In our work, we almost did not touch upon issues of national politics in the Soviet republics, in particular because it was already the subject of research by many authors. The issues of the creation of the USSR in 1922, the problems of local nationalism and the fight against it - all this has been studied in much more detail than the Russian problem, which remains almost a blank spot on the historical map. All we would have to do here is to reconcile what is known about national politics with the development of National Bolshevism.
Already from the very beginning of the revolution, movements arose in a number of national regions that could be united under the general name of “national communism.” On the one hand, these movements were similar to National Bolshevism, but on the other, they were sharply different from it. These were left-wing radical nationalist movements that placed emphasis on communist ideology. As one of the leading researchers of these movements, Richard Pipes, notes, the national communists were people of radical views who joined the revolution out of the belief that the creation of a communist economy would automatically lead to the destruction of national oppression. If the National Bolsheviks saw in communism an annoying temporary addition to the revolutionary process, which would disappear over time, then the National Communists saw it as the main value of the revolutionary process.

Further, National Bolshevism defended the interests of the imperial nation, which found itself in a state of national crisis. He was her means of survival. National communism was the weapon of young nations, just getting on their feet, for whom the revolution was their midwife.
Both National Bolshevism and National Communism were different sides of the same process - pressure from the national environment on the new social system. But unlike the triumphant National Bolshevism, National Communism was defeated. One of the sharpest conflicts was generated by Turkic national communism. It is associated with the name of the Tatar communist Sultan-Galiyev. Already in 1919, he expressed doubt that the global class struggle launched by the Russian Bolsheviks would change the fate of the peoples of the colonial countries. In his opinion, the proletariat of developed countries is still interested in maintaining their advantages in relation to the colonial peoples.
The seizure of power by the proletariat in industrial countries will only mean a change of master for the colonial peoples. At first, Sultan-Galiyev attributed this only to the proletariat of Western countries, but later transferred his views to Russia.
If for many Russians the NEP instilled hopes for the national revival of Russia, then for Sultan-Galiyev it turned out to be the loss of all hopes for international communism and the loss of faith that the proletariat of developed countries could liberate the colonial peoples, because for him the NEP was, just like for many Russians, the beginning of a return to conditions that existed before 1917.

He could not help but be disgusted by the party’s flirtation with Russian nationalism, which meant for him the restoration of previous national relations in the country, as evidenced by his anonymous statement in “The Life of Nationalities” in 1921. Sultan-Galiyev proposes a program that should radically exclude the revival of Russian rule over the peoples of colonial countries, even in a communist guise. He proposes to establish a dictatorship of colonies and semi-colonies over industrialized countries, to create an International of colonial countries, opposed to the Third International, which is dominated by Western elements. In addition, he demands the creation of a Muslim Soviet republic and a Muslim communist party.
Sultan-Galiyev was arrested on the orders of Stalin in April or May 1923. Stalin pointed to him as a traitor. Sultan-Galiyev was the first responsible communist worker arrested after the revolution, and Stalin was the initiator of this arrest, as well as the initiator of the defeat of Turkic national communism.
He also led the defeat of Georgian national communism. In May 1921, Georgia signed an agreement with the RSFSR, recognizing it as a sovereign state, but this agreement remained on paper. As soon as the Georgian communist government adopted its own laws, Stalin, Ordzhonikidze and other Russified Georgians who were in Moscow launched a real campaign against Georgia. Under these laws, residence in Georgia for non-Georgians and marriages between Georgians and non-Georgians were limited by large taxes.
The Georgian question became one of the central ones at the end of 1922 - beginning of 1923 1 . Lenin came to the defense of the Georgian national communists and even raised the question of the advisability of dissolving the newly created USSR. But thanks to his retirement, Georgian “national deviationism” was completely defeated, and the entire former Georgian leadership was removed from Georgia and sent to different parts of the country.
The strongest and now only national communism remained - Ukrainian, with which Moscow constantly fought throughout the first years of the revolution.
In December 1920, the RSFSR and Ukraine entered into an agreement under which Ukraine was recognized as a sovereign state, but this agreement remained on paper. In May 1922, the Ukrainian government even filed a formal protest against the fact that the RSFSR acted in international relations on behalf of Ukraine.

After the creation of the USSR in December 1922, the status of Ukraine continued to steadily decline. A prominent representative of Ukrainian national communism, Skrypnik, even indirectly spoke out in defense of Sultan-Galiyev, saying at a meeting in the Central Committee that his case is an unhealthy symptom of the presence of national inequality, and in order to completely exclude the emergence of such cases, this inequality must be eliminated. In 1925-1926 There were new signs of an attack on national communism in Ukraine. This is manifested in criticism of the excesses of the so-called. Ukrainization, which was not previously questioned, as Mordechai Altshuler draws attention to.
The reason for this was the initiative shown by Shumsky, the People's Commissar of Education of the Ukrainian SSR, who, in a conversation with Stalin, demanded increased Ukrainization of state and cultural life in the republic and accused the existing leadership of this republic, especially Kaganovich, of deliberately preventing Ukrainization. Shumsky even proposed personal replacements in the Ukrainian leadership so that only Ukrainians would become the head of the republic. In response to this, Stalin sent a letter to Kaganovich and other members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine (April 26, 1926). Having agreed with a number of Shumsky’s theses, Stalin accused him, in particular, of the fact that the adoption of most of Shumsky’s proposals would cause anti-Ukrainian chauvinism among Russian workers in Ukraine, and Ukrainization in relation to them would become a form of national oppression. Stalin accused the Ukrainian intelligentsia of anti-Russian sentiments. The main example for him was the Ukrainian communist writer Khvilevoy, who demanded “immediate de-Russification.” “While the Western European proletarians and their communist parties,” Stalin was indignant, “are full of sympathy for Moscow, for this citadel of the international revolutionary movement and Leninism, while the Western European proletarians look with admiration at the banner waving in Moscow, the Ukrainian communist Khvilevoy has nothing more to say in favor of Moscow other than to urge Ukrainian leaders to flee from Moscow “as soon as possible.” And this is called internationalism!”
On June 2-6, 1926, an expanded plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b)U was held on the issue of mistakes in Ukrainization, and to confirm that we are talking about a general change in policy on the national issue, on June 9 a similar plenum was held in Belarus, dedicated to the work among the intelligentsia. True, these changes are still of a limited and not decisive nature, so that in response to Stalin’s accusation, the same Khvilevoy in 1927 was still able to bring out in his new novel a heroine who exposes the slogan “socialism in one country.”

