Hat tip to reader James A Foleyи for reminding me of a prominent but seemingly forgotten voice from the recent past, Alexandr Zinoviev, major heavy-duty philosopher and socio-economic analyst who was deemed a Soviet Dissident and exiled only to return to his shattered homeland to write about what was done to it and how—the and how part being the most important for our understanding and deeper analysis of what’s happening today.
Indeed! I find it "profound" as you wrote it. I find it a essential reading. I begun to read Zinoviev when I was 16 years old, meaning 50 years ago, and wherever I go or move in, he follows me... His works are always on my shelves and I read him again and again regularly. He was, for me, at that time and even today, a kind of visionary. His words and thoughts have proven to be accurate and acutely correct and are highly relevant today... I am grateful indeed... Who really read him today? Few...unfortunately. So! Your article is a great gift. Thank you!
Given his content, I hope he sees a resurrection in patronage, which I expect will happen once his concept of Westernism is more fully read, discussed and understood. For me, it augments what is meant by "The West" for it's not just the Outlaw US Empire that's driving the train to the broken bridge over the chasm. Nor did it arise after WW2, which IMO is another very important point. You're fortunate to have known him for many years. Although I've long had my own ism, I didn't get exposed to philosophy as a discipline until I was in my early 40s. mid-1990s. Thanks for your feedback!
What Zinoviev tells us is an old story, much of which is true- the destruction of the Soviet Union was deliberate and the culmination of a campaign which lasted throughout the existence of the country, indeed as Zinoviev suggests, it was the shaping force which determined the nature of the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, and the interviewer was not much help, much of what Zinoviev trots out particularly on the nature of western society is Frankfurt Scholasticism. Far from being lost Liberalism is triumphant- the world according to imperialism is liberalism which is the theory of capitalist class rule.
The great 'miracle' of western economic progress in the post war period was one side of a coin, on the obverse was the unprecedented immiseration of the "south" an immiseration mobilised by the wars against the poor, against democracy, against progress, against all those 'values' that idiots still convince themselves are associated with the imperialist 'west' , the Empire and its clients, sub feudatory agents in the reduction of Latin America, Africa and Asia to serfdom under the American lord.
The interview is old, in hindsight we know better: since 1999 we have seen the break up of the consensus in the imperial metropoli, the attacks on the masses that Zinoviev rightly saw as consequences of the defeat of Soviet 'Communism' have come to be recognised by the very people whose agency both Zinoviev and his interviewer write off: the possibility of social revolution is increasing all the time, the energy of mass disilusionment, fear of the future and resentment of elites simply requires a vehicle, an organising principle, a political fulcrum and nothing, short of Armageddon can stop it coming.
There were many telling remarks but none perhaps more than Zinoviev's insistence that the weight of India and China in the world was inconsiderable by comparison with that of the imperium- nobody could possible subscribe now to such a proposition.
Already China has, in many indices, including that of military force, come to a material (no need to speak of moral) parity with the US and its creatures. And India despite its neo-Nazi RSS guides cannot but play the role that history has assigned it as one of the original victims of capitalist imperialism. Nor is it coincidental that the founders of liberalism and fascism, Bentham and the Mills notably among them, feasted off the exploitation of India and justified the ruthless regime established over it by the City of London and Parliament in Westminster.
Nothing more exemplifies the moral and political confusion of the Cold War and the western academy in which the likes of Zinoviev found refuge and succour than the interviewer's, obviously sincere, contrasting of the 'totalitarian ruthlessness' of the Soviet state, one of whose greatest sins was to assist the popular government in Kabul, with the liberal generosity and consideration exemplified not only in the serial genocides in Indo China, Indonesia and every inch of Latin America, not to mention Africa and Palestine but in the wars against poor people, trade unions, social movements, indigenous uprisings in which tens of millions were killed and hundreds of millions made victims of the pillage of their resources.
The nature of both systems is easily measured by the life expectancy of those who lived within their realms: in the imperialist sphere the average life expectancy declined in the 'socialist' world, despite the distortions forced upon governments by the requirement to provide against military aggression, it rose pretty generally.
It was this that obviously shocked Zinoviev when he returned to Russia under Yeltsin/Clinton, relieved of its 'totalitarianism' and its adherence to the most basic rules of decency, and found that life expectancy had plummeted and his fellow countrymen had been reduced to famine mitigated only by the war of all against all.
Thanks for your critique bevin. I only have one of his translated works that will be examined later in perhaps as many as three parts given its length. The next is a shorter piece published in 2015 that deals with a discussion by the Zinoviev Club about his Westernism concept.
You're welcome. Kind of you to call mine a critique.
Among the other errors that I think Zinoviev (any relation?) makes was his characterisation of Marx's views on India and the effects of imperialism- it has long been a staple among vulgar marxists to claim that Marx was unaware of the devastation that Capitalism caused in rural communities and insensitive to the human suffering that 'modernisation' caused. This makes it very easy for environmentalists to dismiss him and his ideas as just another brand of C19th positivism celebrating the rise of industry, which takes us half way to concluding that class analysis and critiques of capitalism are out of date and unproductive. We have seen the way in which generations of Greens have abandoned socialist critiques of capitalism and slipped, effortlessly, into becoming greenwashing consultants for corporations.
