Being a sickly child of materialistic capitalism, Communism has developed and perfected all of the harmful tendencies which were present in bourgeois economics, politics, and ideology . . . The component parts of Marxist-Leninist teaching were borrowed from
Western bourgeois theories Communism brought to its limit the proletarianization of the masses begun by capitalism.18
In a word, to paraphrase Lenin's classic remark, Communism is the highest stage of capita sm.
What interests us, though, is not so much this remarkable similarity to Bolshevik dogma as the belief that the primary source of evil in Russia is ot Western bourgeois origin. This fundamental feature of the VSKhSON programme entirely conditions its further development. Not only the economic structure of capitalism — its 'base', to use the Marxist terminology — but also its 'superstructure' prove unacceptable to the VSKhSON.
The Social—Christian doctrine of the state regards as an unconditional evil an organization of authority in which power becomes a prize to be competed for between parties or is monopolized by a single party. The party organization of power is in general unacceptable from the point of view of Social-Christianity.19
Why is the multi-party system, which, for all its drawbacks, is none the less still the best guarantee of personal freedom known to humanity, an 'unconditional evil'? The reason is obvious: because all the products of Western capitalism contain within them the immanent danger of Communism. It is for just this reason that the 'new Russian revolutionaries' feel that their vocation is to lead humankind on to a fundamentally different, Russian, path. The Russian essence of this path derives from the belief that, contrary to the asser ons of Western theoreticians, the centre of gravity for all conflicting forces in the world lies not in the realm of the struggle of democracy against authoritarianism, but in that of the struggle of metaphysical forces: God vs. Satan.
The cause ... of the dangerous tension in the world lies much deeper than the economic and political spheres ... a spiritual battle for the individual is going on. Two paths are before mankind: free communion with God ... or the denial of God, and then Satanocracy.20
The Corporate State
The philosophical premises of the VSKhSON programme inevitably had to lead it to the right in the area of socio-po ical planning as well.
Thus, in proposing to replace the party organization of power with 'representation by corporations , the authors of the programme are, of course, only echoing the central idea of their teacher, Nikolai Berdiaev in his book The New Middle Ages. If it was Djnas who inspired the critical portion of the'r program, t was Berdiaev who inspired its constructive part.21 It was he who in 1923 contrasted Western parliaments — these outgrowths on the body of the people, with their fictive vampire-like lives, no longer capable of fulfilling a single organic function . . . [these] degenerative talk-fests' — with 'representation by real corporations'.22
The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that Berdiaev's tierce contempt for Western parliaments is reniin scent of Mussolini s pronouncements on the subject.
No one any longer believes in any juridical or political forms; no one gives a damn for any constitutions . . . We, especially Russia, are moving toward a unique type [of state], which could be called 'Soviet monarchy', syndicalist monarchy . . . The regime will be strong, often dictatorial. A elemental grass-roots force shall invest elective individuals with the sacred attributes of power . . . features of Caesarism shall predominate in them.23
Even if Berd'aev hadn t directly referred to Mussolini, it would still be obvious who was his uisp'ration, but he goes on to make this quite clear. 'Fascism is the sole creat've phenomenon in the political life of contemporary Europe24 . . . Only people like Mussolini, perhaps the sole creative statesman in Europe, shall have meaning [in the future].'25 Even if the new Russian revolutionaries, did not understand that they were repeating Mussolini's Fascist rhetoric directly (although, as we have seen, references to it are given openly in their textbook), at least they were consciously using Berdiaev's ominous interpretation of it Dunlop ought, therefore, to have known what a fatal role Berdiaev's most reactionary book played in the formation of the opposition consciousness of the VSKhSON. Indeed, he seems well aware of it 'The New Middle Ages', he writes, 'is a provocative work that has surprisingly never been translated into English ... It contains Berdiaev's program for Russia's emergence from the Bolshevik yoke ... A number of Berdiaev's ideas . . . were incorporated into the "constructive section" of the VSKhSON program.'26
I must admit that of all Dunlop's commentaries 1 his is the one which is the most bewildering. First, are we to understand from it that not only 'the new Russian revolutionaries', but also Dunlop himself, seriously views Fascism as a programme for Russia's emergence from the 'Bolshevik yoke'? Secondly, could Dunlop have failed to notice that Berdiaev, in his 'provocative' book, flatly contradicts all the liberal promises of civil rights contained in the VSKhSON programme? 'I assert', writes Berdiaev, '[that] the Russian people ... do not want a Rechtsstaat [a state based on the rule of law] in the European sense of this word. [Russia] would sooner give Dirth to the An ichr ;t than to humanist democracy.'27 For oetter or worse, humankind knows no other sense of the expression 'a state based on rule of law than the European one. Moreover, if the categorical denial of a state based on rule of law is, in Dunlop's opinion, merely authoritarianism', then what is Fascism? Third, and finally, inasmuch as The New Middle Ages was translated into English (and reprinted three times!) even f under a different title,28 it is unclear why Dunlop should deny it. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that 'the new Russian revolutionaries' in their programme preferred the principles of the Fascist corporate state to those of the 'unconditional evil' of Westrn democracy and so revealed their projected revolution in a somewhat unexpected light.
Great Russia
Suppose for a moment that the Russians really can be saved from the threat of 'satanocracy' only by the Orthodox corporate theocracy which the VSKhSON intended to bestow upon them. It should not be forgotten, though, that Russians make up only half the population of the USSR. Among the dozens of other nationalities included in the empire are some which are not Russian Orthodox, or even Christian. No plebiscite has ever been set up to establish whether any of these nations are especially inclined toward Orthodox theocracy. What fate awaits them in a 'society built according to the VSKhSON's plan' (so appealing to Mr Dunlop)? The programme gives no answer to this question at all. It doesn't even go through the formality of promising that the empire's non-Russian nations will have the right not to follow 'the Russian path', if they so choose. Point 73 merely states that the VSKhSON 'acknowledges itself as a patriotic organization of selfless representatives of all the nationalities of Great Russia.'29
Where are the boundaries of this 'Great Russia' conceived of by VSKhSON; within those of the present Soviet emp;re? What if the Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Buddhists iving withm its territory should not wish to recognize Orthodoxy as the ideology ot universal salvation, and theocracy as the mandatory form of political organization? According to Point 83: 'countries in which Soviet troops are temporarily stationed can be helped to national self-determmation on the basis of Social-Christianity.'30 But what if these countries should desire self-determination on some other basis? Since the programme doesn't address these questions, we must seek out other sources of information to help shed light oil those issues about which the programme is obscure. In particular, we want to know about the attitude of key VSKhSON leaders toward certain national minorities. In the memoirs of В Karavatskii, a fellow-traveller, there is a revealing passage on the views of the organization э 'head of personnel Mikhail Sado: 'It is difficult for me to reconcile myself to the fact that anti-Semitic overtones slipped through in this mai s conversation Probably, this deeply rooted flaw in this uncommonly .ntercscmg individual was absorbed by him with his mother s nrlk 31