Today
is the 100th Anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution in
Russia. I would not want to make any judgements about the historical
meaning of the event 100 years later
However,
it has long been my contention that the end of communism in the
Soviet Union meant the destruction of democracy in the West.
As
an irony of history although Russia still is living with the ghosts
of its past there is more sanity and truth coming from there than
there is in the West which is living as big a lie as the Soviet
Union.
Two
quotes, both from eastern Europe.
About
living under communism: “We knew that we were being lied to”
(Most people in the West don’t”
“The
communists were 100 % correct about capitalism and equally wrong
about socialism/communism
The
End of Communism in Russia Meant the End of Democracy in the West
"The
West wanted and programmed the Russian catastrophe. I read documents
and participated in the research, which under the guise of
ideological struggle worked towards the destruction of Russia."
26
October, 2016
Alexander
Zinoviev, along with Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov, was one of the three
great intellectual giants who became dissidents during the late
Soviet period.
This
remarkable and prophetic interview was originally published in 1999
in the French Figaro Magazine. Its original title was: "The
West and Russia - A Controlled Catastrophe"
An
annual conference attended by Russian and foreign luminaries and
Zinoviev fans in memory of Zinoviev's work will be held in Moscow on
October 27.
Translated
from Russian especially
for RI by
Sergei Malygin and Andrey Medvedev
****
Alexander
Zinoviev was exiled from the Soviet Union with his wife and daughter
on 6th August 1978, principally on account of his writings on the
nature of Soviet communism. They spent the next twenty years based in
Munich. On 30th July 1999 they returned to Moscow, principally
on account of his writings on the West. Zinoviev died in 2006 and his
remains are buried in the Novodeviche convent.
These
few lines suggest that he must have been a remarkable man. He was.
Born in 1922 to a Russian peasant family, he was the sixth of eleven
children who became an international phenomenon in a variety of
fields: philosophy (particularly in the field of many-valued logic),
literature (novels, novellas, poetry), politics, sociology, and
painting. The two books which, for me, best illustrate the reasons
for his exile and rehabilitation are, respectively, The Reality of
Communism and The West.
This,
Zinoviev’s last interview before returning to Russia provides an
excellent example of his unmatched forensic gifts as a sociologist.
I
look forward to sharing with friends of RI further details of the
life and work of Aleksander Aleksandrovich in future columns.
Michael
Kirkwood
Leading
specialist on Zinoviev, professor emeritus, University of Glasgow.
Q.
With what feelings are you returning home after such a long exile?
A.
With a feeling that I once left a strong, respected, even
awe-inspiring power. Returning now, I found a defeated country in
ruins. Unlike others, I would never have left the USSR if I had had a
choice. Emigration was a real punishment for me.
Q.
Nevertheless, you were welcomed with open arms here! (in Germany -
Ed. Note)
A.
That is true… But despite the triumphant recognition and the
worldwide success of my books, I have always felt like a
stranger here.
Q.
After the collapse of communism the Western system has become the
main focus of your research. Why?
A.
Because what happened was what I had predicted: the fall of communism
turned into the breakup of Russia.
Q.
So the fight with communism was a conspiracy to destroy Russia?
A.
Precisely. I say this because once I was an unwitting accomplice of
this action that I found shameful. The West wanted and programmed the
Russian catastrophe. I read documents and participated in the
research, which under the guise of ideological struggle worked
towards the destruction of Russia. This became so unbearable for me
that I could no longer stay in the camp of those who destroy my
people and my country. The West is not a stranger to me, but I
consider it an enemy empire.
Q:
Have you become a patriot?
A:
Patriotism does not concern me. I received an international
upbringing and I remain loyal to it. I cannot even say whether I love
Russians and Russia or not. I am part of them. Today’s suffering of
my people is so horrible that I cannot stand watching them from afar.
The barbarity of globalization manifests itself in many diverse,
unacceptable ways.
Q:
Nevertheless, many former Soviet dissidents speak about their former
homeland as a country of human rights and democracy. Now that this
point of view has become commonly accepted in the West, you are
trying to refute it. Isn’t there a contradiction here?