Anyway keep up the great work that you do. You don't need to be told that it is important and that its importance lies in the fact that the ruling class cannot, in the end, ever succeed in getting even the youngest and most ill-educated of people to support their own destruction. The idea that the masses are or can be 'brainwashed' is just a way of saying that we are too tired or distracted to carry on telling power the truth and questioning everything.
As to Zinoviev if he was indeed the son of peasants he was one of many in the Soviet Union- Russians and others- who became philosophers after generations in which there was virtually no possibility of anyone not born to a wealthy or noble family attaining literacy, let alone a knowledge of philosophy. Zinoviev's wonder at the scientific prowess of the imperialists is all the more peculiar when one considers the enormous achievements of Soviet Science, engineering and medicine.
Thanks again bevin. Zinoviev made it to 84 surviving WW2. That experience surely colored his further life and outlook. And the technological advances during his time were amazing drastically changing life.
Some points to note in Zinoviev's defence: 1. given when the interview was conducted (1999), it is clear that widespread pessimism was the order of the day for any Russian - anyone who lived through the sabotage of the Gorbachev era and Yeltsin's criminal reign in Russia would not have anything like an optimistic outlook in 1999; 2. from being a critic of the Soviet system and leading 'dissident', don't forget that Zinoviev's experiences in the West led him to change his views 180 degrees to become a passionate defender of the Soviet experiment for all its flaws and problems; 3. in 1999, who could possibly have foreseen the economic and social successes of China, the durability of the Chinese system and the astonishing level of support the CCP has among the Chinese peoples?; 4. Zinoviev could not foresee Putin - neither could most people in Russia - Putin's achievements in many fields are surely astonishing given the catastrophe he inherited.
I don't know if Zinoviev wrote much about Putin, of course Zinoviev died in 2006, but from the evidence of friendships and family in Russia, in his early years in power, Putin was widely distrusted by many; however, his popularity and the level of support he commands now is testament to his many successes.
My research into China's economic rise and who was fueling it was done in 1999 where I discovered the majority of investment was being made by China's diaspora mostly within Southeast Asia. Their investments provided the initial viability of the Special Economic Zones that laid the foundation for the rapid transfer of industrial works from the West in the first ten years of the new century. China was immune to the contrived financial attack on the "Asian Dragons" from 1997-9 making it a safe haven for that region's capital.
In many ways, 1999 was an inflection year for geoeconomics capped by Yeltsin's appointment of Putin to PM then his resignation and ascension of Putin to President. IMO, Russia's security forces demanded the change. The basic changes Putin instigated in Russia's political-economy didn't begin to occur until the end of his first term where the ground-work was laid for implementation upon his becoming PM and Medvedev President. Many think Russia should've challenged NATO more forcefully in 2014, but Russia wasn't ready at that time and needed to vastly improve its economy and the state of society, which the West vastly helped with its sanctions and idiocy regarding Crimea's status. Russia is now stronger than the West, although it doesn't have as many people, which is its one glaring weakness. In the Tsar's time, large families were needed economically as Russia was still mostly agrarian. Russia needs large families again today to further expand its industrial capabilities which lead to positive societal evolution and poverty elimination. If Russia has 200 million people by 2100, Putin's demographic policy will have proven to be a winner.
This is truly a gem. It is incredible how prophetic this interview from 1999 is! Indeed there are many parts/section worth of emphasis. A few comments:
- "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."
This is so true, especially now in countries like US, UK, Italy
- "Environmentalists, who are in power in some countries, welcomed the environmental catastrophe caused by the NATO bombings."
Like the Greens in Germany, one name above all: Annalena Baerbock
- "I believe that the monstrosity of the 21st century will surpass everything that mankind has seen to this day."
I think he was very right. What Israel is doing in the Middle East (first with the genocide of Palestinians and now with the weaponization of common items in Lebanon) and the Paris Olympics are the epitomy of monstrosity!
- "these days, people are so well shepherded that they react only the way that the purveyors of propaganda want them to."
Luckily this is not true - see pro-Palestine demonstrations across the world.
- Finally, I would have emphasized most of the answer to this question: "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?"
IMO, colonization didn't bring anything of benefit to those conquered by it. Ghandi's quip about Western Civilization--that it would be great if it ever happens--was quite correct. Otherwise, yes an additional essay could be written just parsing his main points, which would have made it twice as long and a potential turn-off for readers who can't take it all in. My goal is to have readers read, not open the article, sniff at it, then decide it's too much, or they don't have time, or whatever and fail to return to read and learn.
That's true for most. We have had thousands of years of the same bullshit. We've literally learned nothing from history🤦♀️ We keep making the same mistakes.
The interview was done at the height of Western Dominance and contains what amounts to prophecy, but I think Zinoviev underestimated India and China’s growth, Russia’s resiliency and the decay over time of the Western Globalist System.