Speaking about one Russian intellectual, she accuses him of belonging to those “internationalists” who willingly talk about national self-determination, but see “Petlyurism” everywhere, not noticing their own “Ustryalism.”
Along with Turkic, Georgian, and Ukrainian national communism, Jewish national communism also deserves attention. Baruch Gurevich closes it within the framework of the Poalei Zion party, but, apparently, Jewish national-communist sentiments were more widespread. In this regard, it is curious to use the term “national-bolshevism” in application to the sentiments that existed among some of the Jewish party workers.
In parallel with national trends within the communist movement, a counter process is observed on the national outskirts: recognition of the national character of the newly emerged Soviet republics by part of the nationalists. If in Russian National Bolshevism, on the contrary, first a movement towards Bolshevism arises within national movements, and then a counter process occurs within the Communist Party, in the republics the order changes, and this is quite clear, because there the revolution occurs in the reverse order: first in the situation national revival comes national regimes that are destroyed by the Bolsheviks, while in Russia the revolution initially took place under the sign of a Russian national catastrophe.

These counter movements of non-Russian nationalists began to be called Smenovekhovism, although the similarity to Russian National Bolshevism completely obscured the directly opposite meaning of these movements. The Bolshevik leaders took advantage of this deliberately. Thus, S. Ordzhonikidze argued that Smenovekhovtvo was observed among the Georgian and Armenian intelligentsia."3 Since he was openly accused in Georgia of serving great-power Russian interests as a Russified Georgian, it was important for him to reduce the meaning of Smenovekhovtvo to the general idea of ​​cooperation with the Soviet government The statements of Soviet sources about the existence of “Ukrainian change of leadership”, based on the fact of the return of some national Ukrainian leaders, for example M. Grushevsky, or V. Vinnychenko’s attempts to enter the Ukrainian government in 1920, should be assessed in exactly the same way.
The fate of domestic Russian national communism was sealed. He was defeated by the strengthening of National Bolshevism, only to rise again after the death of Stalin.
The situation with national communism in foreign communist parties was much more complicated. It was possible to fight this, but it was impossible to destroy it like the Ukrainian or Georgian national communists.
The “National Bolshevism” of Laufenberg and Wolfheim, already known to us, took on an anti-Russian character.
For Ustryalov, this no longer mattered, because he was inspired by the very idea of ​​​​cooperation between nationalists and communists.
The Hamburg communists argued, for example, that the International was an instrument of Russian imperialist domination. In this regard, the Second Congress of the Comintern in August 1920 sent a letter to the German communists.
“In Germany itself,” it said, “the Wolfheims and Laufenbergs are doing everything to alienate you from communism. They slandered the mighty and heroic struggle of the Russian proletariat against world capitalism as a struggle for world domination of the Russian communist party authorities... They are trying to distract the German the proletariat from its revolutionary duties, declaring that they rejected "the transformation of Germany into a Russian marginal state."
In a report on the international situation at the IV Congress of the Comintern, Radek defended himself against attacks on the Comintern as an instrument of the state interests of Russia: “The interests of the Russian proletarian state are the interests of the Russian proletariat, organized in the form of state power.”
German National Communism as an organized movement was nevertheless suppressed by the then all-powerful Comintern. But, like domestic Russian national communism, it re-emerged in the post-war period, especially since 1948, after the break between the USSR and Yugoslavia. Today, world communism is no longer a single bloc or camp of communist countries and parties that are not in power. At the slightest opportunity, they enter into hostility with each other, which can become global.
Communism has a tendency to become national communism as soon as it comes to power. This, apparently, is the historical fate of the communist movement. The relations between Russian National Bolshevism and the outlying national communisms in Soviet Russia in the twenties turned out to be a prototype of future relations between communist countries.

1 The Twelfth Congress... See also the speech at the congress by Makharadze, who connected the persecution of Georgian communists with the growth of change-of-government.

National Bolshevism is a radical political movement whose philosophy is based on a consensus of the extreme left and the extreme

A unified definition and concept of this political thought has not yet been developed. Different ideologists viewed the movement in their own way and had their own ideas. National Bolshevism was extremely popular in Germany during the interwar period and in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Origin

Throughout the history of their existence, the National Bolsheviks (National Bolsheviks) were unable to create an influential political movement. Therefore, it is quite difficult to trace the history of the emergence of this political paradigm.

It is believed that such views were first voiced in 1919. At that time, Europe was gripped by a serious political crisis. Political ideas, once considered utopian, were realized through coups and revolutions. At that time, two new movements were extremely popular: communism and “neo-nationalism.” Both camps were in opposition to each other. However, some thinkers found similarities in these seemingly opposites.

Revolutionary movement

National Bolshevism owes its appearance largely to the victory of the revolution in Russia. The communists who came to power took the position of internationalism. However, some leaders believed that it was possible to build communism in the future, based on the ethnic traditions of peoples. Such views were very popular in Germany.

A country torn by civil unrest that had just lost a war was sliding into crisis. The Weimar Republic was in total international isolation. The press and officials of the European powers used terms such as “the most despised nation in Europe” and so on in relation to the Germans.

This contributed to the growth of nationalism and a strong sense of unity among the Germans themselves. In addition, another country, Soviet Russia, was also in international isolation. The communists categorically did not accept humiliation based on nationality and achieved significant success in reforming the social life of the population. Berlin professor Paul Elzbacher is developing the concept of a union of a new Germany with Soviet Russia.

