The term “Great Russian chauvinism” first came into use at the beginning of the twentieth century in the revolutionary environment, both Bolshevik and liberal, bourgeois. With the Bolsheviks coming to power, Great Russian chauvinism was opposed to internationalism. Lenin’s slogan appeared: “Fight great-power chauvinism!” After the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 Great-power chauvinism was forgotten.
On May 24, 1945, at a reception in the St. George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace in honor of the commanders of the Red Army, J.V. Stalin, during a table speech, made his famous toast dedicated to the Russian people. “Comrades, allow me to raise one more, final toast.
I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, above all, the Russian people. (Stormy, prolonged applause, shouts of “hurray”).
“I drink, first of all, to the health of the Russian people because they are the most outstanding nation of all the nations that make up the Soviet Union.”
We remembered Great Russian chauvinism during and after perestroika. So V.V. Putin, speaking on June 18, 2004 at international conference“Eurasian integration: trends modern development and the challenges of globalization,” said: “Great power chauvinism is nationalism, it’s just stupidity - ordinary cave stupidity.”
(http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/836838)
Trying to understand what Great Russian chauvinism is, we can turn to the phenomenon of European chauvinism.
It turned out that European chauvinism is identical to European cosmopolitanism and vice versa. This was proven by one of the founders of Eurasianism, the Russian philosopher, Prince N.S. Trubetskoy in his work “Europe and Humanity.” In it he wrote: “If we now take a European cosmopolitan, we will see that, in essence, he is no different from a chauvinist.”
“The chauvinist wants other peoples to merge with his people, losing their national physiognomy.” “The cosmopolitan denies differences between nationalities. If such differences exist, they must be destroyed."
“Ancient cosmopolitan ideas,” writes Trubetskoy, “have become the basis of education in Europe. They gave rise to the theoretical foundations of the so-called European “cosmopolitanism,” which would be more correctly called openly all-Romano-German chauvinism. The only difference is that the chauvinist takes a closer ethnic group than cosmopolitan. So the difference is only in degree, not in principle.”
Theoretical foundations forced Europeans to turn to history. Well, the “collision with the monuments of Roman and Greek culture brought to the surface the idea of a supranational, world civilization, an idea characteristic of the Greco-Roman world.”
The fact is that in the 1st century BC - 1st century AD, the Greeks of Hellas, Peloponnese, the Aegean Islands, Epirus, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Pontus, Cappadocia, Syria and Egypt received the status of citizens of the Roman state and began to be called “Romans” or Romeohellines, literally "Romans".
(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
In general, the story European culture takes us to ancient roots, to the time of the birth of Christianity.
“According to its cultural and historical precedents, Christianity is generally a synthesis of two movements, Judaistic (Semitic) and Hellenistic (Aryan). But the synthesis is radical, transformative, and not a mechanical amalgam. And even more than synthesis - a completely new revelation."
Now it should be noted, “had the Roman Empire been monotonously Latin or Hellenic in race, language and culture, the face of the history of the church would have been one. Now, in reality, he is different, divided.” It's about splitting christian church
into Orthodox and Catholic and about the adoption of Orthodoxy by Russia. Simply put, from the point of view religious culture
Great Russian chauvinism and European chauvinism are two branches of Greco-Roman, Romeo-Hellenic cosmopolitanism. Great Russian chauvinism is a specific version of cosmopolitanism and globalism.
The Great Russian branch of Greco-Roman, Romeo-Hellenic cosmopolitanism was formed as a result of the baptism of Rus' - the introduction of Christianity as the state religion in Ancient Rus' by Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich in 988. The baptism of Rus' occurred before the final split of the Western and Eastern churches, but at a time when it had already fully matured and received its expression both in the doctrine and in the relationship between the church and secular authorities. The adoption of Christianity contributed to the penetration into Ancient Rus'
Another significant event that influenced the formation of Great Russian chauvinism is that after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Rus' became the successor to the second Rome, Byzantium. Moscow is declared the Third Rome, the Russians are God’s chosen people.
Previously, the Jews considered themselves God's chosen people. As mentioned in the Book of Exodus, the Jewish people are God's chosen people from whom the Messiah, or savior of the world, will emerge.
(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki)
It turns out that the culture that, according to cosmopolitans, should dominate the world, abolishing all other cultures, is the culture of God’s chosen people, the savior of the world, the Messiah.
It should be noted that K. Marx thought of the proletariat as the Messiah, the savior of the world from capitalism. The proletariat was the bearer of proletarian culture in the USSR. The idea of a world proletarian revolution tells us that proletarian culture was supposed to dominate the world, abolishing all other cultures. In addition, the Russian people were considered the Savior of the world from fascism in the USSR.
Since in the 1920-1930s, during the destruction of Great Russian chauvinism by the Bolsheviks in the name of establishing internationalism or proletarian cosmopolitanism, Eurasianism appeared, it can be considered as a temporary compromise between Great Russian cosmopolitanism and proletarian cosmopolitanism.
