In society

Nationalism as an instrument

October 25, 2011 Julia Latynina

Alexei Navalny said that he was going to the “Russian March”, and the Russian left -barn intelligentsia was very outraged.

Since it is indecent to discuss the topic of nationalism in modern Russia, how to indecent to discuss sex in Victorian England, I would like to first indicate my attitude to the subject.

For me, nationalism is one of the mass totalitarian ideologies. This is a typical ideology of the crowd, which appeared with universal suffrage and is, in general, unconstructive and destructive.

It is not by chance that the very idea of ​​“patriotism” (Allons Enfants de la Patrie) appeared with the Great French Revolution, when for the first time in the recent history of mankind there was universal suffrage. People who overthrew the king and adopted a declaration of human rights, tried to find some new way to unite in community. And they united by a national basis: "We are the French, we are a free nation - and all the others serve the tyrants - to the stranglers of freedom."

Again, it is no coincidence that the second time the idea of ​​patriotism appeared as a working tool in Bismarck Germany, when the Chancellor Bismarck introduced universal suffrage for men: it was to dilute the freestyle thoughts and liberals by patriots.

Nationalism of this kind simply could not exist in feudal and aristocratic Europe, because the count in Germany or Russia felt great solidarity with the count from France or England than with a commoner from his own country, even if the countries fought among themselves.

At the same time, aristocracy also implied the service of the Fatherland. The difference was that the plebeian nationalist who professes nationalism as an ideology of the crowd believes that "I am Russian (or I am a Frenchman, or I am a German, or I am a Chechen), so I am the best, so everyone owes me."

The aristocrat believes that "I am Russian, so I should serve Russia."

How positive and important is aristocratic nationalism that imposes a certain set of duties on a person (I am Russian, I was born in this country, so I should serve this country), the nationalism of the cattle is so disgusting for me that "I am Russian, so I am wonderful."

Nazism and communism

This, so to speak, about my personal attitude to the subject.

But I have two obvious questions.

There is nationalism, ideology for the crowd, which ended with Hitler, Auschwitz, etc., and there is socialism, ideology for the crowd that ended with the guile, gender, etc. These are two equally totalitarian ideologies, which, instead of turning a person into an individual, make it part of the crowd and write it out of indulgence for any atrocities.

But I somehow do not see that between the harmfulness of these two ideologies, an equal sign is put.

For example, a person comes and says: "Gypsies in Russia are traded in drugs." Which, by the way, is easily confirmed observations of the fact. This person is immediately thrown by tomatoes. “How can you say that? You are a fascist! "

But a person comes and says: "Everyone should have social guarantees." And no one says to this person: “Hey boy, you are on a slippery path! Your good intentions lead to the Gulag! "

The attitude of the levoliberal consciousness towards these totalitarian ideologies for some reason is completely different. To everyone who raises the national question, they immediately sew Breivik and Hitler. But the socialist never sew a gulag and half a sweat.

The second problem is that for the left -time consciousness there are two very different Nazisms - the Nazism of Europeans and the Nazism of the peoples defeated by them. The first is branded by righteous anger, and the second is declared by the "natural reaction of the oppressed."

I will give a simple example. Imagine, a German will stand up and say: “Cursed Jews! They must be killed. ” The Germans will trample on the spot, as he deserves. And imagine, Arab will stand up and say the same. And the whole left-handed party, especially the European one, somehow falls silent in embarrassment, because if Arab says it, then this is not what the German says.

Nationalists-colonizers are trampling and tearing into pieces. The poor fellow Cuvier, who believed that the facial features of the black race “clearly recall the proximity of it to the monkey of the tribe”, are erased in powder (deservedly on this item). But about what happened when this very black race was freed when Rhodesia turned into Zimbabwe, when the white farmers began to cut in it when the earth, the former grave of Africa, turned into a desert and Robert Mugaba began instead of democracy and freedom-it was not accepted to talk about it somehow.

The left intelligentsia has a very unequal attitude to totalitarian ideology called “nationalism”, on the one hand, and to a totalitarian ideology called “socialism” on the other. At the same time, the left intelligentsia never forgives nationalism to the European, but does not notice or easily put up with the most disgusting Nazism in third world countries.

The Russian left -handed consciousness questiones this common cliche completely and entirely. Russian nationalism (“I am Russian, therefore I am the best”) is considered an abomination. Chechen nationalism (“I am a Chechen, therefore I am the best”) is not discussed.

Try to offer in an enlightened society to discuss the topic "The gang of the Nazis cut off the Dagestan head and hung it on the Internet." The topic will be supported. But the story of one of my friends, by the way, is an officer from Alfa. In the house on Leninsky, where he bought an apartment, a rather powerful Chechen community settled. And the children of these Chechens made a habit: spit in passing Russians. Try to offer this topic for discussion. I'm afraid the very fact that you mention such a story is publicly regarded as your ideological depravity.

But guys, what do you want? If you do not discuss this topic, the street will discuss it. And if Navalny will not go to the “Russian March”, then scumbags in half with the Kremlin agents will go to it.

When the state is strong, each of the peoples inhabiting it complies with its laws the same. When there is no state, then each of the peoples inhabiting it violates the laws in different ways.

Caucasians and Russians do not comply with laws in different ways. Because the family has been preserved in the Caucasus and because the people who have preserved a genus replacing the state are preserved, by definition, behave differently than people who have not been preserved, who, instead of the family, have the only possible unification-this is a crowd, that crowd of nationalists, which we actually see.

I am a small lover of Russian (and any other) nationalism. But all ideology is what can be made of it. Any ideology is a function that can take a variety of meanings.

Estonian nationalism, or Lithuanian, or Latvian, has always been perceived by the left -barn consciousness as normal and, moreover, led to the creation of rationally and normally arranged societies.

Why is Russian nationalism refused the possibility of being normal? Guys, if you refuse him the possibility of being normal, he will definitely be abnormal.

I understand Navalny well. He is a politician, for him nationalism is an instrument. This is a very dangerous tool. But there are no other tools for those who try to really reform Russia. Because if we say that we reform Russia with the help of universal suffrage and promises of universal well -being, then guys, this is a little unrealistic.

I'm not a politician. I have other tools. But any ideology is exactly what a statesman who uses it will make it from it. Mao Zedong, with the help of the ideology of communism, built communism, and Den Xiaopin built the market with the help of the same ideology. Hitler's Germany manifests me, I without much delight, but I agree to Bismarkovskaya.

I do not like nationalism as an ideology. I agree to nationalism as a tool.

Photo by RIA Novosti