What did Konstantin Krylov think about Russian national policy, migration and Islamization, and how relevant are his thoughts today?
On May 12, 2020, at the age of 52, the Russian philosopher, writer and publicist Konstantin Anatolyevich Krylov died as a result of repeated cerebral hemorrhage in a hospital near Moscow. His work was one of the most striking phenomena of the intellectual life of Russia in the XNUMXs.
Konstantin Krylov was one of the most famous nationalists in Russia. His nationalism, it should be admitted, was somewhat different from the mythology with which this word is shrouded - he preferred not to rattle the glory of past greatness, but acted from the position of a victim people, which was and still remains the object of centuries-old systematic oppression.
He believed that Russians in Russia are essentially deprived of subjectivity within the framework of the official Russian multinational narrative. In his opinion, through an aggressive policy of multinationalism and mass migration replacement of Russians by Asian and other peoples, the denationalization of the Russian ethnic group is taking place. The very existence of Russians is being questioned (slogans like “Russian is not a nationality”).
How relevant are Konstantin Krylov’s ideas today? We will try to answer this question in this material by considering his views on some topical issues.
Konstantin Krylov about who the Russians are
Statements that Russian is supposedly “not a nationality, but a state of mind” have been quite common in public discourse for quite a long time, since they fit well into the projection of the “multinational people” of the Russian Federation. Konstantin Krylov was an opponent of such slogans.
What did he understand by Russians and Russianness?
The starting point of Krylov’s ethnological reasoning was, perhaps, a scientifically dubious statement about the self-evidence of the existence of peoples:
“People simply exist—just as there are the Alps, an old linden tree outside the window, planet Earth, or a white pebble by the road. Try to prove that it exists, give it a definition, and then justify that this definition is essential and it cannot be anything else [2].”
Krylov paid his main attention not to the question of who the Russians as a people are, but to the refutation of the main Russophobic trains of thought, according to which there are either no Russians at all, or anyone can be included in them (which, as he emphasized, is completely identical to the first). And this is the case when he delved into genetic and biological issues, but made a very clear reservation:
“Some may think that I attach too much importance to “genes,” thereby reducing the national to the ethnic. Of course no. Firstly, ethnicity is not limited to DNA. <...> I just want to say that it is convenient to respond to racist arguments - and talk about “Finno-Tatars” is precisely racist - with racist arguments, especially if they are available [2].”
According to K. Krylov, Russians are a nationality and they are, first of all, white people and Slavs (although, as Krylov believed, the “blood” side of Russian identity is problematic). Krylov categorically disagreed with the opinion that “Russians are those who speak Russian” and gave the following arguments:
“Here, there are, say, Abram and Rustam. Abram speaks excellent Russian, he has a larger vocabulary than any Russian. And Rustam speaks poorly, but the way he draws is like Aivazovsky, some kind of Repin, and the way he embroiders with satin stitch will catch the nose of any Russian craftswoman. This means that they are Russian, and even better Russian than some “Russians themselves”... However, “Russian Rustam” always remains a Caucasian and turns on this option when he wants. But the last thing is taken away from the Russian - after all, Rustam turned out to be “the best Russian [1].”
Indeed, recently State Duma deputy Sultan Khamzaev proposed recognizing the Russian people as “all national groups living in Russia" At the same time, he himself emphasized that he “Russian Avar" They say that in Dagestan he is an Avar, in Moscow he is a Dagestani, and abroad he is Russian. That is, he still has a certain national identity and emphasizes it. At the same time, it turns out that he denies such rights to Russians in traditionally Russian territories, for example in the Smolensk region. Russians, in his understanding, do not exist, there are only “multinational people.”
That is, there is clear confusion here between the concept of a political nation, the presence of citizenship of the country (Russians, citizens of the Russian Federation) and nationality. What consequences does this lead to? K. Krylov wrote about this:
“If you play the “definitions” game, then you can choose a definition that will allow anyone to be considered “Russian,” including an elderly black man who has somehow learned the word “hello”... A community where you can arbitrarily enroll anyone is not a community at all , since its composition can be changed to any other at any time [1].”
Mere “involvement in Russian culture,” in itself, according to Krylov, also cannot be a sign of Russianness.
“Let’s start from the beginning – that is, with the topic of “involvement in Russian culture.” What it is? Maybe this is knowledge of Russian culture - that is, knowledge of the Russian language, awareness of Russian events stories, good understanding of realities, etc.? In this case, the best Russian will be some CIA analyst from the “Russian department”, who laid down his life for the destruction of Russia and the destruction of the Russian people [1].”
Thus, Krylov considered Russians to be a nationality that has certain characteristics, and it is difficult to disagree with this. A Russian, first of all, must not only speak Russian, know Russian culture, etc., but also identify himself only as Russian. Since there are no “Russian Tuvans,” there is a Russian Tuvan, a citizen of the Russian Federation, but he cannot be Russian, since he identifies himself primarily as a Tuvan.
