Christian Socialism Most Hopeful Possibility for Russia in the Near Future, Pastukhov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, April 1 – Twice in the last century, Russia has faced the choice about the fundamental direction of its future, and both times, in 1917 and in 1991, to a large degree because it has posed that as one between radicalism of the left or right, it has rejected a more moderate democratic alternative, Vladimir Pastukhov says.

            What this, the London-based Russian analyst says, is that “the Russian cultural code rejects bourgeois, liberal democratic values as alien when they are used in a pure and concentrated form” and instead is prepared to choose either the authoritarianism of the left or the authoritarianism of the right  (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=624C0ACC0FC75).

            That affects both those in power at any point and those opposed to it. On the one hand, those in power believe that any change will be so radical that they will be swept away and thus are prepared to support an iron hand to ensure that they remain in power rather than be displaced by their opposites.

            And on the other, it means that the opposition bases itself on the one kind of alternative to authoritarianism – concentrated Western liberalism and democracy – that is the least likely to attract support among the population and that often works to the benefit of the rules because of how alien such ideas appear to elites and masses.

            There is in fact an alternative to this, one that casts the political struggle not as between two absolutes, authoritarianism of the left or right and liberal democracy, but as an effort to move toward a system that has roots in both and thus “corresponds more closely to the cultural code of that people” and provides some hope to avoid another catastrophe.

            “When I write that we will not get out of this pit without de-churchifying and de-communizing the country,” Pastukhov continues, “I hardly have in mind the declaration of ‘a crusade’ against religious consciousness and against ‘left-wing ideology’ in general. I am speaking only against their extreme and radical forms.”

            At least theoretically, there is another way forward, the Russian analyst argues, the use of Christian socialism as a model, something that would combine elements from the two sides of the current divide while avoiding the worst aspects of authoritarianism of either. In short, what Russia needs is not a radical but a moderate-conservative revolution.”

            Pastukhov says he finds it difficult to “imagine Russia as a country in which liberal values in a pure and concentrated form” dominate. Such values may be used to attack elites as Yeltsin did 30 years ago, but they aren’t going to animate the population to support real liberalism or real democracy anytime soon.

            “Christian socialism” has a far greater opportunity to become the ideological matrix for “the consolidation of the emerging Russian nation around constitutional values” than does radical liberalism currently being offered by the opposition, Pastukhov concludes, arguing that pushing the radical alternative may open Russia to another choice between extremes.