Over the weekend I hope to be “reporting” some very exciting news about the Allied break-through on the Donbass Front. We may also meet some new friends, such as Snow White, Thumbelina, and other important fictional characters. Please stay tuned!
In the meantime, I just wanted to finish off my review of this piece by Petr Akopov. The latter can be considered a typical “Putinite” as Westies call them derogatorily; in other words anti-Communist, pro-government elite thinkers and analysts. Who, just a few months back, were self-identifying as “white” and mocking anti-racist movements as “too woke”, but now, all of a sudden, it’s cool to be anti-racist again; and especially anti-colonialist! [To be fair, Akopov was known more as a “Christian” thinker and analyst and not so blatant anti-woke as some of the others, but I am lumping them all together for the purpose of crafting a combination.]
Also in interests of fairness, I should mention that literally tens of thousands of elite Russian political class and entertainment world, have literally “fled” from Russia to the West/Israel in recent months. These people are Westernizers by emotional inclination and could not stomach the Ukraine war. Now when I say “fled”, I am not implying there is some huge Stalinist purge going on, their lives were not in danger, nor were they under danger of arrest. It’s just that they lost their influence over public opinion, nobody listens to them any more, they lost their important spots on TV, etc. So they left. The Russian elite that remains is tighter, more ideologically cohesive, and now jogging to catch up with Putin’s latest twists and turns, as he dishes out the anti-Colonialism rhetoric.
Sovietism vs Putinism
After reporting on Putin’s recent speeches about the “Golden Billion” and his turn away from the West and towards the Third World, Akopov shares some very interesting thoughts of his own, why this is happening, and why he believes that it differs from standard Soviet-Communist thinking on these issues. I think and muse a lot myself, about these topics, trying to make some sense of Russian history, and of my own ideological and ethnic identity/contradictions; thus I read with interest. What follows is pretty much straight translation without intruding my own thoughts:
Akopov: The “Golden Bilion” do not proceed merely from the idea of their own exceptionalism. Their ideology is one that is racist, neo-colonialist, and fast becoming totalitarian. Putin is not simply condemning globalist Liberalism, that is, the theory of the single correct teaching, the bright future of all mankind — in part he is also repeating those accusations which we used to hear come out of the mouths of our leaders in the Soviet years. In those days we didn’t use the word “globalism”, and we simply called the West “imperialistic”; but now it seems that Putin is walking along those same tracks of Communist ideology and propaganda? And are those people correct (especially in the USA) who see no difference between the former USSR and modern Russia? Between Stalin and Putin? After all, they are just Russians, Communists….
Except it’s not true. For all the sympathy he has for the ideas of social justice and the Communist ideals (whose similarity to Christianity he has noted on more than one occasion), Putin cannot be considered a Communist. Neither in his internal policies, in other words his views on the internal construction of society and the state; nor his views on foreign policy. It’s just that, a lot of the things which were said about the West in Soviet times, turned out to be true! Because our Communist rulers were not stupid, they were well versed in world history and geopolitics. And their accusations against the West — completely accurate accusations — were useful not just to promote their own views of the correct internal construction of our country; but also for the struggle on the world arena.
For sure, the USSR, during its entire history, presented itself as an alternative to the West, as a new, different world; as a country in which everything was organized to serve the notion of justice. As a country which invited the rest of the world to travel alongside on the path to a bright future. I’m not talking about the real situation of affairs in our country, but about the ideas which it promulgated on the world arena. And promulgated quite successfully, in fact. Up until that moment when it stopped believing in them itself. (Not everybody stopped believing, of course, just a part of the elite, but just that much was enough to finish it off.)
We ourselves turned away from the Communist ideals and the Socialist state. And it isn’t important right now, what served as the main reason, whether it was the imperfection [of that state] or our own imperfections; its mistakes, or our own weakness. What is important is that our country retained, in the world, its image not just of a strong and independent, but also that of a bold nation, claiming international leadership and governed by the ideals of statehood.