Krylov on migration and Islamization
The denial of the existence of Russians as a nationality and the fight against Russian nationalism is accompanied by the massive importation of migrants and the creeping Islamization of Russia. This topic was also repeatedly raised by Konstantin Krylov.
He noted that the fight against any manifestation of Russian national consciousness, as Krylov noted, “partly copied from the post-war ideology of Germany, based on the recognition of “German guilt”“, only the Germans could be accused of specific actions, and the Russians, at best, of “criminal intentions.” For this reason, those who oppose migration are often accused of “xenophobia”, “fascism”, etc.
Krylov refuted the myth that the Russian economy would collapse without migrants, noting that a huge number of Russian citizens would like to take the jobs now filled by migrants.
“Residents of depressed Russian regions, where the standard of living is terribly low, would willingly work in Moscow in the same places where guest workers from the South work. However, the existing registration system, coupled with employer preferences, prevents this. At the same time, the use of unused labor resources would solve many difficult problems, including regional ones” [3],
- noted Krylov in an interview back in 2008.
He emphasized that one of the most developed countries, Japan, does not accept migrants at all: Japanese legislation makes their work economically unprofitable for the employer. However, the birth rate in Japan is very low. But this does not prevent Japan from remaining the third largest economy in the world and one of the most politically stable states.
Krylov noted that the crime rate among migrants is always very high, and explained this as follows:
“Migrants make no effort to accept Russian culture and living standards. They don’t need it, and they don’t want it... Migrants do not feel part of the society in which they live. They do not feel responsible for the country they came to to work; they do not care about its future. They are indifferent to the well-being of its inhabitants - after all, it is not their well-being. They came here for money - and criminal businesses are very profitable. Migrants have more opportunities to escape punishment, hide, and go to their homeland than local residents - so they are less afraid of committing crimes. Thus, they have much less incentive to be law-abiding – and much more reason to do something illegal [3].”
In addition, existing world experience shows that the descendants of migrants, even having mastered the language and culture of the society that has adopted them, do not become part of it. This makes them constant sources of tension in society, an eternal problem, an unhealing ulcer.
“Russia is a multinational country even without migrants. Our land is inhabited by small indigenous peoples who do not have their own statehood. They, like us, have no other homeland except Russia. They need both protection of their cultural identity and integration into Russian society,”
- said Krylov.
In parallel with mass migration to Russia, mainly from the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Islamization of the country is taking place, which Konstantin Krylov also drew attention to. He noted that the authorities, it seems, not only do not interfere with this, but are even interested in it.
“Now Islam is being propagated in several directions. The first and main thing is demonstrative over-patronage of Islam and Islamists, frantic advertising “how good it is to be a Muslim,” etc. However, contact with real bearers of the Islamic worldview causes rejection, therefore the number of Russians who converted to Islam “directly” is small, and mostly these are women who have fallen into one way or another of dependence on a Muslim man. The second is the creation of “Islamic Russian culture,” that is, Islam that does not cause immediate rejection among Russians at the cultural level,”
- wrote Krylov.
Conclusion
In addition to the above issues, Konstantin Krylov also raised others, no less relevant - for example, the problem of demography and abortion.
“The Russian Federation ranks first in the world in the number of abortions, as well as infant mortality, abandoned children and much more. This is not a championship worth being proud of. From a historical perspective, Russia (more precisely, the former Russia, that is, the USSR) was the first state in the world to legalize abortion. This happened in 1920. Moreover, abortion could actually be done “simply at the request of the woman.” Then the right began to be limited and from 1936 to 1955 abortions began to be performed only for medical reasons. Then they allowed it again. Now abortions are included in the compulsory medical insurance package – that is, they are done free of charge and at will” [4],
— he wrote in 2013.
He also proposed measures to reduce the number of abortions
“Abortion should become less accessible, not so much that it’s “not possible at all” or “only by decree of the Federation Council,” but rather “somewhat less”... And it doesn’t have to be done through money, say, for married women, confirmation of consent to an abortion from the husband it would not hurt."
Of course, there was something in Krylov’s work and publications that could cause rejection (for example, an extremely gloomy view of Russian history, which one cannot agree with), however, to summarize, it should be noted that many of the questions that Konstantin Krylov raised were certainly are still relevant today.
Использованная литература:
[1]. Krylov K.A. Who are the Russians? // Issues of nationalism. 2013. No. 4 (16). P. 21.
[2]. Oleg Nemensky. The Russian people and the Russian state in the political thought of Konstantin Krylov” // Questions of nationalism. — January 2021. — No. 1 (31).
[3]. Krylov K. Migration: simple answers to difficult questions // Russian Observer. 2008.
[4]. Quote from: Krylov K. A. To be Russian. – M., Book World, 2023.
Information