Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 22 – On March
13, 1988, a previously unknown chemistry teacher named Nina Andreyeva published
in Sovetskaya Rossiya – or at least
it was published over her name – an attack on Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika
under the title “I cannot give up my principles.”
Because of Gorbachev’s absence at
that moment, it was distributed by the Soviet news agency and published in most
newspapers in the USSR, an indication that it represented an important point of
view supported by many in the Kremlin rather than simply the opinion of one
chemistry instructor.
Andreyeva’s article, Yevgeny Ikhlov
notes in a commentary yesterday, called into question the efforts of Gorbachev
and Aleksandr Yakovlev to make use of Lenin to push aside Stalin and thereby
open the way for what they hoped would be a renewal of socialism (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=59C3DF31C982C).
According to the Moscow
commentator, “Andreyeva destroyed the ideological consensus around ‘the renewal
of socialism’ in exactly the same way that the Kornilov attack destroyed the
unity of the ‘February’ revolutionaries” in 1917. But it did far more than that, and its
broader impact is why it is worth recalling now.
“The split of the perestroika people
gave the opportunity to radicals (crypto-anti-communists) legally to create
their own extra-party social-political movements, ‘peoples fronts in defense of
perestroika,’ in the first instance in the Baltic republics,” with all the
follow on from that, Ikhlov says.
Moreover, Andreyeva’s article
provided the occasion for a Politburo declaration in Pravda on April 5, 1988,
entitled “Principles of Perestroika: Revolutionary Thought and Actions,” that
laid down more clearly than anything up to then exactly where Gorbachev and his
team hoped to take the USSR.
Today, Ikhlov continues, a similar
situation has emerged. Duma Deputy
Natalya Poklonskaya has called into question yet another “’perestroika’ but
already a ‘monarchical’ one.” The Putin regime wants to promote a return to
traditionalist values including many taken from the Russian monarchy.
To that end, it has promoted
articles, books, television programs, and films about various Russian leaders
from the beginning through 1917. But to
make a film about the last tsar which paints him in an entirely positive light
is impossible not only because of the historical record but because he was
overthrown by the Bolsheviks among whose heirs Putin sees himself.
But “happily” someone recalled that
there was the story of the romance between the future Nicholas II and the
ballerina Mathilda Kshesinskaya, and someone decided that would make the
perfect subject for a popular film that would offer the image of “monarchism
with a human face.”
What the present-day “’engineers of
political souls’ did not expect” was how the Russian people would react to a
portrayal of a tsar (or in this case future tsar) as a human being because in
the very archaic world that the Putin regime has promoted, Russians want their
rulers to be not human but more than human.
As a result, yet another “clever
plan of the rulers to stupefy the population” failed, and it failed because Poklonskaya
spoke to what the popular masses wanted and believed rather than what the
Kremlin hoped they would want and believe. The regime has thus put itself in a
difficult position.
What remains to be seen is whether it will
lead to the formation of genuinely competing groups, as Andreyeva’s article did,
and threaten those behind “Mathilda” as much as the Soviet chemistry teacher’s
did those behind perestroika.
No comments:
Post a Comment