A:
During the Cold War, democracy was a weapon in the fight against
communist totalitarianism. Today we understand that the Cold War era
was the history of the West’s apogee. During that time the
West had it all: unprecedented growth of wealth, true freedom,
incredible social progress, colossal scientific and technological
achievements. But at the same time the West was imperceptibly
changing. The timid integration of developed countries launched at
that time has developed into the internationalization of the economy
and the globalization of power that we are witnessing now.
Integration may help the growth of common good and have a positive
impact if it is driven by the legitimate aspiration of fraternal
people to unite, for example. But the integration in question was
conceived from the beginning as a vertical structure strictly
controlled by a supranational power. Without a successful Russian
counter-revolution against the Soviet Union, the West could not have
started the process of globalization.
Q:
So, the role of Gorbachev was not positive?
A:
I look at things from a slightly different angle. Contrary to common
belief, Soviet communism did not collapse because of internal
reasons. Its collapse is certainly the greatest victory in the
history of the West. An unheard of victory which, let me say it
again, can establish a unitary power monopoly on a planetary scale.
The end of communism also signalized the end of democracy. The modern
epoch is not only post-communist, it is also post-democratic! Today
we are witnessing the establishment of democratic totalitarianism,
or, if you will, totalitarian democracy.
Q:
Does not it all sound a little absurd?
A:
Not at all. Democracy requires pluralism and pluralism implies an
existence of at least two more or less equal forces which oppose each
other and at the same time influence each other. During the Cold War
there was world democracy, global pluralism, with two opposing
systems: capitalist and communist, plus other countries with an
amorphous system which belonged to neither. Soviet totalitarianism
was sensitive to Western criticism. In turn, the Soviet Union
influenced the West, in particular through the latter’s own
communist parties. Today we live in a world dominated by one single
force, one ideology and one pro-globalization party. All of this
together began to take shape during the Cold War, when
superstructures gradually appeared in various forms: commercial,
banking, political and media organizations. Despite their different
fields of activity, what they had in common was essentially their
transnational scope. With the collapse of communism they began to
rule the world. Thus, Western countries ended up in the dominant
position, but at the same time they are now in a subordinate position
as they gradually lose their sovereignty to what I call the
supra-society. The planet-wide supra-society consists of commercial
and non-commercial organizations whose influence extends far beyond
individual states. Like other countries, the Western countries are
subordinated to these supranational structures. This is despite the
fact that the sovereignty of states was also an integral part of
pluralism and hence of democracy on a global scale. Today’s ruling
supra-power suppresses sovereign states. The European integration
unfolding in front of our very eyes is also leading to the
disappearance of pluralism within this new conglomerate in favor of
supranational power.
Q:
But do not you think that France and Germany remain democracies?
A:
Western countries got to know true democracy during the Cold War.
Political parties had genuine ideological differences and different
political programs. The media also differed from each other. All this
had an impact on the lives of ordinary people contributing to the
growth of their wealth. Now this has come to an end. A democratic and
prosperous capitalism with socially oriented laws and job security
was in many ways thanks to a fear of communism. After the fall of
communism in Eastern Europe, a massive attack on the social rights of
citizens was launched in the West. Today the socialists who are in
power in most European countries are pursuing policies of dismantling
the social security system, destroying everything that was socialist
in the capitalist countries. There is no longer a political force in
the West capable of protecting ordinary citizens. The existence of
political parties is a mere formality. They will differ less and less
as time goes on. The war in the Balkans was anything but democratic.
Nevertheless, the war was perpetrated by the socialists who
historically have been against these kinds of ventures.
Environmentalists, who are in power in some countries, welcomed the
environmental catastrophe caused by the NATO bombings. They even
dared to claim that bombs containing depleted uranium are not
dangerous for the environment, even though soldiers loading them wear
special protective overalls. Thus, democracy is gradually
disappearing from the social structure of the West. Totalitarianism
is spreading everywhere because the supranational structure imposes
its laws on individual states. This undemocratic superstructure gives
orders, imposes sanctions, organizes embargos, drops bombs, causes
hunger. Even Clinton obeys it. Financial totalitarianism has
subjugated political power. Emotions and compassion are alien to cold
financial totalitarianism. Compared with financial dictatorship,
political dictatorship is humane. Resistance was possible inside the
most brutal dictatorships. Rebellion against banks is impossible.