Eurasianism is a geopolitical concept that appeared in the early twenties of the twentieth century among Russian emigrants living in Europe. Its founders and leaders were young and talented Russian scientists: linguist N. S. Trubetskoy, geographer P. N. Savitsky, philosopher-theologian G. V. Florovsky, historians G. V. Vernadsky and L. P. Karsavin, legal scholars V. N. Ilyin and N. N. Alekseev. The beginning of the Eurasian movement is usually called 1921, when the first collection of articles by Eurasians, “Exodus to the East,” was published in Sofia.
“Eurasians give a new geographical and historical understanding of Russia,” considered P.N. Savitsky. The fact is that, according to Savitsky, the “East European, “White Sea-Caucasian”, as the Eurasians call it, plain geographical nature much closer to the plains of West Siberia and Turkestan, lying to the east of it, than to Western Europe.”
“The three named plains, together with the hills separating them from each other ( Ural Mountains and the so-called "Aral-Irtysh" watershed) and bordering them from the east, southeast and south (the mountains of the Russian Far East, Eastern Siberia, Central Asia, Persia, the Caucasus, Asia Minor), represent a special world, united in itself and geographically distinct both from the countries lying to the west and from the countries lying to the southeast and south of it.
And if you attach the name of “Europe” to the first, and the name of “Asia” to the second, then the name of “Eurasia” will befit the just named world, as the middle and intermediate one.
(http://pandia.ru/text/77/387/97096.php)
“Russia occupies the main space of the lands of “Eurasia”. Since we also attribute some cultural and historical content to the concepts of “Europe” and “Asia,” the designation “Eurasia” takes on the meaning of a compressed cultural and historical characteristic.
This designation indicates that the cultural existence of Russia, in proportions commensurate with each other, included elements of the most diverse cultures.
The influences of the South, East and West, interspersed, consistently dominated the world of Russian culture. The South in these processes is shown primarily in the image of Byzantine culture. The East in this case appears mainly in the guise of a “steppe” civilization, usually considered as one of the characteristically “Asian” civilizations. From the end of the twentieth century, the influence of European culture began to profit.”
(http://pandia.ru/text/77/387/97096.php)
It turns out that Eurasians strive to provide not only a new geographical and historical understanding of Russia. This is not only a geopolitical, but also a geocultural concept in which specific place occupies not only the origin of Great Russian culture, its roots, but also the location folk cultures in the cultural and geographical space of Eurasia and Russia. In addition, it is important to choose philosophical direction for the foundation of the Great Russian, Eurasian concept, since pluralism leads to multiculturalism, monism to monoculturalism, and monopluralism to monomulticulturalism.
When choosing cultural monism, you can pay attention to what monoculturalism led Ukraine to in 2013-2016. You should also pay attention to the migration crisis as a consequence of European pluralism and multiculturalism in 2015-2016.
Not wanting similar events for Eurasia and Russia, the only version of the philosophy of the Eurasian concept remains pluralistic monism. Its essence lies in the recognition that all cultures of Eurasia and Russia have both common - cosmopolitan, and special - chauvinistic features. Cosmopolitanism unites many cultures into one cultural system. Previously it was called Great Russian, then Soviet, now Eurasian. No other has been discovered yet.
New cosmopolitan culture - new person in it. That is, the idea of Eurasianism requires the formation of a Eurasian as a general cultural type of person who settled Eurasia, which does not exist yet. Well, the Soviet cultural type of person collapsed during the collapse of the USSR. It is necessary to contrast the European with the Eurasian, European cosmopolitanism, globalism with Eurasian cosmopolitanism, globalism.
Now it must be said that the philosophy of pluralistic monism changes the content of chauvinism and cosmopolitanism. In it, the chauvinist ceases to desire “for other peoples to merge with his people, losing their national physiognomy,” and the cosmopolitan ceases to deny the differences between nationalities and strive for their destruction.
That is, Eurasian globalism is different in content than European globalism, based on pluralism and multiculturalism. It is full, two-sided, and not half, one-sided, as in Europe.
Sources
1. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. - M.: Republic, 1994. - 542 p.
Chauvinism(French chauvinisme, in the English version - jingoism) - the most odious form of nationalism, the proclamation of national exclusivity, the opposition of the interests of one ethnic group (or super-ethnic group) to the interests of all other ethnic groups, the dissemination of ideas of national superiority, national enmity and hatred.
Origin of the term
Chauvinism (French: chauvinisme) comes from Nicolas Chauvin (French: Nicolas Chauvin), a semi-mythical soldier of Napoleon Bonaparte. Supposedly took part in french revolution and the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815). Despite the unpopularity of Bonapartism during the Bourbon Restoration after 1815, Chauvin is said to have been an ardent supporter of Napoleon, wearing a violet in his lapel as a sign of devotion to his deposed Emperor. According to the myth, Chauvin remained fanatically loyal despite the poverty, disability and abuse he endured.