Union concept

First of all, the concept of the unification of Russia and Germany, as National Bolshevism considered it, had a geopolitical background. The two countries occupied the most important places in the political life of Europe and the entire continent. The United States did not then have the same influence on the Old World that it had after World War II. Therefore, the idea was expressed that the union of Germany and Russia would control the entire world.

The National Bolsheviks proposed creating a new political platform based on the Bolshevik revolution, but preserving national traditions and using ethnic identity as the engine of the revolution.

Anti-capitalism

The ideology of National Bolshevism is based on a radical rejection of capitalism. All theorists recognized the existence of class war. In this area, the paradigm almost completely copies the views expressed by the communists. According to the theory, it is believed that the whole world is divided into oppressors and oppressed. But if the left views the capitalist system only as a method of economic exploitation, then the National Bolsheviks view the problem from the “right” side. They believe that the capitalist way of life not only excludes equal rights to the goods produced, but also leads to the degradation of the masses.

The immorality of capitalism was actively used by the National Bolsheviks in their propaganda, as well as by the communists.

German view

Friedrich Lenz creates the organization "Der Vorkampfer". National Bolshevism acquires its first political party. Many researchers tend to classify the Strasser brothers as National Bolsheviks. Hitler's opponents within the National Socialist Party rejected the pathological racism of their Fuhrer and believed that the main efforts should go towards fighting the class enemy. The National Bolsheviks advocated the complete nationalization of all private ownership of the means of production. At the same time, it was proposed to introduce strict state control of all sectors of the economy. In this regard, the National Bolsheviks were inspired by the successes of Stalin's forced industrialization.

The economy was presented as planned with a clear distribution of labor. Hans Ebeling wrote several significant works on collective farming planning. The planned approach was extremely popular among the left in Western Europe. Industrial aesthetics was one of the identifying marks of the new nationalism and communism.

National identity

The basic principle of National Bolshevism assumed the national traditions of various peoples as the engine of the revolution. National policy was presented as quite conservative and traditionalist. Many theorists believed that only the unity of the people based on ethnic identity would help build a new society. Attitudes towards religion were different. The National Bolsheviks of the first and especially the second wave were not religious.

They believed that religion was only a manifestation of national identity, so they did not oppose it as radically as the communists did in Russia.

In the post-Soviet period, the political work written by David Brandenberger became very popular. National Bolshevism, in his opinion, originated precisely in the Stalin era. The researcher gave examples of changes in the Soviet value system on the eve of World War II. Soviet propaganda began to turn to national Russocentric motifs and folk heroes of the past. This was done as part of the mobilization of the population before the coming war. Some figures of Tsarist Russia were rehabilitated: Nevsky, Kutuzov, Rasputin and others. Such motives are extremely effective. Many political forces still use them.

National Bolshevism in Russia

The first domestic National Bolsheviks appeared among the Russian emigration. After the establishment of Soviet power, some dissidents reconsidered their attitude towards communism due to the successes of the new regime. Ideas were expressed to unite the views of the Red Bolsheviks. Some figures even wrote scientific papers and sent them to Moscow.

The National Bolsheviks believed that replacing internationalism and cosmopolitanism with traditionalism and primordial nationalism would accelerate

Modernity

Many modern National Bolsheviks idealize the Stalinist era of the USSR, considering it an example of the National Bolshevik system. This is largely due to the appeal of Soviet propaganda to national traditions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the first National Bolshevik party appeared in Russia. Its leader was Along with him, the philosopher Dugin was at the head and the singer NBP was remembered for a number of rather high-profile direct action actions in the nineties.

The National Bolsheviks seized administrative buildings, disrupted government meetings, and attacked corrupt officials.

The movement was criticized by both the left and the right. National Bolshevism and Trotskyism were always in strong opposition to each other, despite the similarity of ideas. Also criticism

The National Bolsheviks are also criticized from the right. Liberals and centrists do not take strong anti-capitalist positions. In the nineties, the National Bolshevik movement assumed a truly wide scope. There were various associations in many post-Soviet countries. In Russia, some National Bolsheviks received long prison sentences under rather strange circumstances. After the arrest of most of the activists, the movement began to decline. At the moment, there is not a single legal National Bolshevik movement in Russia and post-Soviet countries.

Today, the expression “National Bolshevism” inevitably evokes an association with Eduard Limonov, but this political phenomenon has its roots in the 20-30s and is associated with thinkers such as Ernst Nikisch and Nikolai Ustryalov, who, each in their own way, came to similar political views .

The term "National Bolshevism" was first used at the end of the First World War by German communists Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolfheim. They called on the councils of German workers and soldiers to abandon the agreements of the Treaty of Versailles and start a national revolutionary war in alliance with Soviet Russia against the capitalist West. National Bolshevism can be seen as the left wing in the "conservative revolution". Probably, E. Junger stood closest to this trend. Representatives of this movement also include Karl Otto Petel, Werner Lass, Paul Elzbacher, Hans von Henting, Friedrich Lenz, Bodo Use, Beppo Roemer, Hartmut Plaas, Karl Traeger. But the German philosopher and politician Ernst Karl August Niekisch (1889-1967) was central to this movement. Surprisingly, in parallel, the ideas of National Bolshevism are being developed by the Russian jurist and political thinker, the ideologist of the so-called. “Smenovekhovstva”, Nikol Vasilievich Ustryalov (1890-1937).

On the one hand, the specificity of National Bolshevism is its increased interest in the experience of Russian Bolshevism and the Soviet project, on the other hand, the rejection of left-wing internationalism with its globalist project of world revolution and communism. At the same time, National Bolshevism is not nationalism in the usual sense of the word. Nationalism is generally associated with the idea of ​​the nation state ( état-nation). For National Bolshevism, according to Ustryalov, the highest form of state is a multi-ethnic empire. If there should be a state-forming people, this does not imply national unification or inequality of ethnic groups.

