Return is a bad omen. About the Red Project
Mikhail Khazin, a highly respected by me, a well-known economist and political scientist, recently published an article entitled “The Red Project”, in which he assumes that soon “theoretically, the Red Project should powerfully jerk the Red”. And offers to discuss its feasibility. Today, in general, they talk a lot about the Red project, but what is meant by this beautiful and powerful symbol? Things are very different ...M. Khazin, as an economist, is attracted primarily by the globality of the Red project, since he can provide "the expansion of markets, without which it is impossible to create a modern economy for our country." Putting him on par with the Orthodox and Western projects, he says that his claims will be comparable, in other words, the new Red project claims to be the succession of Karl Marx’s global communist project.
Sergey Kurginyan, a prominent political scientist, leader of the movement “The Essence of Time”, means by the Red Project the re-creation of a certain USSR-2. For many of our contemporaries, the Red Project is just safety, full employment, free health care and education, as in the USSR, and nostalgia for a great past, no doubt. Kurginyan is the most understandable to them, therefore he is the only one who has already created an organization with his like-minded people.
Common in these moods is a thirst for a just, spiritually healthy future, many of whose traits were in the USSR. The desire for such an ideal cannot but be supported, however, one must firmly stand on the ground in order not to fall into a new utopia. And not to fall into neo-Trotskyism, which is now very popular in the West, and seems to be looking for a new country, which could be thrown into the furnace of a new world revolution. We must also decide in relation to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which, formally, is the successor to the ideals of the USSR, and which all ideologists of the Red project ignore. And still need to answer the obvious difficult "red" questions.
First, the Red project in the USSR had different versions: Lenin, then Stalin, then Khrushchev and the politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU. On the universality of the Red project, in today's terms - globality, its founder Karl Marx insisted, but Lenin had already challenged this thesis with a “new economic policy”, and Stalin built socialism “in a single country”. The successes of the USSR are not connected with its global aspirations, but with a period of concentration on the interests of the country. When Khrushchev came to power in the USSR, the global tenets of Marxism took over, but the whole communist “globality” kept on the Stalinist heritage of the USSR, and was paid for by it.
Secondly, the Red Project from the very beginning contained the dogma of the Red God - the communist idea, the promise to create a just society on earth, as opposed to the Christian “paradise in heaven” - and kept its faith in it. Today, for some reason, little is said about this core of it in the twentieth century. But it was precisely the belief in this messianic idea, almost religious faith, that nourished the Red project at the time of its greatest flourishing. And, as soon as she swayed in her minds, the Red Project also swayed.
Today, it is hardly possible to revive the belief in “communism as the bright future of mankind”, and no one offers another equivalent symbol of faith in the Red project, and he gapes with an enormous “silence figure”. It seems that without filling this void with a new big idea, akin to a religious one, no global project is possible.
The western project, by the way, collapses for the same reason. The consumer slogan of “all-round welfare improvement” became a surrogate “symbol of faith” of the West and Late Red project, inherited and modern Russia, but he cannot give any faith, in the sense of ideology. Although probably contributed to the peaceful fall of the USSR.
If you descend from ideological heavens to the sinful and Russian land, you will see that the Red project in the twentieth century fulfilled its main task - defended Russia's independence: ensured its survival in a very difficult foreign policy situation of the early twentieth century, then modernizing the country and winning the Second World War . Until now, Russia's independence is based on the achievements of the Red project of the twentieth century. By this the USSR fulfilled its mission, the glory of the USSR! For this we will be grateful to him forever.
However, we must go forward: to return is a bad omen, and in politics too. The national task facing Russia today is the same as at the beginning of the twentieth century: to preserve national independence, a worthy place under the sun, which we inherited from our fathers and grandfathers, in the new conditions of the 21st century. You can call it, in a sense, a national idea.
For this you need to solve obvious, in general, tasks: to consolidate your own society and gain allies, following the example of the Red project, which found a large number of supporters both in the West and in the East, and they provided substantial assistance to Russia-USSR in the Second World War.
Understanding of this is in the leadership of Russia, it is not without reason that the Eurasian Union is being created together with Kazakhstan and Belarus. “In the 21st century, the vector of development of Russia is development to the East. We have started the creation of the Eurasian Union, and, of course, we will follow this path, and we will solve this problem,” says V.V. Putin, although this causes bouts of hysteria in the Washington Regional Committee.
The new Union in the post-Soviet space can, of course, be called the USSR-2. In words, everything is possible, but, in fact, it is the same as what the USSR called at one time the Russian Empire, 2.
It will be a Union in the same territories as the USSR and the Russian Empire, but on other conditions, for example, former internationalism is hardly possible, covering the donation of the Union republics from Russia. New allies are unlikely to be "Soviet" and "socialist".
Why should a fundamentally different state education give the old name? Pour new wine into old furs? Of course, we must try to take all the best from the experience of the USSR, but this will no longer be a Red project, but another, apparently, a Eurasian project, the further development of which we cannot predict today. But Russia has no other choice - another way to find allies ...
Information