Predictions are hard things to make. Geopolitically, the shift geoeconomically began with the Dot.Com bust and so-called Asian Financial Crisis of 1998-9 that showed the great instability of the US banking system and subsequent ability to support Empire over time. I was studying China's economic rise at the time and saw what was happening and what would be possible for China. The drain on the Empire with its wars is marked by its deindustrialization over the subsequent period of time. As I understand it, Zinoviev's Westernism also seeks to dominate the Outlaw US Empire which is why it's been "tricked" into that behavior. A new system is forming to displace Westernism.
The industrial technological system we now live in will begin to stutter and then fade over the next century. John Michael Greer has written about this in his books The Long Descent, The Ecotechnic Future, and The Retro Future There are hard resource and energy limits that we will be running into.
I know Greer's works and others. I see resources as the fundamental constraint. I've written about the oil and gas situation. Russia's Far east and Arctic development plans face high energy and infrastructure hurdles. But seeing what they've already accomplished says they'll attain their goals.
A couple of points worth mentioning. Both China and Russia are sponsoring major research and investment in next generation nuclear technology. This takes the form of small modular reactors with inherent safety features, unlike current large scale power plants. Central Asia has abundant reserves of uranium to fuel these reactors which can power the entire economic corridor that I like to call the New Silk Road. (catchier than belt and road, dontcha think?)
In addition, China and much of Central Asia have enormous coal reserves which, utilizing nuclear generated electricity, can be converted to transportation fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process.
The collective west, with its idiotic 'green agenda' will no doubt experience energy and fuel shortages in the years to come, but the Asian continent will forge ahead based on nuclear power, enabling electrification of rapid rail networks in lieu of air and road transportation. Electric cars will play a role over short distances - they already are - but high speed rail as you already see in Japan is the wave of the future.
I've taken the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka and Niigata and it was a real pleasure, much better than driving which I've also done in Japan. You can't even buy a car in Tokyo without showing proof of a private parking space, and the traffic is so bad you might as well not bother anyway. Walking and trains are the way to go in Tokyo!
Yes, Escobar also employs that term. I closely follow atomics and Rosatom's accomplishments. They've mastered the fuel cycle so very minimal waste is now generated--it's burned as fuel.
Thank your also for this Zinoviev interview - a very deep thinker he was. It invites to a discussion about the societal values, who imposes the values, the use of global resources, the future of mankind. Will the globalization lead to disappearance of nations? Will the administration of societies be made simpler for ruling classes with the use of artificial intelligence, i.e. will the percentage of society needed to keep control over the entire population be actually lower than Zinoviev projects? no matter how you slice it, it makes me see dark. Zinoviev has in some respects seen farther in the future than many. His thoughts remind me of the words of S. Lavrov, who stated -paraphrasing- that world without Russia would not be worth living in.
He was not the only one who has seen the danger of americanism/westernism - I remember from my youth, that in the 1960-70s there were voices in the West warning about the "Coca Cola" neon signs all over the world.
I see Zinoviev's thinking resonating within the BRICS philosophy of resistance and within Putin's philosophy of governance. The discussion within Team Putin to recognize his centenary was probably fascinating. The "voices" began vocalizing soon after WW2 in films and Broadway productions that would never be produced today.
Some of his work can be accessed in full here without subscription or purchase. Unfortunately "West. The phenomenon of Westernism" is not useful study on this site.
Thanks very much, Natalya. The translated essay I have that will be parsed is "
Global Suprasociety and Russia," an abridged translation by Helen Shelestiuk
Original: Zinovyev, Aleksandr. Global'noye Sverkhobschestvo i Rossiya. Moscow:
�Labirint, 2000. I've yet to look at the home site of that paper to see if there's more. Looking into the past while so much is happening now is hard to do while living life as there's so much to examine and share. I'd like to know your opinion of Zinoviev.
He was a great man, noble. A very important part of Russian philosophy and culture, generally unrecognized. He is in fact for philosophy what Einstein is for theoretical physics. Neither consolidated knowledge at the time, but discarded existing theories and proposed their own. His work is important for human science in Russia and globally.
"Team Putin", wonderful description. Yes they recognize it for the purposes they want.
If someone is a nuisance, then regardless of what good they are for, it is not unusual to at least ignore them, perhaps more.
Three months before President Putin made that speech at the Valdai you linked, they had already blocked the construction of "Zinoteka", where all his work would have been available to Russians and future generations.
A company, "Science for Humanity" will build as the main idea of its project the "Zinotheque". Last month Olga Mironovna traveled to Iraq and signed a communique on the transfer of everything she owns, the entire creative and scientific heritage of Alexander Zinoviev to the Republic of Iraq.
Alexander Alexandrovich did not sing in the general choir. For this reason he was expelled. When he returned, nobody invited them, and nobody was available to receive them or help them. He supported CPRF, defeated Yeltsin on television. He was not returned the military rank, orders and medals, home or place in society.
Ksenia Zinovieva his daughter also represented the communists and challenged United Russia in regional elections.
There are russaphobes and fifth column western supporting elements everywhere. Government, oligarchs, education and cultural institutions, many more. Olga Mironovna has fought with all of them and everyone.