Q:
What about a revolution?
A:
Democratic totalitarianism and financial dictatorship rule out the
possibility of social revolution.
Q:
Why?
A:
Because they combine omnipotent military power with a financial
stranglehold. All revolutions received support from outside. From now
on this is impossible because there are no sovereign states, nor will
there be. Moreover, at the lowest level the working class has been
replaced with the unemployed class. What do the unemployed want?
Jobs. Therefore, they are in a less advantageous position than the
working class of the past.
Q:
All totalitarian systems had their own ideology. What is the ideology
of the new society you call post-democratic?
A:
The most influential Western thinkers and politicians believe that we
have entered the post-ideological epoch. This is because by
“ideology” they mean communism, fascism, nazism, etc. In reality,
the ideology, the super-ideology of the Western world, developed over
the last fifty years is much stronger than communism or national
socialism. A western citizen is being brainwashed much more than a
soviet citizen ever was during the era of communist propaganda. In
ideology, the main thing is not the ideas, but rather the mechanisms
of their distribution. The might of the Western media, for example,
is incomparably greater than that of the propaganda mechanisms of the
Vatican when it was at the zenith of its power. And it is not only
the cinema, literature, philosophy - all the levers of influence and
mechanisms used in the promulgation of culture, in its broadest
sense, work in this direction. At the slightest impulse all who work
in this area respond with such consistency that it is hard not to
think that all orders come from a single source of power. It was
enough to decide to stigmatize General Karadžić or President
Milošević or someone else for the whole planetary propaganda
machine to start working against them. As a result, instead of
condemning politicians and NATO generals for violation of all
existing laws, the vast majority of Western citizens is convinced
that the war against Serbia was necessary and just. Western ideology
combines and mixes ideas based on its needs. One of these ideas is
that Western values and lifestyle are the best in the world! Although
for most people on the planet these values have disastrous
consequences. Try to convince Americans that these values will
destroy Russia. You will not be able to. They will continue to assert
the thesis of universalism of Western values, therefore following one
of the fundamental principles of ideological dogmatism. Theorists,
politicians and media of the West are absolutely sure that their
system is the best. That is why they impose it around the world
without a doubt and with a clear conscience. Western man as the
carrier of these highest values is therefore a new superman. The term
itself is a taboo, but It all comes down to this. This phenomenon
should be studied scientifically. But I dare to say that it has
become extremely difficult to conduct scientific research in some
areas of sociology and history. The scientist who desires to research
mechanisms of democratic totalitarianism will face extreme
difficulties. He will be made into an outcast. On the other hand,
those whose research serves the dominant ideology are flooded with
grants while publishing houses and media are fighting for the right
to work with such authors. I have personally experienced it when
I have been teaching and working as a researcher at foreign
universities.
Q:
Does not this super-ideology you dislike, have ideas of tolerance and
respect for others?
A:
When you listen to representatives of the Western elite, everything
seems so pure, generous and respectful to people. Doing so they use
the classic rule of propaganda: hide the reality behind sweet talk.
However it is enough to turn on the TV, go to the movies, open a
bestselling book or listen to popular music to realize the opposite:
the unprecedented dissemination of the cult of violence, sex and
money. Noble speeches are designed to hide these three (and there are
more) pillars of totalitarian democracy.
Q:
What about human rights? Is it not the West who honors them the most?
A:
From now on the idea of human rights is increasingly under pressure.
Even the purely ideological thesis that these rights are intrinsic
and inseparable today will not sustain even the first stage of
a thorough analysis. I am ready to subject Western ideology to
the same scientific analysis that I did with communism. But
this is a long conversation, not for today’s interview.
Q:
Does Western ideology have a key idea?
A:
The idea of globalization! In other words, world domination! Since
this idea is rather unpleasant, it is hidden under lengthy phrases
about planetary unity, transformation of the world into one
integrated whole… In reality, the West has now commenced work on
structural changes across the whole planet. On the one hand Western
society dominates the world, on the other hand it itself is being
rebuilt vertically with the supranational power on the very top of
the pyramid.
Q:
World government?
A:
Yes, if you will.
Q:
To believe in it, doesn’t that mean to be a victim of delusional
fantasies about global conspiracy?