Of course, the USSR almost always combined ideology with pragmatism. Combined the striving for world revolution (after the war, this transmuted to simply the [geographical] spread of the socialist sphere) with clever geopolitical gamesmanship. But in the non-Western world the image of our country remained, all the same, that of a revolutionary entity. [yalensis: In other words, people saw what they wanted to see!] China and India, Asia and Africa, Latin America — they all saw in us the image of he who sounds a challenge “to the powers that be” in the world and sounds the call for a more just world.
Even today, as the 500-year Reign of the Western World Order comes to a close, this memory of our role in the 20th century plays in our favor. Because we always used to criticize the West for racism and colonialism; and the peoples of the non-Western world, having experienced [racism and colonialism] on their own skins, know that we were doing this honestly and sincerely. The paradox consists in the fact that, in terms of the non-West, we are “white”, in other words, a part of the West, sort of. Nonetheless, the entire Soviet portion of our history showed the principal difference between ourselves and the rest of the Western people. That this difference goes much deeper than the ideological one (and that it always existed) was not known or understood by the non-Western world. Which is why, when the USSR collapsed and our country gave up all its positions in the world, the peoples of the South just assumed that the Russians will become just like all the other West people. [yalensis: this sort of contradicts what he said in the previous paragraph!]
And yet now, once again, in this new century, Russia has tossed out the gauntlet to challenge the West. Initially it was just to express some unhappiness with the unipolar world order (Putin’s Munich speech in 2007); and then Russia began to build alternative mutipolar structures. To be sure, our strength and forces were much less than they were in USSR times. But at the same time, the non-Western world has also become much stronger since those times. And the people who live there don’t just remember us for the leaders that we were; they also see, with their own eyes, how [our current leader] Vladimir Putin speaks and acts.
To be sure, neither Putin, nor Russia as a whole, are in a position to offer the non-Western world an alternative to the dead-end Globalist project of the Anglo-Saxons. But what is important is that we are showing them what we stand against; what we consider to be unacceptable and ineffective. And we are suggsting that the others should agree with us about this; not because we are strong enough to replace the weakening Hegemon; and not because we are calling for people to rally around us and build “a new world of united humanity guided by a single idea” — no, we are simply suggesting that everybody do what is most useful to themselves: That everybody build his own house his own way, and then all together we can work out the rules for living together. In other words, the proper relationships between each home/nation with the others. This is not exactly a revolution of global proportions, but it is a very important suggestion. Especially in the situation where we are dealing with a poorly constructed Tower of Babel, built by the receding Hegemon, and it is about to crash down upon all of us.
Russia is calling upon all [nations] to take their own destinies into their own hands. In other words, to become accountable and independent states, or at least to strive to do this, as much as possible. Because [quoting Putin]:
“Only authentically sovereign states are able to ensure a high dynamic of growth, and become a standard for others in terms of quality of life, the defense of traditional values; high humanistic ideals; models of growth in which a human being is not just the means [to an end], but the highest end in and of himself.
“Sovereignty means the freedom of national development, which implies the development of each human being: The technological, cultural, intellectual and educational wealth of a nation, that’s what it is. And, without a doubt, the most important component of sovereignty, is the accountable, active, and national thought, a nationally oriented civil society.”
These words of Putin relate not only to Russia, they are addressed to all the nations of the world, to all those who want to preserve their people, their civilization. To those who do not approve of the melting pot of globalism and the ideas of posthumanism as the bright future of mankind. And such people form, in principle, the absolute majority, including most of the residents of those countries which constitute “the Golden Billion”. The problem is not with [these ordinary people], it’s with their elites, those who consider themselves to be endowed with the right to be “shepherds of the peoples”, those who believe in their own exceptionalism. But these people don’t get it: Exclusivity can work in the other direction as well: When all the other people decide to exclude you.
[THE END] – of all civilization as we know it…