They don't sing in the general choir, any of them. The Zinovievs believe the successors of the USSR are ruling in the same way as those from the basements of the 1960s.
They never pretended otherwise.
So Alexander Alexandrovich was also a principled man, all of his life. So is his wife. They instilled these values in their family. That is a formidable achievement.
Thanks very much for your appraisal. The double-dealing of Team Putin regarding Zinoviev is rather troubling--to honor yet dishonor--making Olga's actions understandable, although for me Iraq is a curious choice.
It is troubling you are right. If it was the only thing that was, it would be fine, but it's not.
I read with interest your opinion on Russia's policy to Israel. Another troubling subject.
Back to Zinoviev briefly. Naturally it can be considered a curious choice, and I completely agree.
Iraq is known as the cradle of civilization. Today it is trying to join civilization after the American invasion and westernization gifted to it. Considering this, the work of Alexander Alexandrovich found its home.
Hello everyone. всем привет! First time posting on this forum.
"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."
Certainly the Cold War played a major role by depriving the civilian sector of much needed investment that was diverted to maintain some semblance of military parity with the West, but I think it's equally true that maintaining such a vast empire with a large contingent of relatively unproductive citizens also took its toll. Speaking mainly about the Central Asian republics which were essentially welfare cases.
Also, coming from a peasant background I find it odd that Zinoviev doesn't cite the collectivization of agriculture as a major element in the decline. At one point the USSR had to borrow money from the USA to buy food. I remember those ships loading grain in Toronto. I also recall the adage, "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" which reflected the generally negative attitude towards collectivization. Collectivization runs counter to human nature which primarily strives for personal and family advancement. To not recognize this fact and incorporate its positive aspects into socialist doctrine to me seems like a major failure - a result of the official fantasy of forging a New Soviet Man, as if such a thing was even possible.
Two events that for me stand out as definitive, but are hardly ever mentioned in narratives of the Soviet collapse are the war in Afghanistan, and the disaster at Chernobyl. The war took an enormous toll on Soviet society, and while US involvement played a role, the task itself was insurmountable with or without US support for the Mujahideen. This had a similar effect to the Vietnam war in undermining national confidence and creating an atmosphere of disinterest and rejection of socialist ideals among the young. Again, I saw this play out first hand in the West and was myself drawn into that nihilistic vacuum for several years. Distrust in government was the defining feature of life in both the USA and the USSR throughout that period, which coincidentally lasted 10 years on both sides. As for Chernobyl, the accident itself, the botched cover-up, and the horrific human toll of not just the accident but also the clean-up, undermined what little confidence remained in the central government, and it was all downhill from there.
Another factor not often mentioned, which while external, can't be attributed to any sort of master plan on the part of the West is the 1980's oil glut which by 1986 had cut world oil prices in half. As a major oil producing nation, this had a devastating impact on the USSR's foreign earnings, which it desperately needed to offset the decline in food production caused by the previous collectivization and subsequent failed agricultural policies.
These are just a few of the variables in play over the years, so I wouldn't place the entire blame for the collapse on government mismanagement, but that definitely played a major role in my opinion. One thing piled on another basically, with an inadequate response at each turn due to an inflexible ideology. These factors to me seem more causative than any nefarious program cooked up in the West.
The point made is the policies of both sides worked to weaken what might have become strong before WW2, and later the inability to manage development that was exacerbated by externalities. Chernobyl was as you said a huge pitfall. It can be said the Team Putin has learned and profited from those mistakes. The mistake not to align with China in the 1950s was another big error which Puti rectified as soon as he consolidated his position as president in 2002.
There was clearly a western policy of opposing the USSR, pretty much from the get-go. Britain's Great Game of pitting Germany against Russia/USSR, the Red Scare, the Domino Theory, The Bay of Pigs, the fictitious 'missile gap' support for fascist governments in Latin America and elsewhere, all point to this. I just felt the author put too much emphasis on external pressure and too little on the internal dynamics.
Today's Russia demonstrates that it is possible to withstand the type of attacks that characterized the West's attack on the USSR, even to the point of turning them to their advantage. Ideological rigidity, combined with attempts to force drastic social change in too short a time frame was probably the main factor undermining social cohesion - much like Mao's Great Leap Forward, it was too much too soon. The people just weren't ready for that degree of sacrifice in the name of something they didn't fully understand or agree with. I think Russia's leadership has taken that lesson on board, which is why the current heavy focus on traditional family values, because that speaks directly to where people live.
Putin and others speak of two homelands--the little/local and the nation--and how these two loyalties intertwine and can make each other strong. Then there's the continual political-economic emphasis that all is for the people because the people create all. I've noted this aspect several times before: the equality given to Labor, Business and Government--they all sit together to plan, which is the opposite of the Western method. Everyone has a stake in the process and outcome. I'm following this whole process in an attempt to map it so it can be explained to a larger audience.