The term “chauvinism” began to be used in 1843, after a satirical treatment of the myth of Chauvin in the comedy “The Tricolor Cockade” by Theodore and Hippolyte Cognard (1831).
Great power chauvinism- an expression used primarily in socialist, communist and liberal literature to denote the dominant attitude of the Russian people and their state power to the rest of the peoples of Russia, and then to the USSR (Great Russian chauvinism). In some cases it is also applied to other nations.
History of the term
Early 20th century - 1930s
It first came into use at the beginning of the 20th century in a liberal and revolutionary environment; Let's say, during the First World War, Zinaida Gippius fiercely protested against “Russian chauvinism,” for example, against the renaming of St. Petersburg to Petrograd.
With the Bolsheviks coming to power, the term came into use and became one of the most negatively colored ideological clichés; great power chauvinism was opposed to internationalism. Lenin, criticizing Stalin's autonomization plan, wrote about the future central government of the USSR, in which "an insignificant percentage of Soviet and Sovietized workers will drown in a sea of Great Russian chauvinistic trash." Lenin proclaimed the slogan: “Fight against great-power chauvinism!” Zinoviev called for “cutting off the head of our Russian chauvinism”, “burning with a hot iron wherever there is even a hint of great-power chauvinism...”.
Bukharin explained to his compatriots: “We, as a former great-power nation, must put ourselves in an unequal position in the sense of even greater concessions to national trends” and demanded that the Russians be placed “in a lower position compared to others.” People's Commissar of Agriculture Yakovlev complained that “the vile great-power Russian chauvinism penetrates through the apparatus.” In all of Stalin's speeches on the national question at the party congresses from the 10th to the 16th, he was declared the main danger to the state. Stalin proclaimed: “A decisive struggle against the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism is the first immediate task of our party.”
Subsequently, this term was not used publicly, remaining only in Soviet officialdom; Here, for example, is the definition of TSB:
Great-power chauvinism, as well as other forms of bourgeois nationalism, is opposed by Marxist parties to consistent proletarian internationalism. The socialist revolution eliminates social reasons Great power chauvinism, nationalism. In the course of socialist construction, equality, friendship, and fraternal mutual assistance arise and develop between peoples. When resolving the national question in the USSR during the transition period to socialism, there were manifestations of a bias towards Great Power chauvinism. Its social base was the remnants of the exploiting classes, some revival of capitalist elements during the NEP period. Great-power chauvinism was expressed in ignoring national characteristics, non-recognition in practice of the principle of national equality, etc. At the 10th (1921), 12th (1923), 16th (1930) party congresses, this deviation was exposed and overcome. Ideology and politics of V. sh. alien to Soviet society. According to the Constitution of the USSR (Article 123), any direct or indirect manifestation of them is punishable by law. Communist and workers' parties, acting under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, are waging a determined, uncompromising struggle against all manifestations of Great Power chauvinism, educating working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism.
Perestroika
The term was used in the liberal press of the perestroika era (as well as, earlier, in samizdat works of a liberal nature). The meaning remained close to the same (albeit without the Marxist component). According to I. R. Shafarevich in the book “Russophobia”, ““Great Power Chauvinism” as the main danger is literally preserved, as if borrowed by the literature of the “Little People” from the reports of Stalin and Zinoviev.”
Modern usage
Nowadays the expression is used much less frequently than in the 20s, but it has not disappeared anywhere. Russian President V.V. Putin, speaking on June 18, 2004 at the international conference “Eurasian integration: trends in modern development and challenges of globalization,” said about the problems hindering integration: “If I were allowed to take part in the work of this section, I would said that these problems can be formulated very simply. This is great-power chauvinism, this is nationalism, this is the personal ambitions of those on whom political decisions depend, and, finally, this is just stupidity - ordinary caveman stupidity.” On July 24, 2007, at a meeting with members of youth movements in Zavidovo, V.V. Putin said in response to a remark regarding the problem of migration: “This, of course, is the basis for inciting nationalism within the country. But in any development of events, great-power chauvinism is unacceptable.” The executive director of the extremist Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, banned by the court, Stanislav Dmitrievsky (sentenced to two years probation for extremist activities) believes that “as long as there is propaganda of great-power chauvinism, all recipes for preventing the events in Kondopoga are meaningless.”
The expression is also used in the farce comedy “Shirley Myrli” (1995), by one of the characters, a gypsy by nationality:
- I refuse any negotiations until you stop discrimination against citizens of Roma origin.
- Who the hell needs your gypsies?
- Here it is, great-power chauvinism in action. Have you forgotten who won the Battle of Kulikovo for you?
