History doesn't repeat, but it does sometimes seem to rhyme. I was struck by this reading a short essay discussing the topics, well, discussed in a dissident right wing journal in the Soviet Union during the 4 short years, 1971-1974, it was allowed to run on the outskirts of Moscow before the KGB arrested many of them and sent them to work camps. It was striking some of the odd similarities between being a dissident right winger in 1970s USSR and the modern day, and I though it might be interesting to others too. I for one did not know cosmopolitism has been a dirty word on the right for so long Russian Right wingers were apparently throwing it around in the 1970s! And that the 'nuanced" position of the alt right on Israel has basically been identical for the last 50 years. And how we can't tear down statues, because it might harm our ability to fight a war with China!
I've tried to edit it down into the interesting section in the middle as much as possible, though the whole thing is not particularly long either. I fear I might have to return in the morning do to some more editing and formatting, as it is too late to do more.
The Fate of Russian Nationalism: The Samizdat Journal Veche Revisited
PETER J. s. DUNCAN
Having given its readers a view of the early Slavophils and Skobelev, Veche carried a series of articles on later Russian thinkers. Those included were Dostoyevsky, Leont' ev, Danilevsky, the contributors to Vekhi and Iz glubiny, and Rozanov. Of particular interest was the article on Danilevsky, which has since been attributed to Ivanov-Skuratov. The author sympathetically outlined Danilevsky's theory of "cultural-historical types" and his plan for a Slav federation, but criticised his wish to Russify the national minorities of the Russian state. In relation to Russian messianism, the author made clear his support for the position of Danilevsky rather than for classical Slavophilism.
This rejection of messianism and the insistence on the need for pragmatism in Russian foreign policy seems to place the author on the side of the gosudarstvenniki. As Yanov points out, Danilevsky's isolationism was in the context of a considerable expansion of Russsian influence in Europe.
A pro-messianist viewpoint was put by the anonymous author of "Thoughts-projectors", a collection of aphorisms in Veche No. 2, which argued that Russia's sufferings gave her a special position in the world.
Further "thoughts" emphasised the need for nations to have their own uniqueness and national feelings; cosmopolitanism is denounced as "spiritual slavery" and "the preparation for the way of Antichrist". At the same time the author attacked the idea of the "universal person" , the term used by Dostoyevsky for the Russians; this is surprising because of his earlier use of Dostoyevsky's "God-bearing people".
The author hinted that the growth of Russian nationalism was linked with the nationalism ofthe non-Russians.
The same comparison between Israel and Russia was made in No. 7 by I. Starozhubayev. "The springing-up of Russian nationalism in the sense of self-defence and self-preservation is a natural desire for today." He attacked cosmopolitanism, and those shouting for freedom and democracy; he spoke instead of the broad Russian soul, . and of messianism - Russia saving all mankind through her example. His main theme was that Russian nationalism was defensive....
In relation to literature, the journal devoted some attention to attacking Novy mir, and such betes noirs of Molodaya gvardiya as Aksyonov, Yevtushenko and Voznesensky.Ivanov-Skuratov wrote two articles on Alexander Solzhenitsyn's August 1914 accusing him of being pro-German and anti-Russian in his portrayal of the collapse of the Russian Army. The fifth issue carried further discussion of the novel and contained two chapters of the memoirs of Solzhenitsyn's first wife, Nataliya Reshetovskaya; and the ninth contained two new chapters from Solzhenitsyn's First Circle. The Veche editors were clearly split in their attitude to Solzhenitsyn. Osipov was ideologically close to him, as later became clear in his response to Solzhenitsyn's Letter to the Soviet Leaders, but Ivanov-Skuratov and the gosudarstvenniki considered him to be anti-Soviet. Osipov had sought Solzhenitsyn's collaboration on Veche, but he had refused on the grounds that the line of the journal was unclear. According to Kheifets, Osipov was very upset at the prospect of Solzhenitsyn's divorce, because of his central position in the Russian national movement. Like many Russian nationalists, Osipov saw the hand of the Masons in the calamities affecting Russia. He suspected that the Masons were behind Solzhenitsyn's attraction to Nataliya Svetlova, who was to become his second wife. When Osipov went to warn Solzhenitsyn about the Masons, Solzhenitsyn told him that his fears were "exaggerated"....