External pressure vs. internal dynamics: Having moved westward, Zinoviev would have inevitably adjusted his geopolitical viewpoint, yet he remained fully aware of the internal predicament of the USSR; cf. Yawning Heights, an incomparable guide to homo sovieticus. https://archive.org/details/yawningheights00alek_0
You make some good points, most of which I agree with. Talking to people who lived through the disastrous reign of Gorbachev, however, it is pretty clear that economic sabotage from within played a considerable role in further undermining people's confidence in the Soviet system. If we add to this well-documented testimony from Sazhi Umalatova in which she states unequivocally that the majority of the members of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR were bribed (often with what we would consider trifling insignificant amounts) to support Gorbachev, there is quite a body of evidence to suggest that the woes you list were added to by intentional internal sabotage of the system and an already profound dislike and distrust of the bureaucracy. Umalatova is clear about the corruption, so the obvious question arises as to who was doing the bribing?
Zinoviev: "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."...Mr. Zinoviev puts into words what I've been feeling for decades, that US elites have zero interest in the safety of its taxpaying citizens. "National security" doesn't exist. The end of the Soviet Union freed US mobsters. Russia is same "problem" for US as Soviet Union was: it's just too big and must be chopped up and handed out to others.
Certainly an intellectual of his time and very perceptive.
I have given it a first reading and much there that I fully agree with - much that requires further thought - and much that must be of real interest to RF and China.
One thought that did really grab me (if I have discerned it reasonably accurately) - to survive the encroaching Western Hegemon and its powerful controlling structures - military power is necessary but insufficient - it is essential that it is complemented by a very strong social, educational, cultural, intellectual, historical and psychological sense of a people's own civilization and right to its own destiny.
On this latter point - not a single country in Europe meets these criteria - except for RF which is both European and Asian, and attempting to move in said direction - along with China.
Onto Kazan and baby steps to take on, and keep out, The Big Baad Baby!
Yes, socio-cultural power is required above all to repel the propaganda/values assault. It's possible to see that Zinoviev's thinking is present within Russian policies--the Year of the Family is clearly one example among many.
Interesting that in no way did he envisage the rise of China to be the new challenger to the West, and also very much got it wrong with "world government". The US oligarchy still rules the roost of the West, Sean Starrs work on the ownership of US and Western corporations very much shows this. Russia has also arisen as a lesser national project that challenges the West, as has Iran. A bit too much pessimism, but it can be understood given the very dark period when this interview took place.
Großartiger Artikel. Sinowjew hat geradezu prophetische Aussagen zu einer Zeit getroffen als Russland unter Jelzien nur den Weg in den Abgrund vor sich hatte.
An historical aside (as we are discussing philosophy)
The Philosophers’ Ship
In 1922 Lenin sent Russia’s best philosophers off on a cruise and told them not to come home unless they wanted to be shot. Alexander Razin and Tatiana Sidorina describe a ‘humanitarian act’ by a totalitarian regime.
Thank you for this great article... I am grateful.
You're welcome! Did you find it profound? The next articles about his work will need to share space with current events, but they will come.
Indeed! I find it "profound" as you wrote it. I find it a essential reading. I begun to read Zinoviev when I was 16 years old, meaning 50 years ago, and wherever I go or move in, he follows me... His works are always on my shelves and I read him again and again regularly. He was, for me, at that time and even today, a kind of visionary. His words and thoughts have proven to be accurate and acutely correct and are highly relevant today... I am grateful indeed... Who really read him today? Few...unfortunately. So! Your article is a great gift. Thank you!
Given his content, I hope he sees a resurrection in patronage, which I expect will happen once his concept of Westernism is more fully read, discussed and understood. For me, it augments what is meant by "The West" for it's not just the Outlaw US Empire that's driving the train to the broken bridge over the chasm. Nor did it arise after WW2, which IMO is another very important point. You're fortunate to have known him for many years. Although I've long had my own ism, I didn't get exposed to philosophy as a discipline until I was in my early 40s. mid-1990s. Thanks for your feedback!
Interesting, but hardly profound.
What Zinoviev tells us is an old story, much of which is true- the destruction of the Soviet Union was deliberate and the culmination of a campaign which lasted throughout the existence of the country, indeed as Zinoviev suggests, it was the shaping force which determined the nature of the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, and the interviewer was not much help, much of what Zinoviev trots out particularly on the nature of western society is Frankfurt Scholasticism. Far from being lost Liberalism is triumphant- the world according to imperialism is liberalism which is the theory of capitalist class rule.
The great 'miracle' of western economic progress in the post war period was one side of a coin, on the obverse was the unprecedented immiseration of the "south" an immiseration mobilised by the wars against the poor, against democracy, against progress, against all those 'values' that idiots still convince themselves are associated with the imperialist 'west' , the Empire and its clients, sub feudatory agents in the reduction of Latin America, Africa and Asia to serfdom under the American lord.
The interview is old, in hindsight we know better: since 1999 we have seen the break up of the consensus in the imperial metropoli, the attacks on the masses that Zinoviev rightly saw as consequences of the defeat of Soviet 'Communism' have come to be recognised by the very people whose agency both Zinoviev and his interviewer write off: the possibility of social revolution is increasing all the time, the energy of mass disilusionment, fear of the future and resentment of elites simply requires a vehicle, an organising principle, a political fulcrum and nothing, short of Armageddon can stop it coming.
