Summary of The Nation Speans
The centre of gravity in the battle between Good and Evil is transferred from the metaphysical heights ot L-Nationalism to the totally earthly realm of the biological degeneration of humankind. Its doctrinal thrust is directed at the struggle against non- Russians and 'disorderly hybridization' which threatens to undermine the position of Russians as the dominant nation (and race) within the empire.
Maintaining the empire is declared not only the sacred duty of Russian patriots' but also the main means of saving civilization from 'worldwide disintegration
Dictatorship is represented as the sole institutional structure adequate to this task.
The main goal of 'Russian patriots' is therefore the reorientation of the dictatorship' along the lines of a nationalist and racist 'ideological revolution', i.e , the creation of a Fascist state.
Notes
This is how the emigre Veche described The Nanon Speaks, No. 3, 1981, p. 107
Ibid , p. 115.
Ibid.
Ibid,, p. 130.
Ibid , p. 107.
Ibid., p. 108
Ibid p 113.
Ibid., p. 130.
Ibid., p. 126.
Ibid., p. 113.
Ibid., p. 117.
Ibid., p. 113.
Ibid, p. 125.
Ibid., p. 110.
Ibid., p 130.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 129. Capitalized in the original
Darrell P. Hammer 'Russian Nationalism and the "Yanov Thesis'", Religion in Communist Lands, Winter 1982, p. 313.
Veche, No. 3, 1981, p. 128.
Nasha strana 18 April 1972.
Veche, No. 3, 1981, p. 116.
Ibid., p. 123.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 124.
Ibid. Emphasis added.
Ibid.
Ibid
Ibid., p. 118. Emphasis added.
Ibid., p. 114. 3D Ibid., p. 125.
Ibid., p. 131.
Ibid., p. 112.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 111.
Ibid., p. 129.
Ibid., p. 130.
13
Solzhenitsyn:
From Under the Rubble
1 am keenly aware that in touching on the subject of Solzhenitsyn in the context of the drama of the Russian Right, I touch upon an extremely subtle, intimate, and at the same fme immense subject First of all, Solzhenitsyn is not an Osipov or a Chalmaev, nor an anonymous 'Russian patriot': he is part and parcel of political reality in the West. Hundreds of articles and dozens of books have been written about him. More importantly, many people in the West as well as in the Soviet Union are bound to him by personal feelings - they have studied him, learned from him, been inspired by him, loved him, expected the ultimate truth about Russia from him, as well as been disappointed in him. I do not intend to draw a political portrait of Solzhenitsyn here — or even a sketch for such a portrait. My aim is very much more modest- to examine the intellectual contribution of Solzhenitsyn and his followers to the formation of the reborn Russian Idea.
But to attempt even this is rather painful for me, as someone who was raised on Russian culture and shared in everything good and bad it has given the world. For myself as for many in Russia. Solzhenitsyn was once the conscience of the nation. For us, Sol/henitsvn was a symbol of those things of which we ourselves were not capable. This is not only with reference to his artistic gifts and legendary courage, but also to the role he has played л the spiritual liberation of oui country, and therefore also in my own liberation. The tragic aspect of the phenomenon of Solzhenitsyn is that he has turned up in the ranks of the New Right. But besides observing that this in itself is an indication of the enormous power which the light-wing tradition exerts in Russian culture, I am askmg, Why? Why would a person who has done so much for me, afterwards betray me? And not only betray rne, but damn me as a part of the Russian intelligentsia he curses?1
For this reason the chapters of this book on Solzhenitsyn are written as an argument, a confession, a search for an answer to a question which has been fateful for me — in short, as a critique of Solzhenitsyn's crii que. This is a difficult role for me, but I cannot refuse it — if for no other reason than that Solzhenitsyn himself taught me this unyielding attitude. After all, he himself wrote his Letter to the Soviet Leaders with almost no hope of success. Can he now abandon hu own ideology? If he made such demands of the leaders of the USSR, he must be capable of facing them himself.
Morality and Politics
What are the methodological roots of Solzhenitsyn's position? There are many. However, we are interested here in only one, which trad mally pertains to Russian writers who, just as traditionally, appear n the role of political prophets. Gogol, Dostoevskii and Tolstoy — however different their doctrines — have all proceeded from a single postulate. They measured political reality by absolute moral ciiter.-i, found reality wanting and — without even noticing how easy and fruitless the victory was — drew the conclusion that, from the point of view of the Lord's commandments and the moral perfection of man, there was essentially no difference between authoritarianism and democracy.
In much the same way as the thinkers of the French Enlightenment held that religion was a huge fraud lasting thousands of years and extending over the whole earth, that was perpetuated by a caste of professional clergy, so Ruse an writers have held that politics is all lies and in princ ole amoral, and was inculcated by a caste of professional politicians. For this reason, the special 'Russian' path to salvation which they have constructed has always consisted, not in the control of politics by society, but in the removal of society from politics, with its imp ed acceptance of authoritarianism. Utopianism was another result of this combination of political naivety and a passion for political prophecy. Invariably that utop inism was reactionary, presenting the traditional backwardness of Russian political culture as the summit and crown of human thought. Take, for example, the following quotations:
You [the leaders of the USSR] will still have unshakable power, a single, strong, closed party, the army, the police, industry, transportation, communications, natural resources, a monopoly on foreign trade, and control over the value of the ruble — but give the people room to breath, think, and develop!
The people desires for itself one thing only: freedom of life, thought and the word. Not interfering in the power of the state, li desires that the state not interfere in the autonomous lift ot its spirit. . . .2
Don't these sound as if they were written by one and the same hand ; However, the first quotation belongs to Solzhenitsyn, while the second, as we already know, was addressed to completely different leaders at another time entirely. Konstantin Aksakov, 130 years ago, was saying to the head of the Russian Orthodox state exactly the same th.ng as Solzhenitsyn was telling the Soviet leaders: take all power for yourself, but give the people all the freedom. The people wilt not interfere in politics, Aksakov and Solzhenitsyn promise, they desire only to breathe, think, and develop freely. For only by separating themselves from politics, they believe, can the people realize their moral essence. Yet alas, as history shows, where the people do not control the government, the government controls the people, not letting them either breathe, th> ik, or develop
The theme of both these letters is the same. The questions which both authors raise coincide, as do their answers But Russia remains m the same situation it was a century ago — trapped by hes. I wonder whether the parallel occurred to Solzhenitsyn when he repeated the demands of his teachers — demands which have failed the test of history.