Ernst Nikisch

Nikisch began his career as a politician in the field of “left” politics. He was a member Social Democratic Party Germany, but in the 20s his worldview underwent changes towards nationalism, as a result of which in 1926 he was expelled from the party. Subsequently Nikisch joins Old Socialist Party of Saxony which he puts under his control. Thanks to his acquaintance with August Winnig, Nikisch became close to representatives of the “conservative revolution”.

Gradually in his journal " Resistance» (« Widerstand") he develops the ideology of National Bolshevism. A circle of like-minded people rallied around him and received a similar name. " Resistance"was in opposition to the Weimar Republic with its liberalism, capitalism and Western influences.

It should be noted that Nikisch is known for his harsh criticism of Nazism. He, earlier than other “conservative revolutionaries,” realized Hitler’s danger to Germany. Already in 1932 he wrote a pamphlet “ Hitler is an evil fate for Germany“, and after the Nazis came to power, he stood in opposition to the regime and became, in fact, its only public critic. Nikisch condemned the anti-communist hysteria and anti-Slavic racism of the Nazis. The Bolshevization of Germany, according to Niekisch, would be a lesser evil than National Socialism. He likened Hitler’s aggressive plans against the USSR to the 1240 crusade on the part of the “Romanesque world.” For him, Hitler is only an agent of the West and the “Romanesque world” (Nikisch noted his Austro-Catholic origins), and not the leader of the German nation:

“Against the Soviet Union, Hitler stands in a united front with the rest of the Western powers. … Anyone who adheres to Western spiritual values ​​and the benefits of Western civilization takes the side of Versailles; he sacrifices Germany so as not to jeopardize these values ​​and benefits. He is a defector, even if he hopes for a “conservative synthesis” linking Europe and German nationalism in some kind of “higher unity.”

The Western nature of Nazism is demonstrated by its racism, the cult of the leader, sympathy for England, compromise with financial capital, petty-bourgeois desire for stability, and the lack of Prussian restraint and severity. Nazism, he said, represents “ a purely bourgeois phenomenon, the last poisonous flower of the bourgeois world, characterized by byzantism, superficial optimism, amateurism, domination and lack of sobriety».

Nikisch remained underground until 1937, when he was arrested by the Gestapo and deported to a concentration camp, where he remained until 1945. Having become a citizen of the GDR, he taught sociology in University of Berlin Humboldt. After the suppression of the workers' uprising in 1953, he decided to move to West Berlin, where he spent the rest of his days.

A feature of German National Bolshevism in comparison with other theories of the German “conservative revolution” was a special interest in the experience of Russian Bolshevism. Together with Jünger, Nikisch was a member of the " Society for the Study of Soviet Planned Economy", and in 1932 he visited the USSR, where he met Karl Radek. National Bolshevism accepts the idea of ​​class struggle and social revolution, which should liberate the worker. It is emphasized that such a revolution is possible only in the context of a national revolution:

“Only the will to class struggle as a political body and national repository of the will to live will liberate the peoples.”

The Marxist idea of ​​the proletarian class organization must be expanded to the idea of ​​the proletarian organization of the entire people, which should lead to the liberation of the national whole. The internal struggle must be accompanied by a struggle against the exploiting nations.

The absolute enemy of National Bolshevism at the geopolitical level is the capitalist liberal West. Hence Niekisch’s idea of ​​an alliance between Germany and the USSR (a German-Slavic bloc “from Vladivostok to Flessingen”) with the aim of crushing the Western bourgeois countries. Like Möller van den Broek, Nikisch wrote in the work “ Third imperial figure“about the “common destinies” of Germans and Russians and the need for an “eastern orientation” for Germany.

He views the history of Europe as a struggle between the “Romanesque spirit” (West) and the “German spirit.” Germany in its essence does not belong to Western civilization, therefore it is necessary “ to carry out a complete separation from the West... In Western countries, Germans are treated as inferior, but in the East they- leading force. What Rome was to the West, Potsdam must be to the East. The world domination of everything Roman has passed, the East is next».

Bolshevism for Nikisch was not identical to Marxism. The latter was only the outer shell of the national revolution. The revolution of 1917 was truly a Russian revolution. He wrote that if “Washington means the dominance of subhumans and inferiors,” then Moscow “means the birth of a new order, a new nobility.” Thanks to the fact that Bolshevism destroyed bourgeois forms, the revival of Russia began, “coming from the depths of primitive Slavic-Asian instincts.” Marxism added only confidence in victory and awareness of its own mission to these instincts; they ensured the mobilization and rise of the Russian will to live. In accordance with the aspirations of its people, Russia became a "total state", although Marxism would prefer to remove the state completely.

The ideology of National Bolshevism received its final form in the work of Nikisch "The Third Imperial Figure"(1935). The third imperial figure is the worker. This concept is closely related to the concept of “Worker” by E. Junger. This is a new type of person, a subject of a new era. It is characterized by collectivism, discipline and the ability to obey. His freedom is involvement in work, the ability to mobilize. The worker Nikisha embodies the “Prussian principle”. The worker as a third figure replaces two figures of the past - the “eternal Roman” and the “eternal Jew”. The figure of the worker will establish a new form of domination, based on the imperial idea and the subordination of deadening technology.

Nikolay Ustryalov

Ustryalov in his political path went from liberalism to illiberalism, which is typical for many political thinkers in Russia. During his student years, he joined the Cadets Party (albeit their “right” wing). Ustryalov enthusiastically accepted the February Revolution, seeing in it a chance for the transformation of Russia and further national revival (however, he later assessed it as a national disgrace and the beginning of the collapse of the state). He regarded October as a national catastrophe, and the Bolsheviks as fanatics of the delusional idea of ​​world revolution, for whom Russia is only a means for realizing this idea.