The demographic problems of the Russian nation attracted some attention from Veche. K. Voronov spoke of the need to take drastic action to end "the catastrophic decline in the birth rate in many districts of the RSFSR", especially affecting rural communities. The situation showed the disadvantaged position of the Russians in the USSR. The protection of the world environment, the Moscow Soviet plan for the destruction of older parts of the capital, and the preservation of historical monuments in general were discussed. The destruction of Moscow monuments was condemned not only for aesthetic but also for political reasons, in view of· the perceived Chinese threat. "On what patriotic feelings will it be possible to win the approaching war?" Osipov's article on Glazunov particularly praised his role in fighting to preserve historical monuments and the architecture of Moscow, and in the establishment of VOOPIK and the Rodina clubs.
Veche carried a considerable amount of material on religion and church affairs. The anonymous "Russian Christian" in the first issue spoke of the link between patriotism and Orthodoxy. He also made two positive references to Stalin, which attracted a special disclaimer from the editorial board. The second issue included an attack on the modernist theology of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, written by a collective which included Felix Karelin, Lev Regel'son and Viktor A. Kapitanchuk. Of particular interest was the appeal to the Sobor of 1971, held to elect Pimen as Patriarch, by Georgi Petukhov, a priest from Zagorsk, Hierodeacon Varsonofi Khaibulin from Vladimir oblast', and a Moscow layman, Pyotr Fomin. This was a call for greater trust between church and state - a trust which was allegedly being threatened by Satanism and· Zionism. "The agents of Satanism and Zionism . . . artificially create tension between the church and the state with the aim of weakening them." They were promoting "anarchical liberalism" .
What was needed, the authors concluded, was the coming together (sblizheniye) of the church and the state, on the basis of "complete non-intervention in the internal life of the church". Such positions were aimed against both the general human rights movement and those dissidents within the church who sought to distance the church from the state.
In an article for the London journal Survey, published in 1973; Dimitry Pospielovsky reviewed the first and third issues of Veche. While sympathetic to the Russian national trend, he criticised the journal and Osipov for including the work on Slavophilism by Antonov, whom he described as a "neo-fascist", and warned of the danger of racism and anti-Semitism developing into genocide, citing in particular the above-mentioned appeal. An article by "0. M." in the ninth issue rejected these criticisms. It reported that Antonov had married a Jew, while Fetisov had admitted that his childhood had lasted forty years, but his sole interest now was religion. As far as genocide was concerned, the Americans allowed 20 million people to starve every year in the world, despite their wealth, and this was as bad as the Nazi Holocaust. Pospielovsky had ignored the positive proposals of the appeal to the Sobor, commenting only on the link made between Satanism and Zionism.