A:
What conspiracy? There is no conspiracy. The world government is
controlled by the heads of well known supranational economic,
financial and political structures. According to my estimates, this
super-society, now ruling the world, has about fifty million people.
Its center is the United States. The countries of Western Europe and
some former Asian “dragon” countries are its basis. Other
countries are dominated under a tight financial and economic ranking.
This is the reality. Regarding propaganda, it presumes that the
creation of world government under control of the world parliament is
desirable because the world is a big brotherhood. All these are just
stories designed for the plebs.
Q:
The European Parliament as well?
A:
No, because the European Parliament exists. But it is naive to
believe that the European Union was a result of the good will of the
governments of the member states. The European Union is a weapon for
the destruction of national sovereignties. It is part of the projects
developed by supranational organisms.
Q:
The European commonwealth changed its name after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. As if to replace the Soviet Union, it was called the
“European Union”. After all, it could be called differently. Like
bolsheviks, European leaders call themselves commissioners. LIke
bolsheviks they head commissions. The last president was “elected”
being the only candidate …
A:
We must not forget that the process of social organization is subject
to certain rules. To organize a million people is one thing, to
organize ten million is another, to organize a hundred million is a
very hard task. To organize five hundred million people is a task of
colossal proportions. It is necessary to create new administrative
bodies, to train people who will manage them and to ensure their
smooth functioning. This is the primary task. In fact, the Soviet
Union is a classic example of a multinational conglomerate led by a
supranational management structure. The European Union wants to
achieve better results than the Soviet Union! That is justified. Even
twenty years ago I was stunned by the fact that so-called flaws of
the Soviet system were even more developed in the West.
Q:
Like what?
A:
Planning! The Western economy is infinitely more planned than the
economy of the USSR was ever planned. Bureaucracy! In the Soviet
Union 10 to 12% of the active population worked in the country‘s
management and administration field. In the US this number is 16 to
20%. However the USSR was criticized for its planned economy and the
burden of bureaucratic apparatus. Two thousand people worked in the
Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Communist Party
apparatus reached 150 thousand workers. Today in the West you will
find dozens, even hundreds of enterprises in industrial and banking
sectors employing more people. The bureaucratic apparatus of the
Soviet Communist Party was negligibly small compared with the staff
of large transnational corporations of the West. In fact, we must
recognize that the USSR was mismanaged because of the lack of
administrative staff. It was necessary to have two to three times
more administrative workers! The European Union is well aware of
these problems and therefore takes them into account. Integration is
impossible without an impressive administrative apparatus.
Q:
What you say is contradictory to the ideas of liberalism promoted by
European leaders. Do you not think that their liberalism is just a
show?
A:
The administration has a tendency to grow greatly which is dangerous
in itself. It knows that. Like any organism it finds antidotes to
continue its normal functioning. A private initiative is one of them.
Another antidote is social and individual morality. Applying
them, power fights self-destructive tendencies. So it invented
liberalism to create a counterweight to its own gravity. Today,
however, it is absurd to be a liberal. The liberal society no longer
exists. The liberal doctrine does not reflect the realities of the
unprecedented era of concentration of capital. The movement of huge
financial resources does not take into accounts the interests of
individual states and peoples consisting of individuals. Liberalism
implies a personal initiative and taking of financial risks. Today
any business needs money provided by banks. These banks, whose
numbers are diminishing, implement a policy which is by its nature
dictatorial and manipulative. Business owners are at their mercy
because everything is subject to lending and therefore is under the
control of financial institutions. The importance of the individual -
the basis of liberalism - is reduced day by day. Today it does not
matter who heads this or that company, this or that country: Bush or
Clinton, Kohl or Schröder, Chirac or Jospin, what is the difference?
Q:
The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were extremely
cruel, which cannot be said about Western democracy.
A:
It’s not the means that are important, but the end result obtained.
Would you like an example? In the struggle against Nazi Germany, the
Soviet Union lost 20 million people (according to the latest figures
of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation – 27 million.