During the Civil War he ended up in Kolchak’s camp. Being a democrat himself, Ustryalov, as a political realist, inclined Kolchak to establish a dictatorship. After the collapse of Kolchak, he comes to the conclusion that the Bolsheviks are currently the only force capable of preserving Russia. The Bolsheviks, who began to unite the country and fight the invaders, in his eyes turned out to be greater patriots than the whites with their intrigues with the so-called. "allies". Ustryalov came to the conclusion that a Russian patriot, for the sake of Russia, must support the Bolsheviks:

“From the point of view of Russian patriots, Russian Bolshevism, which managed to pour the chaos of the revolutionary spring into the harsh but clear forms of a unique statehood, clearly raising the international prestige of a uniting Russia and bringing with it corruption to our foreign friends and enemies, should be considered a useful factor for this period in the history of Russian national cause."

In 1920, Ustryalov emigrated to Harbin, where he taught at Harbin University and worked in Soviet institutions Chinese Eastern Railway (CER). Over time, Ustryalov has like-minded people - the so-called. “Smenovekhites” (Klyuchnikov, Bobrishchev-Pushkin, Potekhin, Lukyanov, etc.) and Eurasians (Savitsky and left Eurasians, Efron, Suvchinsky, Svyatopolk-Mirsky, etc.). A letter from Ustryalov to Suvchinsky from 1926 has been preserved, where he indicates his closeness to Eurasianism:

“Being known as a Smenovekhist, I am actually closer to Eurasianism than to the ill-memorated European Smenovekhism. Recently, in an article by Pyotr Struve (Vozrozhdenie, October 7), I read that left-wing Eurasianism is identical to “national Bolshevism.” It seems that Struve, to a certain extent, is right.”

Ustryalov even openly called himself a left-wing Eurasian, although he considered the Eurasians more likely to be philosophers, and himself a political publicist. As for the “Smenovekhites,” Ustryalov, although he tries to stay somewhat aloof from them, publishes in their publications. First in their first collection " Change of milestones"(Prague, 1921), and later in " The day before" and in the Soviet edition " Russia».

Bolshevik leaders closely followed Ustryalov's work. Lenin demanded to ensure timely receipt of " Milestone changes" And " The day before", and in 1925, at the XIV Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Stalin mentioned Ustryalov, touching on the ideology of change of leadership. Ustryalov was sharply criticized by Zinoviev, Bukharin and Ryutin.

Having accepted Soviet citizenship, Ustryalov visited the USSR in 1925. His intuitions were confirmed, and he saw that Russia was returning to the mainstream of its national existence, that the “nationalization of October” was taking place. In the 30s, Ustryalov fully supported Stalin as a statist building a national empire, which was camouflaged in the thesis “socialism in a single country.” He also welcomes the defeat of the “Leninist Guard.” According to Ustryalov, Stalin openly switched to the position of National Bolshevism in his political practice. Stalin, according to many researchers, in turn, was not only familiar with the works of Ustryalov, but was also influenced by them. Trotsky openly called Stalin an Ustryalovite and a Russian imperialist.

In 1935, Ustryalov, apparently due to the spread of Russian-fascist and anti-Soviet sentiments in Harbin, lost his job at the university. In the same year, the USSR sold the Chinese Eastern Railway to Japan, which forced it to return to the USSR. In Moscow he teaches at universities and is published in " Truth" And " Izvestia" However, in 1937, following a false denunciation of espionage for Japan, Ustryalov was arrested and sentenced to death.

The doctrine of the state of Ustryalov’s National Bolshevism can be called statism. Ustryalov believed that modern humanity is developing under the sign of statehood, since today only the state can become that single integral principle that can hold together such a diverse phenomenon as the historical life of the people. In full accordance with the political teaching of Plato, about whom he wrote the work, he believed that “the principle of the public good sanctifies all means.” Ustryalov, like the “conservative revolutionaries” and Eurasianists, understood the state in an organicist way:

“...states are the same organisms, endowed with soul and body, spiritual and physical qualities. The state is the highest organism on earth, and Hegel was not entirely wrong when he called it “earthly god.”

Since the desire for expansion is natural for a state (this is a requirement of the “historical spirit”), the highest form of a state is an empire that unites many peoples. The Empire has a great culture, which is characterized by diversity, “flourishing complexity,” as K.N. Leontyev.

In general, Ustryalov (following K.N. Leontyev and N.Ya. Danilevsky) was convinced that

“Only a “physically” powerful state can have a great culture. The souls of “small powers” ​​are not deprived of the opportunity to be graceful, noble, even “heroic,” but they are organically incapable of being “great.” This requires great style, great scope, a large scale of thought and action.”

Ustryalov calls the 20th century the century of imperialism (“great power”), when each strong nation creates its own specific empire. He writes about German, English, American, Turkish and Russian imperialism. At the same time, he condemns imperialism, which treats surrounding peoples with contempt and extortion. The content of history is the clash of various imperialisms, as a result of which the “political landscape” of the world changes. In this Ustryalov sees special beauty, “the seal of the highest wisdom” and “the verdict of the historical spirit.”

Ustryalov viewed the state not only as a power apparatus or management organization opposed to society, but as an organism that consists of the following elements: territory, population, power.

He attached the greatest importance to territory as the most valuable part of the “state soul”, so he can be considered a representative of Russian geopolitical thought.

Ideology is secondary in relation to the existence of the state organism. This position was decisive for Ustryalov in his acceptance of the Soviet regime with its ideology alien to Russian civilization. If there is power, people and territory, then the soul of the state will inevitably transform any ideology in a “soil” manner, in accordance with the national character. Therefore, Ustryalov predicted the “Russification of communism.”

As for power, Ustryalov considers the form of government to be historically determined. For the Middle Ages, a monarchy was suitable, for the New Age - a parliamentary republic. In the 20th century, the decline of “formal democracy” took place, because the “ideals of 1789” fell into disrepair. Ustryalov points out the hypocrisy of modern parliamentarism, which hides behind the “will of the people”, because in fact, politics is made by an enterprising minority. Since modern society gravitates towards solidarist and socialist ideologies, the time is coming when “formal democracy” will degenerate into its opposite, the individualism of the 19th century will turn into statism of the 20th century.