How much they talk, interpret, and shout now about nationality, about the fatherland! The liberal and radical ministers of England, the abyss of “advanced” publicists of France (who turned out to be in complete agreement with the publicists of the reaction), the multitude of government, cadet and progressive (even some populist and “Marxist”) scribblers of Russia - all sing in a thousand ways about the freedom and independence of the “motherland” ", the greatness of the principle of national independence. It is impossible to make out where the corrupt praise of the executioner Nikolai Romanov or the torturers of blacks and the inhabitants of India ends here, where the common tradesman begins, due to stupidity or lack of character, going “with the flow.” And it doesn’t matter to disassemble it. We have before us a very broad and very deep ideological current, the roots of which are very firmly connected with the interests of the landowners and capitalists of the great-power nations. Tens and hundreds of millions a year are spent on the propaganda of ideas beneficial to these classes: a considerable mill, drawing water from everywhere, starting from the convinced chauvinist Menshikov and ending with the chauvinists due to opportunism or spinelessness, Plekhanov and Maslov, Rubanovich and Smirnov, Kropotkin and Burtsev.
Let us, Great Russian Social Democrats, try to determine our attitude to this ideological trend. To us, representatives of the great power nation of the extreme
ABOUT THE NATIONAL PRIDE OF GREAT RUSSIANS 107
the east of Europe and a good share of Asia, it would be indecent to forget about the enormous significance of the national question; - especially in a country that is rightly called the “prison of nations”; - at a time when exactly far east In Europe and Asia, capitalism awakens to life and consciousness a whole series of “new”, large and small nations; - at a moment when the tsarist monarchy put millions of Great Russians and “foreigners” under arms in order to “solve” a number of national issues in accordance with the interests of the council of the united nobility 115 and the Guchkovs with the Krestovnikovs, Dolgorukovs, Kutlers, Rodichevs.
Is the feeling of national pride alien to us, Great Russian conscious proletarians? Of course not! We love our language and our homeland, we work hardest to her working masses (i.e. 9/10 her population) to raise democrats and socialists to conscious life. It is most painful for us to see and feel the violence, oppression and mockery that the royal executioners, nobles and capitalists subject our beautiful homeland to. We are proud that these violence provoked resistance from among us, from among the Great Russians, that this The environment put forward Radishchev, the Decembrists, the raznochintsy revolutionaries of the 70s, that the Great Russian working class created a powerful revolutionary party of the masses in 1905, that the Great Russian peasant began at the same time to become a democrat, began to overthrow the priest and the landowner.
We remember how half a century ago the Great Russian democrat Chernyshevsky, devoting his life to the cause of the revolution, said: “a pitiful nation, a nation of slaves, from top to bottom - all slaves” 116. Overt and covert Great Russian slaves (slaves in relation to the tsarist monarchy) do not like to remember these words. And, in our opinion, these were words true love for the homeland, love, yearning due to the lack of revolutionary spirit in the masses of the Great Russian population. She wasn't there then. Now it is not enough, but it already exists. We are full of a sense of national pride, for the Great Russian
108 V. I. LENIN
nation Same created a revolutionary class, Same proved that it is capable of giving humanity great examples of the struggle for freedom and for socialism, and not just great pogroms, rows of gallows, dungeons, great hunger strikes and great servility to priests, tsars, landowners and capitalists.
We are full of national pride and that is why we especially we hate our slave past (when the landowners and nobles led men to war to strangle the freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia, China) and yours a slave present, when the same landowners, abetted by the capitalists, are leading us to war in order to strangle Poland and Ukraine, to crush the democratic movement in Persia and China, to strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskys, Purishkeviches, which disgrace our Great Russian national dignity. No one is to blame if he is born a slave; but a slave who not only shuns the aspirations for his freedom, but justifies and embellishes his slavery (for example, calls the strangulation of Poland, Ukraine, etc. “defense of the fatherland” of the Great Russians), such a slave is a lackey that evokes a legitimate feeling of indignation, contempt and disgust and boorish.
“A people cannot be free if it oppresses other peoples” 117, so said the greatest representatives of consistent democracy of the 19th century, Marx and Engels, who became teachers of the revolutionary proletariat. And we, Great Russian workers, full of a sense of national pride, want at all costs a free and independent, independent, democratic, republican, proud Great Russia, building its relations with its neighbors on human principle equality, and not on the feudal principle of privileges that humiliates a great nation. Precisely because we want it, we say: it is impossible in the 20th century, in Europe (even Far Eastern Europe), to “defend the fatherland” except by fighting with all revolutionary means against the monarchy, landowners and capitalists his fatherland, i.e. worst enemies of our homeland; - Great Russians cannot “defend the fatherland” except
ABOUT THE NATIONAL PRIDE OF GREAT RUSSIANS 109
desiring defeat in any war for tsarism, as the least evil for 9/10 of the population of Great Russia, for tsarism not only oppresses these 9/10 of the population economically and politically, but also demoralizes, humiliates, dishonors, prostitutes them, accustoming them to the oppression of foreign peoples, accustoming them to cover up their shame with hypocritical, supposedly patriotic phrases.