- Ed. Note) and suffered tremendous destruction. During the Cold War,
a war without bombs and guns, there were a lot more losses any way
you look at it! Over the last decade the life expectancy of Russians
dropped by ten years! The death rate is much higher than the birth
rate. Two million children do not sleep at home. Five million
school-age children do not attend school. There are 12 million
registered drug addicts. Alcoholism has become universal. 70% of
young people are not suitable for military service due to various
physical defects. These are the direct consequences of the defeat in
the Cold War, followed by a transition to a Western lifestyle. If
this continues, the population will drop rapidly at first from 150
million to 100 million, and then to 50 million. Democratic
totalitarianism will surpass all previous totalitarian regimes.
Q:
Through violence?
A:
Drugs, poor nutrition, and AIDS are much more effective than military
violence. Although after the immense force of destruction of the Cold
War, the West invented a “humanitarian war”. The military
campaigns in Iraq and Yugoslavia are two examples of collective
punishment and retaliation on an exceedingly large scale, while the
propaganda machine shapes them as a "good cause" or a
“humanitarian war”. Turning the victims of violence against
themselves is another, different approach. An example of its use is
the Russian counter-revolution of 1985. However, when they unleashed
the war in Yugoslavia, the countries of Western Europe led war
against themselves.
Q.
In your opinion, the war against Serbia was also a war against
Europe?
A.
Absolutely right. In Europe there are forces that can compel it to
act against itself. Serbia was chosen because it resisted the
ever-expanding globalization. Russia could be next on the list.
Before China...
Q:
In spite of its nuclear arsenal?
A:
Russia’s nuclear arsenal is huge, but it is outdated. Besides, the
Russians are morally disarmed and ready to surrender... I believe
that the monstrosity of the 21st century will surpass everything
that mankind has seen to this day. Just think about the coming global
war on Chinese communism. To defeat such a populous country one will
need not exterminate around 500 million people, not 10 or 20 million.
Today, given the level of excellence of the propaganda machine, it is
quite possible. Naturally, in will be done in the name of freedom and
human rights. Unless, of course, some PR organization invents a new
and no less noble a cause.
Q:
Don’t you think that people can have their own opinions, and that
they can vote and thus express themselves?
ANSWER.
First of all, even now people don’t vote that often, and they will
vote even less in the future. With regard to public opinion in the
West it is shaped by the media. Suffice it to recall the universal
approval of the war in Kosovo. Remember the Spanish war! Volunteers
from all over the world traveled to that country to fight on one side
or the other. Remember the war in Vietnam. But these days, people are
so well shepherded that they react only the way that the purveyors of
propaganda want them to.
Q:
The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were the most multi-ethnic countries
in the world, but they were destroyed nevertheless. Do you see a
connection between the destruction of multiethnic countries, on the
one hand, and the promotion of multi-ethnicity on the other hand?
A:
Soviet totalitarianism created a genuinely multi-cultural and
multi-ethnic society. It was the Western democracies that made
superhuman efforts to fan the flames of various kinds of nationalism,
because they considered the breakup of the Soviet Union as the best
way to destroy it. The same mechanism worked in Yugoslavia. Germany
had always sought the obliteration of Yugoslavia. United, Yugoslavia
could strengthen its resistance. The essence of the Western system is
to divide in order to make it easier for the West to impose its laws
on all parties, and then act as Chief Justice. There is no reason to
assume that this know-how will not be applied in relation to the
dismemberment of China in the future.
Q:
India and China voiced their opposition to the bombing of Yugoslavia.
If needed, could they form a core of resistance? After all, 2 billion
people are no joke!
A:
The means of those countries cannot in any way be compared with the
military might and technological superiority of the West.
Q:
Were you impressed by the effectiveness of the US military arsenal in
Yugoslavia?
A:
Not only that. If such a decision had been made, then Serbia would
have ceased to exist within a few hours. Apparently, the leaders of
the new world order have chosen a strategy of permanent violence.
Numerous localized conflicts will now keep igniting one after another
so that the “humanitarian war” machine, which we have already
seen in action, could keep extinguishing them. In fact, this is
likely to become the solution to extending control over the entire
planet. The West controls most of the Earth’s natural resources.
