Moreover, this is not just a
merely ideological crisis, manifested in the increasingly totalitarian Liberal
self-destruction of Western civilization. It is also a geopolitical crisis,
caused by the following fact: Moscow, once a center of global Communism (that is, one of the poles of
the Enlightenment spectrum), is rapidly transforming – unless it deviates from
Solzhenitsyn’s legacy – into a Vatican, or if you will, a Mecca of
Conservatism. It is precisely here where the strongest redoubt that defends the
image of mankind in its traditional Christian interpretation is now located.
Translator’s Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)
Almost by necessity, all
previous Kholmogorov translations have been those of his older texts, with a
“lag” between the original and the translation varying between several days and
several months. What you see now is a much rarer treat. Kholmogorov has just
finished a long and engrossing article on Alexander Solzhenitsyn, clocking in
at 16,000 words, to be published by a Russian conservative outlet. Publishing a
complete translation on The Unz Review would require the text to be split into
three or four parts, and would be an exercise in futility if the figure of
Solzhenitsyn doesn’t attract enough attention from the readership in the first
place.
As a result, this text was
born. It is the preamble to Kholmogorov’s yet-unpublished Solzhenitsynean
magnum opus, and it functions well on its own as a glimpse into Solzhenitsyn’s
status in present-day Russia, going far beyond CliffsNotes truisms and common
ideological myths surrounding his name. The article argues that, far from being
a relic of the Cold War, Solzhenitsyn remains a relevant figure, perhaps even
more so than during his lifetime, with many of his predictions coming true and
some of his suggestions and ideas being adopted wholesale by the Russian
government.
It is worth adding that
Solzhenitsyn’s global importance is far from diminishing any time soon as well,
attracting both detractors (usually from the NeoCon/NeoLib Unholy Alliance, as
evidenced by this hot take) and admirers (e.g., Jordan
B. Peterson, one of the Alt Right’s intellectual darlings, speaks fondly of
Solzhenitsyn’s influence on his life philosophy in 12 Rules for Life).
Unz Review readers have the
rare opportunity to get a primer of this article before it comes out in
Russian. If it flies well with the audience, get ready for an epic three- or
four-parter!
Note from AK: If you are enjoying these
translations, please feel free to donate to Egor Kholmogorov here: http://akarlin.com/donations-kholmogorov/
***
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A Russian Prophet
Translated by Fluctuarius
Argenteus
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was,
without doubt, the most politically successful author in world history. Surely
there were crowned poets, but their talents had never been truly exceptional.
There were politicians awarded the Nobel Prize in literature, such as Winston
Churchill. There were men of letters who had made a successful bureaucratic
career, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Prime Minister of Saxe-Weimar. But
there was but one writer whose words could uplift entire continents and send
shockwaves through global political trends. There was only one who bequeathed
his nation a detailed ideological and political program that would become not
less, but more relevant after his death. This man was Solzhenitsyn.
At present, Russia – to both
the joy and chagrin of many – is entering a new political era, codified
specifically by Solzhenitsyn’s writings and ideas. It is not the Solzhenitsyn
of ideologically varnished Liberal anthologies, nor is this his twisted
inversion, the Solzhenitsyn who, as an “enemy of the people”, is the
never-ending source of Neo-Communist hysterics. The driving factor of current
politics is becoming the true Solzhenitsyn, as revealed in his actual writings
– novels, short stories, articles, discourses, and interviews.
Some formulas coined by the
writer became part of government policy, such as the emphasis on the
“preservation of the people”. Others became a political reality, such as his
call for a nationally minded authoritarianism, as opposed to the aping Western
multiparty democracy. There are also still many – such as his ideas regarding
the zemstvo, organs of “small-space democracy” – that are yet to be
widely heard and discussed.
Our civic and political
maturation, in line with Solzhenitsyn’s vision, is happening right here and
now. For many years, Solzhenitsyn kept pointing out that the mid-17th century
church reforms that had provoked the schism of the Old Believers was one of the
direst and most calamitous events of Russian history. Nothing could be more
pathetic than a struggle against the most pious and hard-working part of the
Russian nation. But we nowadays see a determination to heal that old wound from
within both the government and the Orthodox Church.