There were many telling remarks but none perhaps more than Zinoviev's insistence that the weight of India and China in the world was inconsiderable by comparison with that of the imperium- nobody could possible subscribe now to such a proposition.
Already China has, in many indices, including that of military force, come to a material (no need to speak of moral) parity with the US and its creatures. And India despite its neo-Nazi RSS guides cannot but play the role that history has assigned it as one of the original victims of capitalist imperialism. Nor is it coincidental that the founders of liberalism and fascism, Bentham and the Mills notably among them, feasted off the exploitation of India and justified the ruthless regime established over it by the City of London and Parliament in Westminster.
Nothing more exemplifies the moral and political confusion of the Cold War and the western academy in which the likes of Zinoviev found refuge and succour than the interviewer's, obviously sincere, contrasting of the 'totalitarian ruthlessness' of the Soviet state, one of whose greatest sins was to assist the popular government in Kabul, with the liberal generosity and consideration exemplified not only in the serial genocides in Indo China, Indonesia and every inch of Latin America, not to mention Africa and Palestine but in the wars against poor people, trade unions, social movements, indigenous uprisings in which tens of millions were killed and hundreds of millions made victims of the pillage of their resources.
The nature of both systems is easily measured by the life expectancy of those who lived within their realms: in the imperialist sphere the average life expectancy declined in the 'socialist' world, despite the distortions forced upon governments by the requirement to provide against military aggression, it rose pretty generally.
It was this that obviously shocked Zinoviev when he returned to Russia under Yeltsin/Clinton, relieved of its 'totalitarianism' and its adherence to the most basic rules of decency, and found that life expectancy had plummeted and his fellow countrymen had been reduced to famine mitigated only by the war of all against all.
Thanks for your critique bevin. I only have one of his translated works that will be examined later in perhaps as many as three parts given its length. The next is a shorter piece published in 2015 that deals with a discussion by the Zinoviev Club about his Westernism concept.
You're welcome. Kind of you to call mine a critique.
Among the other errors that I think Zinoviev (any relation?) makes was his characterisation of Marx's views on India and the effects of imperialism- it has long been a staple among vulgar marxists to claim that Marx was unaware of the devastation that Capitalism caused in rural communities and insensitive to the human suffering that 'modernisation' caused. This makes it very easy for environmentalists to dismiss him and his ideas as just another brand of C19th positivism celebrating the rise of industry, which takes us half way to concluding that class analysis and critiques of capitalism are out of date and unproductive. We have seen the way in which generations of Greens have abandoned socialist critiques of capitalism and slipped, effortlessly, into becoming greenwashing consultants for corporations.
Anyway keep up the great work that you do. You don't need to be told that it is important and that its importance lies in the fact that the ruling class cannot, in the end, ever succeed in getting even the youngest and most ill-educated of people to support their own destruction. The idea that the masses are or can be 'brainwashed' is just a way of saying that we are too tired or distracted to carry on telling power the truth and questioning everything.
As to Zinoviev if he was indeed the son of peasants he was one of many in the Soviet Union- Russians and others- who became philosophers after generations in which there was virtually no possibility of anyone not born to a wealthy or noble family attaining literacy, let alone a knowledge of philosophy. Zinoviev's wonder at the scientific prowess of the imperialists is all the more peculiar when one considers the enormous achievements of Soviet Science, engineering and medicine.
Thanks again bevin. Zinoviev made it to 84 surviving WW2. That experience surely colored his further life and outlook. And the technological advances during his time were amazing drastically changing life.
Some points to note in Zinoviev's defence: 1. given when the interview was conducted (1999), it is clear that widespread pessimism was the order of the day for any Russian - anyone who lived through the sabotage of the Gorbachev era and Yeltsin's criminal reign in Russia would not have anything like an optimistic outlook in 1999; 2. from being a critic of the Soviet system and leading 'dissident', don't forget that Zinoviev's experiences in the West led him to change his views 180 degrees to become a passionate defender of the Soviet experiment for all its flaws and problems; 3. in 1999, who could possibly have foreseen the economic and social successes of China, the durability of the Chinese system and the astonishing level of support the CCP has among the Chinese peoples?; 4. Zinoviev could not foresee Putin - neither could most people in Russia - Putin's achievements in many fields are surely astonishing given the catastrophe he inherited.
I don't know if Zinoviev wrote much about Putin, of course Zinoviev died in 2006, but from the evidence of friendships and family in Russia, in his early years in power, Putin was widely distrusted by many; however, his popularity and the level of support he commands now is testament to his many successes.
My research into China's economic rise and who was fueling it was done in 1999 where I discovered the majority of investment was being made by China's diaspora mostly within Southeast Asia. Their investments provided the initial viability of the Special Economic Zones that laid the foundation for the rapid transfer of industrial works from the West in the first ten years of the new century. China was immune to the contrived financial attack on the "Asian Dragons" from 1997-9 making it a safe haven for that region's capital.