Its intellectual resources are millions of times greater than the
resources of the rest of the world. This is the foundation of the
overwhelming hegemony of the West in technology, the arts, media, IT,
and science, and this implies its superiority in all other areas. It
would be too easy to just conquer the world. After all, they still
need to rule! And this is the fundamental problem that the Americans
are trying to address now... Remember that in the time of Christ, the
population of earth was only about 100 million people. Today, Nigeria
alone has that number of inhabitants! A billion “westernoids” and
the people assimilated by them will rule the entire world. However,
this billion, in turn, also needs to be controlled. In all
probability, two hundred million people will be required to control
the Western world. But they must be chosen and taught. That's why
China is doomed to failure in its struggle against the hegemony of
the West. The country does not have enough control, nor economic and
intellectual resources to implement an effective administrative
system consisting of approximately 300 million people. Only the West
is able to solve the problems of global governance. It has already
started to do so. Hundreds of thousands of “westernoids” in the
former communist countries, such as Russia, tend to occupy leadership
positions there. Totalitarian democracy will also be a colonial
democracy.
Q:
According to Marx, apart from violence and cruelty, colonization also
brought with it the blessings of civilization. Perhaps the history of
mankind is simply repeating itself at this new stage?
A:
Indeed, why not? But, alas, not for everyone. What kind of
contribution to civilization has been made by American Indians?
Almost none, as they were crushed, destroyed, and wiped off the face
of the Earth. Now look at the contribution of the Russians! Let me
make an important point here: the West did not fear Soviet military
power as much as its intellectual, artistic, and athletic potential.
The West saw that the Soviet Union was full of life! This is the most
important thing that must be destroyed, should one wish to destroy
one’s enemy. Which is precisely what was done. Today, Russian
science is dependent on US funding. It is in a pitiful state because
the US is not interested in financing its competition. Americans
prefer to offer Russian scientists jobs in the United States. Soviet
cinema, too, has been destroyed and replaced by American movies. The
same thing happened to literature. World domination manifests itself
primarily as an intellectual, or, if you prefer, a cultural diktat.
Which is why in the last few decades, Americans have so zealously
tried to bring down the cultural and intellectual common denominator
of the entire world to their own level – it will allow them to
impose this diktat.
Q:
But might this domination turn out to be a blessing for all mankind?
A.
Ten generations from now, people will, indeed, be able to say that it
all happened in the name of humanity, i.e. for their greater good.
But what about the Russians or the French who are alive today? Should
they be happy that their people will have the same future as the
American Indians? The term “humanity” is an abstraction. In
reality, there are Russian, French, Serbs, etc. However, if the
current trend continues, then the nations who founded modern
civilization (I mean the Latin peoples), will gradually disappear.
Western Europe is already bursting with foreigners. We have yet to
speak about it, but this phenomenon is not accidental, and it is
certainly not the consequence of the allegedly uncontrollable human
migration flows. The goal for Europe is to create a situation similar
to the situation in the United States. I suspect that the French will
hardly be delighted to learn that mankind will come to be happy, but
only without the French. After all, it might well be a rational
project to only leave a limited number of people in the world, who
could then live in a paradise on earth. Those remaining people would
certainly believe that their happiness is the result of historical
development... No. All that matters is the life that we and our loved
ones are living today.
Q:
The Soviet system was ineffective. Are all totalitarian societies
doomed to inefficiency?
A:
What is efficiency? The US spends more money on weight loss than
Russia spends on its entire public budget. Still, the number of
overweight people is growing. And such examples are many.
Q:
Would it be correct to say that the intensifying radicalization in
the West will leads to its own destruction?
A:
Nazism was destroyed during total war. The Soviet system was young
and strong. It would have continued to thrive, had it not been
destroyed by outside forces. Social systems do not destroy
themselves. They can only be destroyed by an external force. It’s
like a ball rolling on a surface: only the presence of an external
obstacle could break its movement. I can prove it like a theorem.
Today, we are dominated by a country with enormous economic and
military superiority. The new emerging world order is drawn to
unipolarity. If the supranational government manages to achieve this
by eliminating all external enemies, then a unified social system can
survive until the end of time. Only a person can die from their
illness. But a group of people, even a small group, would try to
survive through reproduction. Now imagine a social system comprising
billions of people! Its capacity to anticipate and prevent
self-destructive phenomena will be limitless. In the foreseeable
future, the process of erasing differences across the world cannot be
stopped, since democratic totalitarianism is the last phase of the
development of Western society, which began with the Renaissance
Posts
.jpg)