On August 30, 1991,
Solzhenitsyn wrote a letter to President Yeltsin, urging him to refrain from
automatically accepting Soviet administrative demarcation lines as the new
state boundaries. For more than 15 years, he kept insisting that the idea of
Crimea and Sevastopol as parts of the Ukraine is nonsensical, and that the
Eastern Ukrainian oblasts, once known as Novorossiya, should be granted the
right to make their own choice of allegiance in a referendum. A rejection of
all attempts to “drive a wedge between kindred peoples” and construct the
Ukrainian state as an anti-Russia project is a mainstay of Solzhenitsyn’s
writings – and reflective of his own dual Russian (Solzhenitsyn) and Ukrainian
(Scherbak) ancestry. All of this seemed of only minor importance at the time of
his passing in 2008, but ever since 2014, we have been living in a reality
where these issues have again become cardinal.
One of Solzhenitsyn’s chief
concerns was the question of Russian unity: The injustice inherent in the
system of federalism that was rife with another “parade of sovereignties”[1],
the idiocy of the central government making treaties with minority republics,
the unacceptable discrimination against the Russian language. Solzhenitsyn was
one of the first critics of the US Public Law 86-90 regarding the so-called
“Captive Nations”, in which Russia was tarred as the “occupier” of ephemeral
“nations” such as “Idel-Ural” and “Cossackia”. Once again, we feel
Solzhenitsyn’s legacy acquiring the most acute present-day relevance.
It is not just Solzhenitsyn’s
ideas that are coming to the fore, but even his historical appraisals. It was
Solzhenitsyn who hailed Peter Stolypin as the consummate Russian statesman, and
the late imperial Prime Minister now occupies a central place in the Russian
political canon. Likewise, it was Solzhenitsyn who singled out the figure
of Alexander Parvus in the history of
the Revolution, and nowadays, no analysis of the Russian Catastrophe avoids
discussing this international man of mystery and his contribution to Russia’s
destruction. The only figure that our present day views with more appreciation
than Solzhenitsyn is probably Emperor Nicholas II. However, even in this case,
we see a creeping evolution towards latent monarchism in Solzhenitsyn’s old
age.
ROGPR: Towards Tropical
Hyperborea?
It sometimes seems that even
nature itself hews to Solzhenitsyn’s will. When he first proclaimed the
necessity of developing the Russian North-East and harnessing its vast and
inhospitable spaces, it seemed an impossible utopian dream. His claim that
“Russia is the North-East of the planet, and our
ocean is the Arctic, not the Indian” was countered by the seemingly commonsense
reply that the ocean is called the Arctic Ocean – or the “Ice Ocean”, as it is
called in Russian – because it’s literally covered with ice, and that one can’t
live in the permafrost. Soon afterwards, the rapid melting of the Arctic has
begun to provoke geopolitical ferment; there are conversations about
internationalizing the Northern Sea Route to foreign shipping, and mutterings
that Solzhenitsyn’s call to settle and secure the Far North was left unattended
for too long. But better late than never.
Solzhenitsyn’s legacy is not
only a Russian, but a planetary political phenomenon. It was Solzhenitsyn who
in his famous Harvard Speech warned the West that
they were not alone on this planet, that civilizations described by Western
historians and culture theorists are no mere decorative elements, and instead
living worlds in themselves, that cannot have a Western measure imposed upon
them. Russia, a unique civilization, is of these historical worlds. And the
Western measure itself has become subjected to spiritual corrosion, and has
fallen far relative to the bygone greatness of Christian civilization.
Solzhenitsyn’s once-shocking idea that a globalist “End of History” is
impossible has since been appropriated by Western political theorists, namely
Samuel Huntington with his “Clash of Civilizations”. This very idea has
constituted the bedrock of Russian foreign policy since Putin’s Munich Speechin 2007.
The Gulag Archipelago, published in the West,
carried out a sweeping detoxification of Western elites from their poisoning by
Communism, that “opiate for the intellectuals” (to quote Raymond Aron).
However, this transformation gave them no antidote for militant atheism, the
very force that had spawned Bolshevism. A liberal version of anti-Communism
logically led to the triumph of Communism under the modernized and updated
guise of Cultural Marxism – leftist feminism, totalitarian “tolerance”, racist
“anti-racism”, the final victory of Homintern. Even this had already been
envisioned by Solzhenitsyn. He theorized that, at a certain point in the
future, a Russia liberated from Communist totalitarianism would gaze in horror
at the triumph of a Liberal-built Western “Communism”.
That said, Solzhenitsyn’s main
concern was never an abstract global humanity, but the Russian people. He is
perhaps the writer with the most acute and intensely conscious national
awareness out of those who had risen to fame in the second half of the 20th
century. His resistance to Communism cannot be properly understood without its
main motive: The Russian people cannot and must not be used as a tool for any
utopias or experiments, be they Communist or “progressive” in nature.