The appeal of Petukhov, Khaibulin and Fomin was not typical of Veche's material on the church. The fourth issue reprinted Pimen's Christmas message. 56 Solzhenitsyn's "Lenten Letter to the Patriarch" (1972), criticising the church leaders for not speaking out against persecution, appeared in the fifth issue in full, together with two critical responses, one anonymous and the other from Father Sergei Zheludkov. The latter, while expressing respect for Solzhenitsyn's struggle against censorship, accused Solzhenitsyn of overestimating the ability of the hierarchy to act against the wishes of the state. The Patriarchate had to compromise to survive, and for this reason it was unable to answer Solzhenitsyn's charges. Veche also carried appeals by Orthodox believers for their rights. One was by Father Gleb Yakunin against his dismissal. Two others opposed a new education law, which would oblige parents to bring up their children in the "spirit of lofty communist morality". Yakunin, Kapitanchuk and Karelin signed one of these. 59 In the other Gennadi M. Shimanov proposed to amend the law so as to read
The belief in the need for respect for other nationalities was reflected in the article in the sixth issue, entitled "The Russian Solution of the National Question", dedicated to the fiftieth anniversary of the USSR. In contrast to the position of Slovo natsii, it was a defence of Soviet federalism. "The new federation of peoples was created in the Russian manner." It preserved
The article attacked Russification, recalling Lenin's attack on Stalin for great-power chauvinism, and claiming that the latter was mainly instigated by non-Russians. It rejected the idea of a single Soviet nation (natsiya), pointing out that S. Kaltakhchian had denounced this in Pravda (17 March 1972). Paraphrasing the state anthem, the article expressed pride that Great Rus' had gathered together a multinational great power. A similar position was expressed in the anonymous article in No. 7, "The: Struggle with so-called Russophilism [rusofil'stvol, or the Path to the Suicide of the State". This was an attack on Alexander Yakovlev's anti-nationalist article in Literaturnaya gazeta and defended the importance of national traditions for the Soviet state. While citing Berdyayev, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn, the author also defended the gosudarstvennik Sergei Semanov. Praising Lenin's internationalism, based on respect for the nation, the article linked Yakovlev with cosmopolitanism, national nihilism and Trotskyism. Both these articles reflected the gosudarstvennik trend within Veche.
The Veche editorial board took the opportunity to put its position on the Jewish question in response to an open letter from Mikhail Agursky. The latter was a Jew who had converted to Orthodoxy but also remained a Zionist. He appealed for support from Russian nationalists for Zionism, as a Jewish national-liberation movement. Veche's response was largely friendly. While it claimed that the Jews had the "best material conditions" in the USSR, it went on:
Veche No. 10 carried on the dialogue, with both Agursky and Veche expressing their opposition to the assimilation of the Jews. 64
I've tried to edit it down into the interesting section in the middle as much as possible, though the whole thing is not particularly long either. I fear I might have to return in the morning do to some more editing and formatting, as it is too late to do more.
The Fate of Russian Nationalism: The Samizdat Journal Veche Revisited
PETER J. s. DUNCAN
Having given its readers a view of the early Slavophils and Skobelev, Veche carried a series of articles on later Russian thinkers. Those included were Dostoyevsky, Leont' ev, Danilevsky, the contributors to Vekhi and Iz glubiny, and Rozanov. Of particular interest was the article on Danilevsky, which has since been attributed to Ivanov-Skuratov. The author sympathetically outlined Danilevsky's theory of "cultural-historical types" and his plan for a Slav federation, but criticised his wish to Russify the national minorities of the Russian state. In relation to Russian messianism, the author made clear his support for the position of Danilevsky rather than for classical Slavophilism.
This rejection of messianism and the insistence on the need for pragmatism in Russian foreign policy seems to place the author on the side of the gosudarstvenniki. As Yanov points out, Danilevsky's isolationism was in the context of a considerable expansion of Russsian influence in Europe.
A pro-messianist viewpoint was put by the anonymous author of "Thoughts-projectors", a collection of aphorisms in Veche No. 2, which argued that Russia's sufferings gave her a special position in the world.
Russia is hated, Russia is accused, Russia is said to be going to perish . . . But all the same the main thing is that Russia is not understood. All the judgements about her are human conjecture. Russia is the greatest sufferer, slandered and crucified.
Russia will be resurrected in spite of each and all. Suffering must have some meaning!
Christ achieved victory through suffering. Suffering brings salvation, and the more suffering, the nearer is salvation.
This is our faith. And without faith there is nothing, and nothing is needed. Truly: one can only believe in Russia! [a quotation from Tyutchev]
In Russia a mysterious process is being accomplished, which encouraged the Catholic [Franc;is] Mauriac and which gives us the strength not to be depressed! - to bear everything, to conquer, to rise from the dead.
And look at Russia, at the Russian person, at her church. Surely, do you see nothing but crimes?
Surely the sweat and blood of Russian people, surely millions of tormented and thousands of shot people do not signify nothing to you? ... Surely God will save her?