It may be objected to us that in addition to tsarism and under its wing, another historical force arose and strengthened, Great Russian capitalism, which is doing progressive work, centralizing economically and uniting vast areas. But such an objection does not justify, but even more strongly accuses our chauvinist socialists, who should be called Tsarist-Purishkevich socialists (as Marx called the Lassalleans Royal-Prussian socialists) 118 . Let us even assume that history will decide the issue in favor of Great Russian great-power capitalism against a hundred and one small nations. This is not impossible, for the entire history of capital is a history of violence and robbery, blood and dirt. And we are not necessarily supporters of small nations; we certainly other things being equal, for centralization and against the bourgeois ideal of federal relations. However, even in this case, firstly, it is not our business, not the business of the democrats (not to mention the socialists) to help Romanov-Bobrinsky-Purishkevich strangle Ukraine, etc. Bismarck did in his own way, in the Junker way, a progressive historical cause , but it would be a good “Marxist” who, on this basis, would decide to justify socialist assistance to Bismarck! And besides, Bismarck helped economic development, uniting fragmented Germans who were oppressed by other peoples. And the economic prosperity and rapid development of Great Russia requires the liberation of the country from the violence of the Great Russians against other peoples - our admirers of truly Russian almost-Bismarcks forget this difference.
Secondly, if history decides the issue in favor of Great Russian great-power capitalism, then from here
110 V. I. LENIN
it follows that the greater will be socialist the role of the Great Russian proletariat as the main engine of the communist revolution generated by capitalism. And for the revolution of the proletariat it is necessary to educate workers in the spirit of complete national equality and fraternity. Consequently, from the point of view of the interests of the Great Russian proletariat, a long-term education of the masses is necessary in the sense of the most decisive, consistent, courageous, revolutionary defense of complete equality and the right of self-determination of all nations oppressed by the Great Russians. The interest of the (not servilely understood) national pride of the Great Russians coincides with socialist the interest of Great Russian (and all other) proletarians. Our model will remain Marx, who, after living for decades in England, became half-English and demanded freedom and national independence for Ireland in the interests of the socialist movement of English workers.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) - to everyone in our country famous person, a figure who left the most significant mark on the history of our people in the past century. Undoubtedly, everyone who lives today in the territory of the former Russian Empire. How this man got power and what he did with it is a question discussed in a good third of the current polemics about that era. However, Vladimir Lenin was not primarily statesman, ruler, politician or military leader. Lenin was a thinker and philosopher who left behind a huge body of essays, journalism, and fundamental works. Clever and educated person, he had a rather controversial set personal qualities, but at the same time a phenomenally efficient head. To this day, the number of people who have fully studied all his works and thoroughly thought about them can be counted on one hand. Lenin's political views are also well known; moreover, it was they who determined the fate of Russia, one can say without a doubt, until the very end of its existence.
Of particular interest is a question that is key in compiling an assessment of Lenin from the point of view of the Russian people of our time, citizens of the country that this man created and left to us. This question is a Russian question. What is usually blamed on Lenin, without even delving into economic problems, existential problems, or ideological problems? Nation. Our Russian nation, the formation of which this man stopped, and then arranged a bloodbath for its unfinished remains. The Russian people blame Vladimir Lenin, first of all, for the fact that they do not have an established political nation, and did not have one in that era when it was so desperately needed. Last century brought many shocks, among which were those that claimed the lives of millions of Russians, and carried away millions of Russians into the sewer - for border pillars, confrontation with all sorts of stillborn new national identities and hatred of the Great Russians. How would history have turned out if we had our own state and our own nation? So, Lenin and “Great Russian chauvinism”.
Of course, Lenin’s attitude to the subject was always on everyone’s lips. Most people will even be able to remember some of the sayings. The main source, the flagship of our discussion, is the article “On the national pride of the Great Russians.” The article is recommended for reading by those who have not yet done so; without reading it, a substantive conversation is impossible.
Of course, Lenin writes this article on behalf of the Great Russians themselves, calling themselves “we, Great Russian Social Democrats.” It is not known for sure whether there was a place in his views to position himself as a Great Russian, but this article was written not from the outside, but as if from the inside. The reasoning begins by drawing attention to the concept of Fatherland and nationality. Of course, the attitude of the ideologists of Marxism, among whom the person under discussion occupies an honorable place, is known to the set of identities of the individual and the system of arranging them according to their relevance and direct role in the life of society as a collection of individuals and the individual taken separately. The ideology provides for the class division of society as the main thing, while national identity fades into the background and is recognized as an “interfering factor.” Nationality, national feelings - all this, to a greater or lesser extent, as Lenin argued, is used by some classes to exploit others. National aspirations are imposed on the proletariat in order to divide it and more effectively squeeze resources out of it by exploiters, landowners, capitalists and other alien class elements. Further, logically drawing an investigative connection, Lenin begins to criticize chauvinism and chauvinists (the “chauvinist by conviction” Menshikov and nameless chauvinist opportunists, populists and politicians are mentioned) for their sticks, which stick out ugly from the wheels of world proletarian solidarity. These passages fit into the general line, but then Lenin makes an interesting turn - he begins to talk about the creation of new nations by capitalism, raising their heads in the place of old ethnic groups (generally neutral, without blaming capitalism for this), and then begins to reproach Great Russian chauvinism for oppression (the word “strangle” is used several times in the text) of these new nations. Thus, from the plane of protecting the proletariat as a class from a shift in the center of attention to the area of national identities, Lenin suddenly moves into the area of protecting new national identities from oppression by the people-demonstrators:
...To us, representatives of a great-power nation<…>- especially in a country that is rightly called the “prison of nations”...