Solzhenitsyn equally rejects political projects that treat Russians as
expendable fodder – be it for the Empire, or the “world revolution”, or the
triumph of industrialism, or the space race. Everything that improves and
intensifies Russian national life is good; everything that doesn’t, is bad.
His resolute and outspoken
anti-Communism, his determination to bring down the Reds whatever the cost, was
borne out of the conviction that the Occidentalist Marxist utopia had led to a
colossal and bloodstained waste of national human resources, that the Russians
had been reduced to cogs in a machine and fuel for the fire, that the organic
development of Russia, both spiritual and economic, had ceased. The constant
leitmotif of his books is not just the enunciation of the damage wrought by
Communist tyranny upon the Russian psyche and livelihoods, but also in
revealing the forces of resistance and freedom hidden inside that psyche.
In addition to his
anti-Communism, he was just as merciless towards both Occidentalist and plain
Western Russophobia. He lambasted the intelligentsia, devoid of tradition and
roots, as “the Smatterers”[2]. He introduced the very notion of Russophobia
into modern political parlance, to be later developed into a coherent theory by
his closest ally, the mathematician Igor Shafarevich. Solzhenitsyn provided his
definition of Russophobia: The view of Russia as a backward “land of slaves”,
the claim that the Soviet regime was a natural continuation of historical
Russian statehood, both Muscovite and Imperial, which was purportedly also
based on wanton cruelty and inhumanity. In his anti-Russophobe polemics,
Solzhenitsyn emphasized the normalcy of Russia’s pre-Bolshevik
history. He spurned both October and February revolutions of 1917 as the fruits
of a nihilistic desire to unmake and remake Russia based on a total ignorance
of Russian life.
Solzhenitsyn is opposed to both
the verbal mockeries of Russia-bashing “pluralists” with their non-concealed
contempt for “this country”, and the cold determination of Western politicians
and political theorists to paint Russians and not Communism as the main
adversary of the West. Solzhenitsyn publicly lashed out at US military plans to
specifically bomb the Russian population in case of war, and came to realize
both his own and his Russian compatriots’ unenviable position as “a grain
caught between two millstones”[3] – that of Communism and that of Western
Liberalism.
It was clear to him that these
millstones were both just parts of an infernal machine built by a godless
anti-Christian “humanism”. Communism and Liberalism are two siblings spawned by
the Enlightenment ideology that would put mankind on the disastrous road of
worshiping Matter instead of Spirit, which would inevitably lea to the sullying
and degradation of said Matter. Solzhenitsyn puts forward a detailed and
consistent anti-Enlightenment doctrine: A return to God, voluntary
self-restraint and self-restriction of humankind, emphasizing duties instead of
ever-expanding “rights”, prioritizing inner freedom, and rejecting the
sacrifice of national life not only to totalitarian utopia but also to the orgy
of freedom. Solzhenitsyn’s doctrine is one of the most consistent and
politically sound Conservative philosophies formulated over the last couple of
centuries. His duel with the ghosts of Voltaire and Rousseau goes on after his
death, and the score is still in the Russian writer’s favor.
Sviyazhsk, Russia.
It was Solzhenitsyn’s activity
directed against the convergence of the Western and Soviet systems, towards the
moral discreditation of Communism and the awakening of a spirit of radical
resistance to the Red evil in the West, his critique of the Liberal foundations
and hypocritical hegemonism of the West itself, and last but not least, his
post-homecoming attempts at a moral consolidation of Russia around a
nationalist, conservative, populist, anti-Western and anti-Neo-Communist
platform – it was all of this which drove the global Enlightenment project into
its current state of crisis.
Moreover, this is not just a
merely ideological crisis, manifested in the increasingly totalitarian Liberal
self-destruction of Western civilization. It is also a geopolitical crisis,
caused by the following fact: Moscow, once a center of global Communism (that
is, one of the poles of the Enlightenment spectrum), is rapidly transforming –
unless it deviates from Solzhenitsyn’s legacy – into a Vatican, or if you will,
a Mecca of Conservatism. It is precisely here where the strongest redoubt that
defends the image of mankind in its traditional Christian interpretation is now
located.
***
References
[1] A byword for the
snowballing secessionism of Soviet republics in 1988-91, when they first
proclaimed “state sovereignty” (primacy of republican legislation over Soviet
laws) and then full independence.
[2] The most common English
translation of his 1974 essay Obrazovanschina, alluding to the
narrow and superficial intellectual development of Liberal intelligentsia.
[3] Russian proverb equivalent
to “between the devil and the deep blue sea”, also the title of Solzhenitsyn’s
memoirs published in 1998-2003 (usually rendered in English as simply Between
Two Millstones).