In many ways, 1999 was an inflection year for geoeconomics capped by Yeltsin's appointment of Putin to PM then his resignation and ascension of Putin to President. IMO, Russia's security forces demanded the change. The basic changes Putin instigated in Russia's political-economy didn't begin to occur until the end of his first term where the ground-work was laid for implementation upon his becoming PM and Medvedev President. Many think Russia should've challenged NATO more forcefully in 2014, but Russia wasn't ready at that time and needed to vastly improve its economy and the state of society, which the West vastly helped with its sanctions and idiocy regarding Crimea's status. Russia is now stronger than the West, although it doesn't have as many people, which is its one glaring weakness. In the Tsar's time, large families were needed economically as Russia was still mostly agrarian. Russia needs large families again today to further expand its industrial capabilities which lead to positive societal evolution and poverty elimination. If Russia has 200 million people by 2100, Putin's demographic policy will have proven to be a winner.
So Prince's "Party Like It's 1999" is very relevant to the bourgeois capitalist economies, it was the height of their power and arrogance.
I find the template of 'Money, Power, Lifeworld' from 'Frankfurt Scholasticism' useful at times. Then I dig in.
I have learned from them - although my learning has expanded well beyond them ...
This is truly a gem. It is incredible how prophetic this interview from 1999 is! Indeed there are many parts/section worth of emphasis. A few comments:
- "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."
This is so true, especially now in countries like US, UK, Italy
- "Environmentalists, who are in power in some countries, welcomed the environmental catastrophe caused by the NATO bombings."
Like the Greens in Germany, one name above all: Annalena Baerbock
- "I believe that the monstrosity of the 21st century will surpass everything that mankind has seen to this day."
I think he was very right. What Israel is doing in the Middle East (first with the genocide of Palestinians and now with the weaponization of common items in Lebanon) and the Paris Olympics are the epitomy of monstrosity!
- "these days, people are so well shepherded that they react only the way that the purveyors of propaganda want them to."
Luckily this is not true - see pro-Palestine demonstrations across the world.
- Finally, I would have emphasized most of the answer to this question: "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?"
IMO, colonization didn't bring anything of benefit to those conquered by it. Ghandi's quip about Western Civilization--that it would be great if it ever happens--was quite correct. Otherwise, yes an additional essay could be written just parsing his main points, which would have made it twice as long and a potential turn-off for readers who can't take it all in. My goal is to have readers read, not open the article, sniff at it, then decide it's too much, or they don't have time, or whatever and fail to return to read and learn.
Because our species doesn't learn from its mistakes🤦♀️ We're witnessing exactly how Hitler did it.
Well, that's true for some. But as we see from Russia and elsewhere, learning is certainly ongoing and in a different direction from Westernism.
That's true for most. We have had thousands of years of the same bullshit. We've literally learned nothing from history🤦♀️ We keep making the same mistakes.
Speak for yourself
The interview was done at the height of Western Dominance and contains what amounts to prophecy, but I think Zinoviev underestimated India and China’s growth, Russia’s resiliency and the decay over time of the Western Globalist System.
Predictions are hard things to make. Geopolitically, the shift geoeconomically began with the Dot.Com bust and so-called Asian Financial Crisis of 1998-9 that showed the great instability of the US banking system and subsequent ability to support Empire over time. I was studying China's economic rise at the time and saw what was happening and what would be possible for China. The drain on the Empire with its wars is marked by its deindustrialization over the subsequent period of time. As I understand it, Zinoviev's Westernism also seeks to dominate the Outlaw US Empire which is why it's been "tricked" into that behavior. A new system is forming to displace Westernism.
The industrial technological system we now live in will begin to stutter and then fade over the next century. John Michael Greer has written about this in his books The Long Descent, The Ecotechnic Future, and The Retro Future There are hard resource and energy limits that we will be running into.
I know Greer's works and others. I see resources as the fundamental constraint. I've written about the oil and gas situation. Russia's Far east and Arctic development plans face high energy and infrastructure hurdles. But seeing what they've already accomplished says they'll attain their goals.
A couple of points worth mentioning. Both China and Russia are sponsoring major research and investment in next generation nuclear technology. This takes the form of small modular reactors with inherent safety features, unlike current large scale power plants. Central Asia has abundant reserves of uranium to fuel these reactors which can power the entire economic corridor that I like to call the New Silk Road. (catchier than belt and road, dontcha think?)
In addition, China and much of Central Asia have enormous coal reserves which, utilizing nuclear generated electricity, can be converted to transportation fuel via the Fischer–Tropsch process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
The collective west, with its idiotic 'green agenda' will no doubt experience energy and fuel shortages in the years to come, but the Asian continent will forge ahead based on nuclear power, enabling electrification of rapid rail networks in lieu of air and road transportation. Electric cars will play a role over short distances - they already are - but high speed rail as you already see in Japan is the wave of the future.
I've taken the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka and Niigata and it was a real pleasure, much better than driving which I've also done in Japan. You can't even buy a car in Tokyo without showing proof of a private parking space, and the traffic is so bad you might as well not bother anyway. Walking and trains are the way to go in Tokyo!