Ustryalov, following O. Spengler, calls the coming political system “Caesarism.” Caesarism is also a kind of democracy, since the people transfer power to an “initiative minority,” completed by a “most initiative figure.” Ustryalov finds examples of emerging Caesarism not only in the USSR, Italy, Germany, but even in England and the USA, which hide behind the façade of “formal democracy.”

Being a statist and conservative, Ustryalov was far from revolutionary romanticism; he believed that a revolutionary explosion should be “prevented until the last minute, without losing hope of getting by without it.” But, nevertheless, revolution is, at times, an inevitable fact of reality. A revolution is the revelation of a protracted illness of the state organism; it is the “opening of an abscess”, which is necessary for healing. Revolution, therefore, can have a positive, cathartic character for the state. Thus, the Russian revolution, despite all the horrors it brought, gives birth to a new Russia in healing fire,

“which we expect to be free from the sins of Russia of the past, although deeply connected with it by the unity of substance, dear memories, the unity of a great soul...”

At the same time, for the revolution to be genuine and end with the emergence of a new statehood, it must be popular, and it does not matter what slogans this people stand under. Such a revolution draws from the depths of the people's spirit the creative principles for new construction.

The scheme of the dialectical development of the revolution is as follows: Jacobinism-Thermidor-Bonapartism. Jacobinism - destruction of the old state; Terror and a complete break with national traditions can reign here. Thermidor is a period of organic counter-revolution. The extremes of the revolution are destroyed by the revolutionaries themselves, who move on to state building. This is not going back and abandoning the revolution, but identifying the true tasks of the revolution, which were unknown to the revolutionaries themselves. Bonapartism is a synthesis of Jacobinism and Thermidor:

“He is a clot of truly revolutionary juices, purified from the romantic impurities of utopia on the one hand and from the old regime belching on the other. It is the stabilization of new social interests created by the revolution... This is a reaction that saves and consolidates the revolution, according to the saying of Scripture: it will not come to life unless it dies.”

In addition, Bonapartism is a synthesis of the pre-revolutionary state and the post-revolutionary state, or the return of the state to its national channel, but at a qualitatively new level. Ustryalov considered Stalin to be the “Bonaparte” of the Russian revolution. She viewed Stalinism as an organic form of Caesarism for Russia.

If we talk specifically about Bolshevik ideology, then Ustryalov, of course, did not accept its atheism, materialism, economic determinism and other positions, but he found in it closeness to Christian values, in contrast to Nazism and fascism, which are essentially pagan in nature. This concerns the ideas of social justice, brotherhood, and creative transformation of nature. Ustryalov writes:

“In the Bolshevik will to a new earth and a new sky, all the prerequisites for a truly laborious, religious and creative attitude towards the world and man are steadily swelling - while in the Bolshevik intellect the old petty-bourgeois, intellectual atheism is still bubbling and puffing up.”

Today, when the dichotomy of “left” and “right” is no longer relevant, when we observe the end of all three political ideologies of Modernity (liberalism, communism, nationalism), models that do not fit into our usual schemes of political analysis are becoming increasingly relevant: the conservative revolution , Eurasianism, new right, identitarianism, alt-right, etc. In this context, the study of the heritage of German and Russian National Bolshevism turns out, in our opinion, to be very important and necessary for the development of a new political theory and ideology.

Notes

In general, Ustryalov believed that in the early stages of its development the state was associated with a tribe, race, nationality, but in the end it acquired an independent and self-sufficient significance. Such a state is created by the people rather than the people creating the state.

Nikisch E. (issue 1). – M., 2011. P. 211.