Russia will not perish, Russian culture will not perish, the Russian person, the God-bearing people will not perish. She will not perish, although it would seem that everything has perished and there is no hope ... the brightest future awaits us! ... What Russia has understood and what Russia has undergone puts her in a special position. The Russian person is also in a special position
. . . . Christ is risen! - this is heard from Russia.
Religion must be preserved through national feelings, then it will be an organic phenomenon.
Further "thoughts" emphasised the need for nations to have their own uniqueness and national feelings; cosmopolitanism is denounced as "spiritual slavery" and "the preparation for the way of Antichrist". At the same time the author attacked the idea of the "universal person" , the term used by Dostoyevsky for the Russians; this is surprising because of his earlier use of Dostoyevsky's "God-bearing people".
The author hinted that the growth of Russian nationalism was linked with the nationalism ofthe non-Russians.
The same comparison between Israel and Russia was made in No. 7 by I. Starozhubayev. "The springing-up of Russian nationalism in the sense of self-defence and self-preservation is a natural desire for today." He attacked cosmopolitanism, and those shouting for freedom and democracy; he spoke instead of the broad Russian soul, . and of messianism - Russia saving all mankind through her example. His main theme was that Russian nationalism was defensive....
In relation to literature, the journal devoted some attention to attacking Novy mir, and such betes noirs of Molodaya gvardiya as Aksyonov, Yevtushenko and Voznesensky.Ivanov-Skuratov wrote two articles on Alexander Solzhenitsyn's August 1914 accusing him of being pro-German and anti-Russian in his portrayal of the collapse of the Russian Army. The fifth issue carried further discussion of the novel and contained two chapters of the memoirs of Solzhenitsyn's first wife, Nataliya Reshetovskaya; and the ninth contained two new chapters from Solzhenitsyn's First Circle. The Veche editors were clearly split in their attitude to Solzhenitsyn. Osipov was ideologically close to him, as later became clear in his response to Solzhenitsyn's Letter to the Soviet Leaders, but Ivanov-Skuratov and the gosudarstvenniki considered him to be anti-Soviet. Osipov had sought Solzhenitsyn's collaboration on Veche, but he had refused on the grounds that the line of the journal was unclear. According to Kheifets, Osipov was very upset at the prospect of Solzhenitsyn's divorce, because of his central position in the Russian national movement. Like many Russian nationalists, Osipov saw the hand of the Masons in the calamities affecting Russia. He suspected that the Masons were behind Solzhenitsyn's attraction to Nataliya Svetlova, who was to become his second wife. When Osipov went to warn Solzhenitsyn about the Masons, Solzhenitsyn told him that his fears were "exaggerated"....
The demographic problems of the Russian nation attracted some attention from Veche. K. Voronov spoke of the need to take drastic action to end "the catastrophic decline in the birth rate in many districts of the RSFSR", especially affecting rural communities. The situation showed the disadvantaged position of the Russians in the USSR. The protection of the world environment, the Moscow Soviet plan for the destruction of older parts of the capital, and the preservation of historical monuments in general were discussed. The destruction of Moscow monuments was condemned not only for aesthetic but also for political reasons, in view of· the perceived Chinese threat. "On what patriotic feelings will it be possible to win the approaching war?" Osipov's article on Glazunov particularly praised his role in fighting to preserve historical monuments and the architecture of Moscow, and in the establishment of VOOPIK and the Rodina clubs.
Veche carried a considerable amount of material on religion and church affairs. The anonymous "Russian Christian" in the first issue spoke of the link between patriotism and Orthodoxy. He also made two positive references to Stalin, which attracted a special disclaimer from the editorial board. The second issue included an attack on the modernist theology of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, written by a collective which included Felix Karelin, Lev Regel'son and Viktor A. Kapitanchuk. Of particular interest was the appeal to the Sobor of 1971, held to elect Pimen as Patriarch, by Georgi Petukhov, a priest from Zagorsk, Hierodeacon Varsonofi Khaibulin from Vladimir oblast', and a Moscow layman, Pyotr Fomin. This was a call for greater trust between church and state - a trust which was allegedly being threatened by Satanism and· Zionism. "The agents of Satanism and Zionism . . . artificially create tension between the church and the state with the aim of weakening them." They were promoting "anarchical liberalism" .
