Translated by Victor Olevich


 Alexander Dugin

 Just Bolshevism
         National capital does not exist.  The nature of capital is
 international.  It ignores all obstacles to economic profit.  Any
 restrictions to freedom of markets are an obstacle to this profit.  This
 includes state, national, confessional, and other divisions.  Fascism, which
 misunderstood its own essence as far as the necessity to combine nationalism
 specifically with socialism, fell victim to this monstrous, unforgivable
 delusion.  Nationalism cannot be market-based or liberal.  This ideology
 appeals to immaterial, collective, supereconomic life.  Communal life is both
 at the center of nationalism and at the center of socialism.  Capitalism is
 based on a radically different, irreconcilable position, the concept of
 material profit, effectiveness, rationalization of the present, momentary,
 objective world.  Let us remember that early national-socialism was based on
 a radically socialist, rigidly anti-bourgeois concept of Ernst Junger, the
 Laborer, Der Arbeiter.
         But it is completely unnecessary to constantly turn to German and
 Italian experience.  Contemporary Russian nationalism must rethink its own
 historical experience.  And, given a proper approach, it will become obvious
 to us that the Soviet order, bolshevism, was indeed a consistent, finalized,
 perfected expression of radical Russian national tendencies in the conditions
 of a terrible and paradoxical twentieth century.  Bolshevism in its very
 essence, its deepest logic, its spirit was none other than
 national-bolshevism.  If we take a close look at the history of the Communist
 Party, we will instantly see that no abstract internationalism ever existed
 in its ranks.  Ever since the times of the populists, "internationalism" was
 understood to be an all-Eurasian, imperial, socialist nationalism, which
 completely coincides with the universal, world-historical mission of the
 Russian people, as a people carrying not so much the principle of blood,
 ethnicity, but the principle of special spiritual and cultural ideal.
 Russian nationalism has always been integrationist, superethnical, ethical,
 and messianic.  Not racial, not regionalistic, not local.  Just like
         What does this hold for the patriotic movement?  We need to radically
 reassess the Soviet period, work out a special historiographic model, and use
 its framework to rewrite Soviet history in a third variant.  So far, we are
 aware of two approaches - anti-Soviet and Soviet.  Soviet approach reflects
 Soviet history in Marxist terms, remaining hypnotized by an alienated and
 complicated scholastically communist methodology, muddled up as a result of
 numerous leaps and periods of development of socialist doctrine.  More than
 that, the main line of strictly Soviet historiography has been cut due to
 collapse of the Soviet Union, and in its place appeared a plethora of
 sect-like, marginal historical groupings entangled in terminology, clashing
 with each other, unable to come to a unitary ideological picture of the
 Soviet stage.
         The second ideological approach coincides with the anti-Soviet view.
 It has two positions.  One is widely known, "democratic," "westernist."
 According to this theory, socialism is a delusion and an evil, the Soviet
 period is an anomaly rooted in dark, archaic conditions of underdeveloped
 totalitarian Asiatic masses inhabiting north-west Eurasia.
         Another variety of anti-Soviet model is monarchist, "White."
 According to this model, normal development of a peculiar European power was
 artificially interrupted by a conspiracy of alien fanatics, who carried out
 an anti-popular coup and ruled using  force and terror for long decades until
 the system rotted through to the end.
         Different interpretations of bolshevism in these two main
 perspectives - Soviet and anti-Soviet - are well-known, but there is also
 awareness of their internal discrepancies and inherent stretches.
         In fact, what we possess so far does not give the main, true approach
 to the bolshevik phenomenon.
         Such an approach can be formed only in the event of recognition of
 fundamental unity, spiritual and ethical kinship between national (especially
 Russian) idea and the basic pathos of communism as an ideology, including
 Marxism.  Other approaches radically distinguish nationalism and socialism
 (communism), view them as ideological antitheses, incompatible tendencies.
 And the conviction in this incompatibility is projected further on the entire
 course of historical reconstruction.  The consequences are known - essence of
 the phenomenon is lost, contradictions fall on top of each other creating
 endless stretches and misunderstandings.  It may be that the only approach
 close to the truth is extremist Western liberalism, characterized by maximum
 russophobia in conjunction with the utmost hatred for any forms of socialism
 or communism.  Only here - although in a negated form - is correctly noted
 the surprising solidarity, consonance of bolshevism and the Russian Idea,
 deep kinship to the other side of external forms.
         The problem boils down to working out not a negated form, as in the
 case of russophobic anti-communists, but a completely positive, apologetic
 historiographical model of bolshevism as a phenomenon organically combining
 in itself national and communist traits.  I principle, the basis for such a
 construction was laid down by Mikhail Agursky in his priceless book "Ideology
 of National Bolshevism" and especially in its complete English variant "Third
 Rome."  Surprisingly, this brilliant work was not followed by a serious
 development of the given subject by other authors.  Nothing but scraps,
 fragments, details.  Although, it would seem that the creation of an entire
 historical school, armed with Agursky's methodology and having in its
 possession a multitude of reasearch works of radical russophobic
 anti-socialists, whose outlines can be used as ready blocks with an automatic
 replacement of the ethical value of one and same phenomena from a minus to a
 plus, is calling for itself.
         Perhaps, it is necessary to wait out for some time, until the
 political agiotage of supporters and opponents of socialism passes, until
 numerous extremely talentless historians, filling all institutions during the
 dismal period of late Brezhnevism(they indirectly furthered surrender of
 socialism!) move to the sidelines.  Now, with an increasing tempo, the
 "monarchists" historiographical method is being discredited, while the
 liberal-russophobic position, notwithstanding its domination ever since
 perestroika, will soon become physically insecure in a situation of desparate
 condition of the Russian people and an inevitable social explosion.
         The last refuge of scoundrels remains national-capitalism,
 anti-socialist, anti-communist, rightist fascism (as a rule, linked with
 racism, xenophobia, etc.)  It is contradictory and irresponsible.  It is
 absolutely untrue and leads nowhere.  This theorization of an unnatural
 compromise is conceptually and historically doomed.  It is a deliberately
 amoral and unintelligent dead end, mixed up on ressentiment and/or paranoidal
         On the contrary, all paths are clear for national-bolshevik
 historiography.  It is the only one that has a future.  It is an approach in
 which the passion for historical truth is tied with a fitting ethical choice,
 national pride, and an exalted social ideal.
         It can already be seen that in the future the barest necessity to use
 the term "bolshevism" with prefix "national-" will go away.  Bolshevism is
already in itself national-bolshevism, since no "non-national bolshevism" has
ever existed.

If you have any infomation htat is concerned with our issues, don't hesitate and send it to us - info@evrazia.og

visit: Moscow, Novodevichiy pr., 10, bibliothec # 27,"ARCTOGAI"

or write: Moscow, 113216, p/o M 216, box 9, MELENTJEV S