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM
a type of communist ideology that tries to combine the cosmopolitan ideas of Marx and Lenin with the national, patriotic views of the Russian people.
Using pseudo-messianic motives of the “last and decisive battle”, speculating on the natural centuries-old desire of people for the “kingdom of universal brotherhood and justice”, the Bolsheviks managed to seduce the Russian people, muddy and distort their original Christian identity, cripple and corrupt the conciliar soul of Russia, habitually, easily and quickly responding to every messianic call. The people sinned by believing in crafty leaders and lying prophets; they succumbed to the devil’s temptation: through their own efforts, without God, to build “heaven on earth.”
Only such a great, universal, absolute goal could to some extent justify in the eyes of the Russian people those incredible sacrifices that the “proletarian” government demanded of him year after year. Only by believing that all of them are necessary to achieve final, eternal peace and “universal brotherhood” could Russian people reluctantly agree to the loss of their customary values. Many of those who smashed ancient shrines and mercilessly destroyed “class enemies” did this, sincerely believing that with one more, last effort, the shining gates would open to that very “bright future” that they were so confidently promised.
In fact, the doctrine of communism usurped, distorted and vulgarized those inexhaustible sources of powerful religious energy that for centuries nourished Russian life, ensuring the spiritual health of the people and the greatness of the state.
But such usurpation had its inevitable “costs.” The main one was that - for the most part - well-meaning and gullible Russian communists took seriously all the proclaimed slogans. They innocently and zealously strove for creative work, sincerely intending to build that fabulous kingdom of universal brotherhood, about which the “only true” teaching insisted. The destructive, destructive power of the diabolical “Sovdep” mechanism in this viscous, well-intentioned environment weakened year after year, despite any efforts of the “dedicated” mechanics, who seemed to have complete control over all its most important elements.
Almost immediately after the revolution, two factions, two different parties, irreconcilable in their attitude towards the country over which they ruled, emerged in the administrative class of the USSR. One part sincerely hated Russia and its people, seeing in it only a testing ground for new ideas or a fuse for the explosion of a “world revolution.” The second, to the extent of its distorted understanding, still cared about the interests of the country and the needs of its population. The struggle between these factions lasted - sometimes dying down, sometimes flaring up with renewed vigor, but not stopping for a moment - until the destruction of the USSR in 1991.
The Great Patriotic War became a turning point in this struggle. By the end of the 30s, the prerequisites had matured for the awakening of Russian patriotism and the national self-awareness of the people, who by that time had been ruled for two decades in a row, on whose behalf outright Russophobes shamelessly spoke - mostly foreigners, who had turned into a real privileged, “exploiting” class. When the war acutely raised the question of the physical survival of the Russian people and the existence of the state, a real revolution took place in the national policy of the Soviet leadership.
No, not a single dogma of the official communist worldview was rejected or even slightly revised. But the real content of “ideological work among the masses” changed dramatically and fundamentally, acquiring undoubted national-patriotic features. At the same time - we must give Stalin his due - the revision was carried out decisively and purposefully in all areas: from cultural-historical to religious.
Russian history and national culture, from being objects of mockery, dirty insults and attacks, suddenly turned into objects of veneration and returned to their rightful, honorable place. And, despite the fact that this was done very selectively and inconsistently, the results were not slow to be felt everywhere - at the front and in university classrooms, among party functionaries and ordinary peasants.
Scientists suddenly started talking about the fact that “denunciations of the Russian people” could be “to the taste” only of “those historians who failed to understand the deep talents, great mental, social and technical energy inherent in the Russian people”, that “ridicule... over the ignorance and barbarity of the Russian people” are unscientific, that such accusations are “a malicious myth that contains the judgments of most Europeans about Russia and Russian people.” Suddenly it turned out that Russia has a worthy answer to such an “indictment,” and “it is no longer science that is answering, but the entire diverse life of the Russian people.”
Equally serious were the changes in the field of church-state relations. On September 4, 1943, at a meeting held in one of Stalin’s country residences, it was decided to revise state policy in the field of religion. On the same day, in the Kremlin, Stalin received the most prominent Orthodox hierarchs, specially brought for this occasion from different parts of the country: the Patriarchal Locum Tenens Met. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Leningrad bishop metro. Alexy (Sinaisky) and Exarch of Ukraine Metropolitan. Nikolai (Yarushevich).
Stalin - pointedly - began the conversation by speaking highly of the patriotic activities of the Orthodox Church, noting that many letters were coming from the front approving this position of the clergy and believers. Then he inquired about the problems of the Church.
The results of this conversation exceeded all expectations. Every single question that was posed by the hierarchs, who spoke about the urgent needs of the clergy and flock, was resolved positively and so radically that they fundamentally changed the position of Orthodoxy in the USSR. A decision was made to convene a council of bishops and elect a patriarch, whose throne had been empty for 18 years due to obstacles from the authorities. We agreed to resume the activities of the Holy Synod. In order to train clergy personnel, they decided to reopen religious educational institutions - academies and seminaries. The Church received the opportunity to publish necessary religious literature, including periodicals.
In response to the topic raised by Metropolitan Sergius about the persecution of the clergy, about the need to increase the number of parishes, about the release of bishops and priests who were in exile, prisons, camps, and about providing the opportunity for unhindered performance of divine services, free movement around the country and registration in cities - Stalin is here he gave instructions to “study the issue.” He, in turn, invited Sergius to prepare a list of priests in captivity - and immediately received it, for such a list, compiled in advance, was prudently taken by the Metropolitan with him.
The results of the sudden “change of course” were truly stunning. In the next few years, on the territory of the USSR, where at the beginning of the war there were, according to various sources, from 150 to 400 active parishes, thousands of churches were opened, and the number of Orthodox communities was increased, according to some sources, to 22 thousand. A significant part of the repressed clergy was returned to freedom. The direct persecution of believers and the wild sabbaths of the “Union of Militant Atheists”, accompanied by a sacrilegious propaganda revelry, ceased.
Rus' was coming to life. The church survived. In a war with Orthodoxy unparalleled in its scope and ferocity, the atheists were forced to retreat.
The famous Stalinist toast at the victory banquet - “To the great Russian people” - seemed to draw the final line under the changed self-awareness of the authorities, making patriotism, along with communism, an officially recognized pillar of state ideology. The Orthodox reader will be interested to know that neither Hitler, starting the fatal war with Russia for him, nor Stalin, ending it with such a significant toast, probably had no idea about the prophecy pronounced in Moscow back in 1918 by the blessed elder, Schemamonk Aristocles. “By the command of God,” he said, “over time, the Germans will enter Russia and thereby save it (from godlessness. - Author’s note). But they will not stay in Russia and will go to their own country. Russia will then achieve greater power than before.”
The power of the USSR as the geopolitical successor of the Russian Empire after World War II certainly increased to unprecedented proportions. Within its ruling elite, there was still a deadly struggle between “nationalists” and “cosmopolitans.” By this time, the faction of internal party “Slavophiles” was headed by Zhdanov.
Since 1944, he worked as secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on ideological issues; before that, for ten years he combined work in the Central Committee with the leadership of the Leningrad party organization, had extensive connections, a strong “rear” in the lower ranks of the party, and was one of the most influential Soviet nobles. In 1946, Zhdanov sharply condemned “rootless cosmopolitans,” which - applicable to the field of worldview and culture - meant recognition of the deep, centuries-old national roots of Russian self-awareness. In development of these new ideological guidelines, the Central Committee adopted a number of resolutions in the same year, thus “canonizing” the process of “exposing and completely overcoming all manifestations of cosmopolitanism and sycophancy before the reactionary culture of the bourgeois West.”
The triumph of the “nationalists,” however, turned out to be short-lived. Zhdanov’s main opponent in the internal party struggle was the almighty Beria. And if in a direct confrontation he lost, then in the area of ​​secret intrigues luck was on his side. Two years later, when Zhdanov died, Beria used the confusion of his opponents to “unwind” in Leningrad, the main stronghold of intra-party nationalism, a grandiose trial similar to the pre-war judicial mock-ups, under the cover of which he tried to cleanse the party apparatus of “degenerate nationalists.”
Metropolitan John (Snychev)

Source: Encyclopedia "Russian Civilization"

See what "NATIONAL-BOLSHEVISM" is in other dictionaries:

National Bolshevism, National Bolshevism... Spelling dictionary-reference book

- (NB) political and philosophical paradigm that arose among the Russian emigrant intelligentsia, the essence of which was an attempt to combine communism and Russian nationalism. It differs from “national communism”, which is understood as a combination... ... Wikipedia

National Bolshevism- an ideological movement that arose among the White émigré intelligentsia in the beginning. 1920s, which recognized the Bolsheviks. revolution by the beginning of the necessary stage of national development and strengthening of growth. statehood. The term was first used by K. Radek in... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary

M. 1. A direction in politics and ideology that combines the ideas of Bolshevism and nationalism [nationalism 1.]. 2. The transition from utopian dreams of world revolution to solving the problems of national construction, to the revival of the economy, industry, to... ... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

national bolshevism- national bolshev ism, and... Russian spelling dictionary

national bolshevism- (2 m), R. nation/l Bolshevik/zma... Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

Leader... Wikipedia

The party proclaimed a left course. It is necessary to determine where we are moving and for what purpose. It is necessary to determine the place of the National Bolsheviks in the left spectrum of the opposition. Because the very concept of “left” in the modern world is very blurred and sometimes unites diametrically opposed currents. The left is both supporters of the dictatorship of the proletariat and dreamers of a stateless society. These are trade union activists and fighters for the rights of various minorities. Will the party preach vegetarianism among the homeless? Or perhaps advocate for gay pride parades? Of course no.

First we need to answer the question: is National Bolshevism a leftist ideology? The Orthodox will be indignant: “We are neither left nor right, but...” But still, National Bolshevism is a left-wing ideology. Historically, this is how it happened. The roots of National Bolshevism are in the leftist movement.

Ernst Niekisch, the No. 1 German National Bolshevik, writes in his autobiography “The Life I Dared” about the influence that Karl Marx (but before: Nietzsche) had on him. Nikisch came from the German Social Democratic Party, participated in the trade union movement for a long time, and in 1918 was even elected president of the Bavarian Soviet Republic (which lasted a couple of months), for which he was tried by the Weimar government. At the same time, he actively exposed all sorts of pitfalls of “German folk socialism” from the “Volk-socialism” of Möller van den Broek to the “Prussian socialism” of Spengler. Which ultimately led him to a fierce fight against National Socialism. At the same time, the “left” Nazis, the Strasser brothers, did not shy away from criticizing Nikisch. Nikisch's post-war works are devoted to criticism of bourgeois society and can (or rather, should) be placed on a par with the works of Debord and Marcuse.

By the way, Nikolai Ustryalov, another prophet of National Bolshevism, was a prominent member of the Cadet Party (analogue of the modern Yabloko), his circle of closest acquaintances and colleagues included representatives of economism - legal Marxism (Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky).

National Bolshevism, as follows from the word formation itself, is a derivative of Bolshevism. I already talked about this in the article. The wording seems good to me, so I’ll repeat: “ the substantial element in the ideology was Bolshevism (primarily as a method and practical implementation of revolutionary policy), and not nationalism, which was an objective, natural requirement of the time and conditions" To make it even clearer: without Bolshevism, without Bolshevism, National Bolshevism is impossible.

Bolshevism was destined to be born on Russian soil, previously richly prepared by the entire Russian revolutionary tradition - from the Decembrists to the Narodniks - the existence of which cannot be denied. (It is worth noting that until the beginning of the twentieth century, i.e., before the advent of wretched Russian parliamentarism, Russian revolutionaries were indifferent to the division into “left” and “right.”) The Russian people’s desire for socialism, for a society of equality and justice, existed Always. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, armed this desire for a better world with a powerful - for those times - method: Marxist dialectics. (We read from Mayakovsky: “Marxism is a weapon, a firearms method, use this method skillfully”). And it was Lenin’s group (often remaining in the minority) that managed to adapt this purely Western, German-style, rational ideological construct to the realities of the Russian Empire. (Lenin's other weapon - the party of revolution - should be devoted to a separate story).

Both Nikisch and Ustryalov saw in Russian Bolshevism something more than just an extreme, extremist trend of Marxist social democracy. They saw in it a truly popular movement. From the revolutionary intelligentsia it was transmitted to the workers, from the workers to the peasants, and spread throughout Russia. The old classes - the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie - were forced to either flee or adapt (the latter gave rise to such forms of pre-national Bolshevism as Smenovekhism and Eurasianism). Without this - without penetration into the people, into all layers of society - Bolshevism would not have won. (Those who believe that the Bolshevik power rested solely on violence arrogantly do not respect, value or understand their people, who are such a force that no violence can keep in the yoke of slavery). But having become popular, Bolshevism became national-Bolshevism. Having conquered the state, Bolshevism became National Bolshevism. Lenin, who in 1918 raised the slogan “The Socialist Fatherland is in danger!”, was a National Bolshevik. Stalin, who proclaimed the course of “building socialism in a single country,” was a National Bolshevik. The very logic of power, implying not so much privilege as responsibility, transformed the Bolsheviks from yesterday's deniers and destroyers of the state into the creators and gatherers of a large space - the Empire. However, you can read about all this in the fundamental work of M. Agursky “The Ideology of National Bolshevism.”

It is generally accepted that “empire” is not a left-wing concept. And it is here that National Bolshevism goes beyond the already very conventional framework of the left movement. In this context, the remark of Dmitry Dubrovsky, a researcher at St. Petersburg State University and the Ethnographic Museum, is very interesting, who, speaking as an expert in the case of the “intellectual extremist organized crime group” (aka the case of 12), specified national Bolshevism as “imperial Bolshevism.” And I hope to return to this topic again.

For now, let us dwell on the fact that National Bolshevism is, by its origin, a left-wing ideology that has its own roots, history and justification. In the next article I will try to show the similarities and differences between National Bolshevism and such left-wing movements as Marxism and anarchism and thereby identify possible points of contact.

(I will be grateful for questions, comments and criticism)