What was needed, the authors concluded, was the coming together (sblizheniye) of the church and the state, on the basis of "complete non-intervention in the internal life of the church". Such positions were aimed against both the general human rights movement and those dissidents within the church who sought to distance the church from the state.
In an article for the London journal Survey, published in 1973; Dimitry Pospielovsky reviewed the first and third issues of Veche. While sympathetic to the Russian national trend, he criticised the journal and Osipov for including the work on Slavophilism by Antonov, whom he described as a "neo-fascist", and warned of the danger of racism and anti-Semitism developing into genocide, citing in particular the above-mentioned appeal. An article by "0. M." in the ninth issue rejected these criticisms. It reported that Antonov had married a Jew, while Fetisov had admitted that his childhood had lasted forty years, but his sole interest now was religion. As far as genocide was concerned, the Americans allowed 20 million people to starve every year in the world, despite their wealth, and this was as bad as the Nazi Holocaust. Pospielovsky had ignored the positive proposals of the appeal to the Sobor, commenting only on the link made between Satanism and Zionism.
The appeal of Petukhov, Khaibulin and Fomin was not typical of Veche's material on the church. The fourth issue reprinted Pimen's Christmas message. 56 Solzhenitsyn's "Lenten Letter to the Patriarch" (1972), criticising the church leaders for not speaking out against persecution, appeared in the fifth issue in full, together with two critical responses, one anonymous and the other from Father Sergei Zheludkov. The latter, while expressing respect for Solzhenitsyn's struggle against censorship, accused Solzhenitsyn of overestimating the ability of the hierarchy to act against the wishes of the state. The Patriarchate had to compromise to survive, and for this reason it was unable to answer Solzhenitsyn's charges. Veche also carried appeals by Orthodox believers for their rights. One was by Father Gleb Yakunin against his dismissal. Two others opposed a new education law, which would oblige parents to bring up their children in the "spirit of lofty communist morality". Yakunin, Kapitanchuk and Karelin signed one of these. 59 In the other Gennadi M. Shimanov proposed to amend the law so as to read
The belief in the need for respect for other nationalities was reflected in the article in the sixth issue, entitled "The Russian Solution of the National Question", dedicated to the fiftieth anniversary of the USSR. In contrast to the position of Slovo natsii, it was a defence of Soviet federalism. "The new federation of peoples was created in the Russian manner." It preserved
The article attacked Russification, recalling Lenin's attack on Stalin for great-power chauvinism, and claiming that the latter was mainly instigated by non-Russians. It rejected the idea of a single Soviet nation (natsiya), pointing out that S. Kaltakhchian had denounced this in Pravda (17 March 1972). Paraphrasing the state anthem, the article expressed pride that Great Rus' had gathered together a multinational great power. A similar position was expressed in the anonymous article in No. 7, "The: Struggle with so-called Russophilism [rusofil'stvol, or the Path to the Suicide of the State". This was an attack on Alexander Yakovlev's anti-nationalist article in Literaturnaya gazeta and defended the importance of national traditions for the Soviet state. While citing Berdyayev, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn, the author also defended the gosudarstvennik Sergei Semanov. Praising Lenin's internationalism, based on respect for the nation, the article linked Yakovlev with cosmopolitanism, national nihilism and Trotskyism. Both these articles reflected the gosudarstvennik trend within Veche.
The Veche editorial board took the opportunity to put its position on the Jewish question in response to an open letter from Mikhail Agursky. The latter was a Jew who had converted to Orthodoxy but also remained a Zionist. He appealed for support from Russian nationalists for Zionism, as a Jewish national-liberation movement. Veche's response was largely friendly. While it claimed that the Jews had the "best material conditions" in the USSR, it went on:
Veche No. 10 carried on the dialogue, with both Agursky and Veche expressing their opposition to the assimilation of the Jews. 64
Last edited:
