NATIONAL COMMUNISM

The Republics of the Russian Federation

Today, very few things remain of USSR, outside the Republics structure

Сегодня, остайотся немного CCCP, кроме устройства республик

Oggi, poco resta dell'URSS, al di là della struttura delle Repubbliche

Aujourd'hui, peu reste de l'URSS, au delà de la structure des Républiques

Wenig bleibt heute von UdSR ,ausserhalb der Strukturen der Republiken, uebrig.

Although, de facto, the Leninist revolution and the Stalinist “Nationality Policy” strongly contributed to salvaging the Russian Empire, which survived the Austrian, the Ottoman, the German, the Italian, the Dutch, the British, the French and the Portuguese empires, they were not perceived by all Russians in this way. On the contrary, Russian nationalism was, at least initially, completely on the side of the Tsar and of the “White” Army, and was severely deceived both by the signature, by Lenin, of the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and by the murder, by Bolsheviks, of the Royal Family. Of course, within the  framework of Bolshevik Russia, there were also nationalistic tendencies, like, for instance, National-Bolshevism, which interpreted Bolshevism as a national phenomenon.

In a first phase, the Brest-Litowsk Treaty, signed by Lenin, recognized the independence of many Republics, and this was considered a treasure by many Russians. Moreover, once the peace treaty signed within Germans and the Bolshevik power established in Russia, the Russian Government started supporting the Bolshevik Parties existing in the Republic, exerting pressures on the local governments, in order that the role of such parties was enhanced. The protection of the local parties led to military interventions, which strengthened the idea of a tight connection between “Communism” and “Russian Centralism”.

During this period, a very complex political, military and theoretical activitym  took places, aiming at defining an attitude, by the new Bolshevik power, towards the multinational character of the former Russian Empire.

From one side, it was difficult to tell the Republics, once become independent, that they should revert to be a part of Russia. From another side, Bolsheviks were, to a large extent, foreigners to Russia, such as the Georgian Stalin, the Jews Kaganovich and Berija, the Polish-Belorussian aristocrat Dzerzhinski, the Ukrainian Khruschev,the Georgian Ordzhonikidze,  the Kazakh Frunze, the Baltic Tarle. Also important foreign communist leaders, such as Gramsci, Tito, Togliatti, lived in Russia for a shorter or longer time. Moreover, the Soviet Union, whose official denomination made no reference to Russia, gave a huge role, in its Constitution, to the newly created Republics, so frustrating Russians, whose Republic did not even possess its own Communist Party. The Communist Party itself launched campaigns against “Great Russian Chauvinism” and in favor of “Ukrainization”.

Finally, there had long been a Russian prejudice, which has not ceased even today, whereby the Republics were under-developed countries, maintained by Russia, a highly develop country just for political reasons. This had been, i.a during Perestrojka, the position of Alexandr Solzhenitsin, who wrote an essay (“Kak nam obostruit’ Rossiju”) proposing the secession of Russia and the “Slavonic” Republics from the Soviet Union. By the way, this is an idea which was accepted by the latter republics, and is pursued still today, with uncertain outcomes, by the most extreme circles of Russian Nationalism..

At the end of the day, the relationships between the Russian “center” and the “national” minorities has always been partially conflicting, as in all large States, albeit if less conflicting as in others like, e.g, in the United States, where Native Americans and the preexisting French-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations were practically destroyed over 100 years of “American” occupation.

Even an “affirmative action” of the Soviet Union from the point of view if its “internal” nationalisms, including Russian Nationalism, became always more evident with the passing of time. The cultural motivations and rhetorics of the “Great Patriotic War” were largely mutuated from traditional Russian nationalism (the reference to heroes of the past, such as Alexandr’ Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible, the identification of “Russia” with the “Soviet Union”, various practical privileges for people originating from the “core” East Slavonic peoples). As concerns other Republics, such as the Central Asiatic ones, they were practically “invented” by Bolsheviks, whilst, precedently, the idea was the one of a large Turkestan.

After World War II, in certain “pro-German” Republics, such as the Baltic States, Ukraine and Chechnya, the Russian language and Russian immigrants or minorities were inserted in order to avoid possible separatisms. Finally, when the Soviet Union became the center of a huge block of “socialist” countries all over the world, the fact of constituting the center of a huge alliance gave to Russian (if not also to other “central” nationalities) a great sense of power and of security.

Communism had taken 6 years for going to power and disappeared in 6 years.

The Russians could have become, with the time, the “national” core of a multicultural “empire”, like today’s Han for China and Hindustanis for India. On the contrary, with the crisis of the international credibility of the Soviet Union, following to the defeat in Afghanistan, a separate sense of identities of the different nationalities, including, in first instance, a Russian “national” identity, immediately reappeared. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russian nationalism rapidly emerged as a driving force, even subtracting to the Communist Party the role of leading oppositional trends.

We must remember that, in the Russian Parliament, there are, today, four Parties: the majority party (middle-of-the way) is Jedinaja Rossija; the left opposition parties being the Communist Party and Spravedlivaja Rossija; the right wing opposition party is the Liberal-Democratic (nationalist). Moreover, there are smaller movements which are not represented in Parliament, the most important being the radical nationalistic Association Against Illegal Immigration and National-Bolshevik Party. A practical opposition role is also exercized by pro-western leaders, such as Kasparov and Nemtsov, supported by foreign ONGs present in Russia (such as the Fund for an Open Society). However, road protests and underground popular culture are clearly on the side of Russian Nationalism, having, as its main targets, from one side, the West, and, from the other side, former Republics and their immigrants into Russia.

Thus, the problem of the relationship between the Russian nationality and the former USSR Republics is not overcome. On the contrary, it is a fundamental problem, as stressed by Russian authorities.But this has nothing more to do with communism.

A last question. People often ask themselves why, notwithstanding the horrors of the Civil War and of the Stalinist Repression and the “economic stagnation” of the Brezhnev period, as opposed to the present bonanza, many people in Russia are still nostalgic of Communism. A part the fact that it seems that the number of nostalgics of Tsarism is still higher, the answers could be numerous, but are often not pertinent. We would try to add here some words for a tentative explanation.

Summing up, one answer might be that, contrary to the usual rhetoric, there is no pre-determined reason according to which people who have experienced different socio-political systems must necessarily prefer Western style capitalistic democracy.

Specifically, the major achievement of Russian communism was to have been able to create, and to maintain alive for 70 years, a whole worldwide system able to compete, under all points of view, with the system created by worldwide capitalism. We are perfectly aware of the huge weakness of this system (contradictions with its premises; technological and military inferiority; rigidity) so that it could not help but to fall. And, yet, the existence of an alternative to the Western Capitalism was a conceptual need for all the world. Not because of a specific fault of Western Capitalism. But, just because the latter pretended, and still pretends, to be the only valid system for all the world. Now, whichever system, even the better, if imposed on all the world, would come out to be the harshest of tyrannies.

Today, many contend that it is impossible to create a system which constitutes a full-fledged alternative to Western Capitalism, because the latter would correspond to “the nature of man”, to the “natural selection principle”, an “intelligent design” of God, or, even, to a sort of “Destiny of Technique”. And this could even be the case. But nobody can take away, from human nature, the temptation of contradiction, the illusion of freedom, the taste of a struggle without any chance.

But, irrespective from the sort of Communism, Russia can still now constitute an element of hope, at least for Europeans, that some form of international coexistence different from the simple acceptance of American model is still possible.