the Lubanskaya prison. Egor Sozonov blew up the minister Pleve with a self-made machine for which he was sent to a penal colony for life, Ianek Kaliayev – the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and was hanged.
A question suggests itself: “And for what did these supermen exactly fought?” The most significant objective of the socialist-revolutionaries’ party, known even from the textbooks for middle school was the demand for land reform. Subsequently the Bolsheviks armed themselves with this – winning – SR idea (Winning in a country where the majority of the population were peasants!) about the allotment of peasants with land and genially simply formulated it: “The land to the peasants!” And it was intended to return the factories to the workers. “The factories to the workers!” declared the Bolsheviks.
That is, the SRs of the combat organization put in pieces the bodies of the autocracy ministers and the members of tsar’s family so that the peasants get the land. (In other questions there were disagreements between the SRs. There were those who named the aristocracy the avant-garde of the struggle. A few of the SRs called the proletariat their ally.) As for the Bolsheviks, they stuck to their double formula: “The factories to the workers! The land to the peasants!” By the end of the war, having understood how tired the peoples are form the war, Lenin genially added to the slogans a third one: “Peace to the peoples!”
By summarizing all of this we come to the conclusion that the two largest revolutionary parties of Russia of the beginning of the century fought for the removal of the inequality in the distribution of property and means of production, that is the national wealth. What else did they fight for? It was considered that autocracy is a form of government under which the country is ruled by a single ruler, who received the power by inheritance – an extremely reactionary and unmodern form of government.
The masses flowed under the banners of the allies: Bolsheviks and SRs, and not in a feeble quantity. And thanks to the genial triple formula, the Bolsheviks had indeed won. Like this? It appears that it is precisely like this.
And what to fight for today? Today one cannot move anybody with land. There will be no unrests for it. The questions of property of enterprises and land are not revolutionary today, uprising the masses. Why? The workers don’t need factories and plants because to set up a proportional and permanent dripping of profits in the pockets of each of the 12 thousand workers of the Krasnoyarsk aluminum plant is hardly possible or impossible. It is easier to give away a part of the profits to the owners of the plant and the administration, receiving for the possibility of the renting of the equipment, means of production – the machinery and for the labor of aluminum production from the raw materials of the owner – a fixed salary pay. This way it is handier, each worker doesn’t have to busy himself with the plant.
Do the peasants need land today? A very insignificant minority. Those who are not afraid not only of the fight with the land, the soil, but also are not afraid of the war with the papers and the functionaries. Those who agree to get credits for the tractors, to defend themselves from the anger and the envy of the destitute neighbors. And there are insignificantly little of such heroes for the whole Russian peasantry. Even more precisely would be – for the entire Russian population. Because the class of the small agricultural owners had long ago disappeared in Russia, driven out by the forced collectivization. It was forced, yes, but there is no doubt that the method of making agricultural production by branch giants – kolkhozes and state farms – is nevertheless more progressive. In the West it is not the forced collectivization that has abolished single small businesses but the harsh competition. Those specialized on wheat or corn or pigs farming handled the job better than the shabby farmer with three tractors. Therefore the individual property on land that assumes the beginning from zero: giving out by the State of a small piece of land and a couple of tractors – does not appeal to anybody. More precisely it appeals to a very few. In order to reach prosperity the peasant has to break his back for generations and if he doesn’t break it – he will be ruined.
Therefore a similar early, of the beginning of the XX century epoch, socialism today is not a revolutionary ideology, the GOODS offered to him, that for which one should struggle are not GOODS. For them nobody will get his ass off a chair. In Italy of the 70s and the 80s the “Red Brigades” based their ideology on the ideas of the late follower of Gramshi – Pansieri, died in 1964 and the pupil of the latter – Toni Negri, author of the ideas of the “Workers autonomy”. However this very developed Marxism nevertheless was based on the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the proletariat revolution as the only way to the arrival of the kingdom of the proletariat dictatorship. The only thing Toni Negri had added from himself was the idea that one should not wait when the political situation will be ripe for the proletariat revolution, that the situation can be accelerated: to artificially heat up the political cauldron with terrorism. Renato Curcio, the leader of the “Red Brigades” also came up with the same conclusion. However, regardless of the fact that for two centuries the “Red Brigades” did not come off from the news columns of the mass-media they did not succeed in heating the Italian society to the temperature of revolution. Meanwhile the “brigadists” came close to the proletariat. There were discussion clubs and seminars functioning, common with the workers of the combinations “Sig-Simmens” and “Fiat”, where the “brigadists” brainwashed the workers. However only dozens of workers went with the “brigadists” and not tens of thousands. The thing is that the proletariat dictatorship (and in its assortment were “Factories to the workers!” and “Land to the peasants!”) turned out to be useless to the proletariat. The proletariat, as it turned out, did not want to burden itself with the problems of ownership on the means of production, problems of production and selling of the products of this production. The workers simply wanted to rent the working place and the machines and to make the product from the raw materials of the boss. And by the evening, not accounting for anything, after the horn, to leave the plants as fast as possible, thanks God, to forget about them till morning! The “Red Brigades” and their ideologists did not watch close enough the world of the end of the XX century surrounding them.