This is a non-trivial dialectical turn, and here the first contradiction could be found. However, let's continue. Lenin narrows his reasoning to one specific people - the Great Russians. Speaking emphatically as a representative of this people, the author takes sharply towards national (!) pride, which, of course, is not alien to them - the Great Russian Social Democrats. This is followed by calculations on the topic of this very national pride of the Great Russians, where Lenin brings to the fore the “suffocation” of other nations and the revolutionary spirit of the masses, who have shown that they can create resistance in their midst to the “tsarist executioners” and defeat slavery. National pride in Lenin's reasoning has the following structure: firstly, it stems from something; secondly, it obliges you to something; thirdly, it overwhelms the Great Russian Social Democrats. Well, first things first.
According to Lenin, the national pride of the Great Russians is built on the basis of the fact that the Russian people were able to give birth to a revolutionary active part. In the original text, the word “also” is in italics - apparently, Lenin wanted to emphasize this secondary nature of the Russian revolutionary movement in relation to the European one, touching on the eternal Great Russian theme of a place among European nations, correspondence between Russian and Western European. Absolutely as a given, the author presents the slave essence of the people by default - tsarism and, in general, the socio-political regime of the Russian state owes its existence, according to Lenin, to its slaves, who bear the yoke of the monarchy and noble lawlessness. The question of how slave-owning the regime of the Russian Empire was in relation to nine-tenths of the population - the working people - obviously must be resolved with sources and statistics, popular vote or other mysterious means. History suggests that such categorical statements are made mainly by opportunists and propagandists reviled by Lenin. Referring to one of his favorite writers, Chernyshevsky, Lenin describes the pain of how slavishly the people behave, and the pride that the people were still able to give the world revolutionaries, regicides, social democrats and Lenin himself. Well, such statements are quite suitable for the role of personal opinion, a person is his own judge, but as a definition of the national pride of the Great Russians, they are, at least, controversial. In fact, all ideas about national feeling, about the Fatherland, about great power, which existed then and, unfortunately, still exist now, after almost a hundred years of the dictatorship of internationalism, are directly thrown out as worthless. The institution of national states, which was painfully and gradually formed in the wars of early modern times and appeared in its completed form by the time of the Napoleonic wars, turns out to be completely unrelated to national pride, and in its place a certain “revolutionism” takes its place, that is, a readiness to undermine the foundations, to ideology of class struggle, if we narrow the discussion to our specific case.
What does the national pride of the Great Russians oblige the Great Russians to? This is where the fun begins, in my humble opinion. There are few things more colorful than direct quotes, and here I am forced to quote a fairly large excerpt from the article:
We are full of a sense of national pride, and that is why we especially hate our slave past (when the landowners, the nobles, led men to war to strangle the freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia, China) and our slave present, when the same landowners, aided by the capitalists, lead us to war in order to strangle Poland and Ukraine, to crush the democratic movement in Persia and China, to strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskys, Purishkeviches, which disgrace our Great Russian national dignity.
What is this person talking about? It can be understood that “Hungary” refers to the events of 1848, when Russia was the gendarme of Europe, helping to suppress the protests of revolutionaries in different countries Holy Alliance and more. Poland, of course, does not raise any questions - we have a long and tragic story relationships, including a huge number of wars, Polish power in the Kremlin and the Russian viceroy in Warsaw. But when and how did the strangulation of Ukraine take place? Which, let me ask a question, Ukraine? Does this mean the destruction of the Cossack freemen, which actually took place as a phenomenon on the territory of modern Ukraine? Annexation of the hetman's possessions in 1654? Or, perhaps, the persecution by Russian nationalists and the Russian government of a narrow circle of Little Russians and separatists who came from Galicia, who, by a strange coincidence of circumstances, sometimes turned out to be Austrian spies? A huge number of articles have been written about Ukrainian separatism, various theories of its origin are considered, but why is a nationally proud Great Russian Social Democrat engaged in its apologetics? The answer is a reference to the theorists of the ideology professed by Lenin. Marx and Engels gave universal answers to all questions arising in the Leninist model of the world. A people who oppresses other peoples cannot be free - this is what Marx said, this is how Lenin quotes him, developing the idea as follows:
...a slave who not only shuns the aspirations for his freedom, but justifies and embellishes his slavery (for example, calls the strangulation of Poland, Ukraine, etc. “defense of the fatherland” of the Great Russians), such a slave is a lackey that evokes a legitimate feeling of indignation, contempt and disgust and rude...
