Sunday, December 12, 2021

Putin’s Conservative Manifesto Neo-Soviet in Both Form and Content, Savvin Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Oct. 21 – In remarks for the Valdai Club today, Vladimir Putin laid out what he and his suporters call “a conservative manifesto” and argue that it shows he and his government are committed to traditionalism, religious values and historical Russian culture (kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66975).

            But Dimitry Savvin, the editor of the Russian conservative Harbin portal which is based in Riga, argues that “behind the smokescreen of citations from Ilin and Berdyaev,” there is in Putin’s words a completely “neo-Soviet ideological core,” something anyone who takes the time can see (harbin.lv/konservativnaya-obertka-dlya-neosovetizma).

            Many argues that the main distinguishing features of the Soviet and Russian regimes is the ideological basis of the former and the absence of any official ideology in the latter; but, Savvin says, citing the émigré scholar Roman Redlikh, that fails to take into account that in Soviet times, there was both an exoteric component of the ideology and an esoteric one.

            The exoteric one was directed at foreigners and changed frequently, the Riga-based commentator says; but the esoteric one remained constant – and committed to the control of the Moscow-centric state by the nomenklatura elite, as Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov noted many years ago.

            According to Savvin, “the nomenklatura-caste system headed by the proto-oligarchic Politburo and its struggle for the achievement and retention of absolute power is the esoteric core of the Soviet system and the ideology which forms its true essence.” What Putin is saying conforms perfectly to that notion.

            “For the achievement of its real goals, Soviet power easily changed its official slogans and ideological concepts from one extreme to another.” For one example among many, the party which began its life as a defeatist group became one committed to the most extreme forms of patriotism once it was in power.

            Savvin argues that these shifts “can’t be explained within the frameworks of a certain ideological dogma. But they are turn out to be very logical if one considers them from only one position: the position of struggle of the nomenklatura corporation for its own absolute power, its strengthening and spread across the world.”

            “The demolition of the USSR in 1991 allowed this corporation to retain power” and even to increase its wealth. “But its attitude toward this ‘exoteric’ ideology remained the same.” That is, the Kremlin is prepared to tell the outside world one thing and now another as part of its effort to control its own people and expand its power because of its true esoteric commitment.

            Savvin suggests that “not only an expert by even a simply attentive observer cannot fail to note that over the course of the slightly more than 20 years, Putin and his entourage have made use of the most varied ideological concepts,” ranging from cooperation with the West to open opposition.

            But in doing so, the Kremlin leader and his regime have not changed their goals one iota.

            A year ago, Putin could talk about his sympathy for Angela Davis (kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64171), but now he cites Ilin and Berdyaev in favor of family values and “’moderate conservatism’” in support of exactly the same goals, the maintenance and expansion of his power.

            In his Valdai remarks, the Kremlin leader continues this approach. First of all, his speech has two different audiences, a foreign “propagandistic” one and an internal “real” one, with the former shifting with the winds of change in the international environment and the latter remaining exactly the same as his praise of Stalin and Soviet values shows.

            In simplest terms, the conservative commentator says, “there is nothing new in principle” in Putin’s Valdai speech. However, it is likely that in the future, it will be recalled “by future historians as a manifesto of neo-Sovietism, one not very well packaged in conservative wrapping.”

 

No comments:

Post a Comment