This is exactly how the author sets it necessary condition freedom of the people - refusal to oppress other peoples. Nothing has been said about the sufficiency of this condition, but, undoubtedly, the Bolsheviks will also take on the role of determining it, so you can sleep peacefully. As for freedom through avoiding the unfreedom of others, probably everyone has heard the saying about a natural slave who, supposedly, desires his own slaves more than his will. I don’t presume to say anything about human psychology, in particular, individual psychology and the philosophy of the “natural slave,” but nations are not people. Peoples, nations, state communities, suprastate communities are completely different structures, different from an individual person so much that they can only be seriously compared according to Tertullian - “I believe, because it is absurd.” Let's leave this concept to the opportunist politicians. The oppression of another people by a people is a fantasy, a generalization at the level puppet theater. There are national interests that sometimes lead to interethnic clashes, wars, redrawing of borders, partitions of Poland and other attributes of the “chauvinist military against the proletariat.”
Lenin relies on the Marxist model of the development of society - with a transition between different stages of inter-class relations over time, but national states do not disappear anywhere, time is irreversible, once they appear, the national interests of major players cannot evaporate on their own. Let's leave Ukraine aside - there can be no talk about it serious conversation about national oppression, but Poland was indeed divided, annexed, experienced brutal suppression of large-scale uprisings, and this was done in Russian national interests. The conductor of Russian national interests was Russian state, in all its real form, far, perhaps, from the ideal of social structure and economic efficiency, but still a Russian, and still a working state. At the same time, it is impossible not to understand that there are other players in the world. The struggle taking place between great powers is a struggle for survival and preservation of their status and conditions for their existence. If one of them refuses to defend its interests in view of the “inadmissibility of inequality of rights of peoples,” “the predominance of the class struggle over the chauvinistic imperial struggle,” and other things, other states will simply destroy and devour it. Which, it remains to be added, is what happened to our country almost a hundred years ago. In the concept of national pride, replacing the desire for building a power, for success in the fight against other predatory states, for the affirmative activity of the Russian state as a mechanism for carrying out the will of the Russian nation with readiness for revolution, the struggle for class dominance and disregard for the place of one’s nation in the world seems unacceptable.
Finally, third. The national pride of the Great Russians overwhelms Russian Social Democrats - Lenin’s statement. Perhaps what Lenin meant by national pride really filled the Social Democrats. However, there are still quite a lot of questions remaining. Fortunately, there is an interesting detail that allows us to some extent explain the gaps in logic and the similarities between Lenin’s dialectics and propaganda - the date at the end of the article. December 12, 1914. The war is raging in full force, Austrian propaganda is raging in Galicia and Ukraine, opponents do not disdain any means of warfare, spies, foreign intelligence agents are at every step. And then, lo and behold, the Great Russian Social Democrat, overwhelmed with national pride, calls for abandoning the strangulation of Ukraine and Poland, not to go to war waged by chauvinists, not to succumb to the populism of landowners and capitalists who justify war against other nations with their national considerations. Isn’t it elegant to try to criticize national interests for reasons of national pride?
The contradictions were visible. In addition, we, looking at everything from our 2015, have knowledge sufficient to complete the picture. We were lucky (were we lucky?) to see these people in power and reap the fruits of their activities. It turned out that the national pride of the Great Russian Lenin led him directly to the fight against Great Russian chauvinism, and his rise to power resulted in the destruction of the Russian state, defeat in the war and the humiliation of the Russian nation, which has been going on for a hundred years and is periodically accompanied by tragedies up to and including genocide. The Bolsheviks retained state institutions, at some point almost reaching the pre-war borders of the Russian Empire. However, the state they created did not belong to us, and we were a part of it that had no rights. It’s not worth even reminding us about the trampled idea of the trinity of the Russian people, artificial national construction in Western Russian territories, indigenization, and so on. An obvious substitution of concepts, an unequal attitude to the national interests of the Great Russians and other peoples, the desire for the unconditional defeat of the former in the “imperialist war” and the freedom of self-determination of the latter at the expense of the Great Russians (sometimes obviously artificial, hypertrophied self-determination) - we see all this in Lenin, a talented writer and the thinker who became our death. What motivated him - sincere conviction in the deadly ideas of Marxism, personal evil intent, the will of an external enemy, or perhaps even a sincere desire for the good of Russia - we cannot know and will never know. However, Lenin must be denied the right to speak on behalf of the Great Russians about their national pride, since his dialectics leads to the defeat of the Russian cause.
Text: Alexey Oskolkov
Plan
Introduction
1 History of the use of the term
1.1 Early 20th century - 1930s
1.2 Perestroika
1.3 Modern usage
Bibliography
Introduction
Great-power chauvinism is an expression used primarily in socialist, communist and liberal literature to denote the dominant attitude of the imperialist powers and their state power towards other peoples [for example, Great Britain, France towards the peoples of the colonies], and then [USSR] (German chauvinism). In some cases it is also applied to other nations.
1. History of the use of the term
1.1. Early 20th century - 1930s
It first came into use at the beginning of the 20th century in a liberal and revolutionary environment; Let's say, during the First World War, Zinaida Gippius fiercely protested against “Russian chauvinism,” for example, against the renaming of St. Petersburg to Petrograd.
With the Bolsheviks coming to power, the term came into use and became one of the most negatively colored ideological clichés; great-power chauvinism was opposed to internationalism. Lenin, criticizing Stalin's autonomization plan, wrote about the future central government of the USSR, in which "an insignificant percentage of Soviet and Sovietized workers will drown in a sea of Great Russian chauvinistic trash." Lenin proclaimed the slogan: “Fight against great-power chauvinism!” Zinoviev called for “cutting off the head of our Russian chauvinism”, “burning with a hot iron wherever there is even a hint of great-power chauvinism...”. Bukharin explained to his compatriots: “We, as a former great-power nation, must put ourselves in an unequal position in the sense of even greater concessions to national trends” and demanded that the Russians be placed “in a lower position compared to others.” People's Commissar of Agriculture Yakovlev complained that “the vile great-power Russian chauvinism penetrates through the apparatus.” In all of Stalin's speeches on the national question at the party congresses from the 10th to the 16th, he was declared the main danger to the state. Stalin declared: " A decisive struggle against the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism is the first immediate task of our party. ».
Subsequently, this term was not used publicly, remaining only in Soviet officialdom; Here, for example, is the definition of TSB:
Marxist parties oppose the V.S., like other forms of bourgeois nationalism, to consistent proletarian internationalism. The socialist revolution eliminates the social causes of Western society and nationalism. In the course of socialist construction, equality, friendship, and fraternal mutual assistance arise and develop between peoples. When resolving the national question in the USSR during the transition period to socialism, there were manifestations of a bias towards Westernism. Its social base was the remnants of the exploiting classes, some revival of capitalist elements during the NEP period. Expressed by V. sh. in ignoring national characteristics, non-recognition in practice of the principle of national equality, etc. At the 10th (1921), 12th (1923), 16th (1930) party congresses, this deviation was exposed and overcome. Ideology and politics of V. sh. alien to Soviet society. According to the Constitution of the USSR (Article 123), any direct or indirect manifestation of them is punishable by law. Communist and workers' parties, acting under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, are waging a determined, uncompromising struggle against all manifestations of the Western Socialist movement and educating working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism.
1.2. Perestroika
The term was used in the liberal press of the perestroika era (as well as, earlier, in samizdat works of a liberal nature). The meaning remained close to the same (albeit without the Marxist component). According to I. R. Shafarevich in the book “Russophobia”, ““Great Power Chauvinism” as the main danger is literally preserved, as if borrowed by the literature of the “Little People” from the reports of Stalin and Zinoviev.”
1.3. Modern usage
Nowadays the expression is used much less frequently than in the 20s, but it has not disappeared anywhere. Russian President V.V. Putin, speaking on June 18, 2004 at the international conference “Eurasian integration: trends in modern development and challenges of globalization,” said about the problems hindering integration: “If I were allowed to take part in the work of this section, I would said that these problems can be formulated very simply. This is great-power chauvinism, this is nationalism, this is the personal ambitions of those on whom political decisions depend, and, finally, this is just stupidity - ordinary caveman stupidity.” On July 24, 2007, at a meeting with members of youth movements in Zavidovo, V.V. Putin said in response to a remark regarding the problem of migration: “ This, of course, is the basis for inciting nationalism within the country. But in any development of events, great-power chauvinism is unacceptable" The executive director of the extremist Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, banned by the court, Stanislav Dmitrievsky (sentenced to two years probation for extremist activities) believes that “as long as there is propaganda of great-power chauvinism, all recipes for preventing the events in Kondopoga are meaningless.”
The expression is also used in the farce comedy “Shirley Myrli” (1995) by one of the characters, a gypsy by nationality:
I refuse any negotiations until you stop discriminating against Roma citizens.
- Who the hell needs them, your gypsies.
- Here it is, great-power chauvinism in action. Have you forgotten who won the Battle of Kulikovo for you?
Bibliography:
1. See the article “Great Power Chauvinism” in TSB.
2. http://lib.chistopol.ru/read.php?id=913 Brachev V. S. Masons in Russia: from Peter I to the present day
3. “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, 12/18/1997.
4. WHY DID THE SOVIET UNION FALL UP?
5. National moments in party and state construction // Pravda No. 65, March 24, 1923
6. RUSOPHOBIA
7. http://www.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=46438
8. Putin declared the inadmissibility of great-power chauvinism (RIA Novosti, 07/24/2007)
9. The Supreme Court finally liquidated the “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society” (Lenta.ru, 01/23/2007
10. Stanislav Dmitrievsky was sentenced to two years of suspended imprisonment (“Caucasian Knot”, 02/03/2006
11. Stanislav Dmitrievsky: As long as there is propaganda of great-power chauvinism, it is impossible to prevent the events in Kondopoga