Yes, Escobar also employs that term. I closely follow atomics and Rosatom's accomplishments. They've mastered the fuel cycle so very minimal waste is now generated--it's burned as fuel.
No doubt they will meet their present goals but the end of abundant oil and natural gas will come sooner or later (for me hopefully later)
Thank your also for this Zinoviev interview - a very deep thinker he was. It invites to a discussion about the societal values, who imposes the values, the use of global resources, the future of mankind. Will the globalization lead to disappearance of nations? Will the administration of societies be made simpler for ruling classes with the use of artificial intelligence, i.e. will the percentage of society needed to keep control over the entire population be actually lower than Zinoviev projects? no matter how you slice it, it makes me see dark. Zinoviev has in some respects seen farther in the future than many. His thoughts remind me of the words of S. Lavrov, who stated -paraphrasing- that world without Russia would not be worth living in.
He was not the only one who has seen the danger of americanism/westernism - I remember from my youth, that in the 1960-70s there were voices in the West warning about the "Coca Cola" neon signs all over the world.
I see Zinoviev's thinking resonating within the BRICS philosophy of resistance and within Putin's philosophy of governance. The discussion within Team Putin to recognize his centenary was probably fascinating. The "voices" began vocalizing soon after WW2 in films and Broadway productions that would never be produced today.
Some of his work can be accessed in full here without subscription or purchase. Unfortunately "West. The phenomenon of Westernism" is not useful study on this site.
https://avidreaders.ru/author/zinovev-aleksandr-aleksandrovich/
However the preface can be accessed here, without charge.
https://fb2.top/zapad-252864/read/part-2
https://www.litres.ru/book/aleksandr-zinovev/zapad-54133746/
For anyone that wants to buy books. Install LitRes app, it has multiple language options and payment with Google pay.
"West. The phenomenon of Westernism" is approximately 3 dollars.
Thanks very much, Natalya. The translated essay I have that will be parsed is "
Global Suprasociety and Russia," an abridged translation by Helen Shelestiuk
Original: Zinovyev, Aleksandr. Global'noye Sverkhobschestvo i Rossiya. Moscow:
�Labirint, 2000. I've yet to look at the home site of that paper to see if there's more. Looking into the past while so much is happening now is hard to do while living life as there's so much to examine and share. I'd like to know your opinion of Zinoviev.
"Humanity recognizes the current truth only when it is already becoming the past."
Nobody from the ruling class recognizes him as anything but their enemy. Anyone that does not is instructed to do so.
That's curious when I see much of his thought within the verbiage of Team Putin. Okay, but what's your opinion--what do you think?
He was a great man, noble. A very important part of Russian philosophy and culture, generally unrecognized. He is in fact for philosophy what Einstein is for theoretical physics. Neither consolidated knowledge at the time, but discarded existing theories and proposed their own. His work is important for human science in Russia and globally.
"Team Putin", wonderful description. Yes they recognize it for the purposes they want.
If someone is a nuisance, then regardless of what good they are for, it is not unusual to at least ignore them, perhaps more.
Three months before President Putin made that speech at the Valdai you linked, they had already blocked the construction of "Zinoteka", where all his work would have been available to Russians and future generations.
A company, "Science for Humanity" will build as the main idea of its project the "Zinotheque". Last month Olga Mironovna traveled to Iraq and signed a communique on the transfer of everything she owns, the entire creative and scientific heritage of Alexander Zinoviev to the Republic of Iraq.
Alexander Alexandrovich did not sing in the general choir. For this reason he was expelled. When he returned, nobody invited them, and nobody was available to receive them or help them. He supported CPRF, defeated Yeltsin on television. He was not returned the military rank, orders and medals, home or place in society.
Ksenia Zinovieva his daughter also represented the communists and challenged United Russia in regional elections.
There are russaphobes and fifth column western supporting elements everywhere. Government, oligarchs, education and cultural institutions, many more. Olga Mironovna has fought with all of them and everyone.
They don't sing in the general choir, any of them. The Zinovievs believe the successors of the USSR are ruling in the same way as those from the basements of the 1960s.
They never pretended otherwise.
So Alexander Alexandrovich was also a principled man, all of his life. So is his wife. They instilled these values in their family. That is a formidable achievement.
I will leave it at that.
Thanks very much for your appraisal. The double-dealing of Team Putin regarding Zinoviev is rather troubling--to honor yet dishonor--making Olga's actions understandable, although for me Iraq is a curious choice.
It is troubling you are right. If it was the only thing that was, it would be fine, but it's not.
I read with interest your opinion on Russia's policy to Israel. Another troubling subject.
Back to Zinoviev briefly. Naturally it can be considered a curious choice, and I completely agree.
Iraq is known as the cradle of civilization. Today it is trying to join civilization after the American invasion and westernization gifted to it. Considering this, the work of Alexander Alexandrovich found its home.
Hello everyone. всем привет! First time posting on this forum.
"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."
Certainly the Cold War played a major role by depriving the civilian sector of much needed investment that was diverted to maintain some semblance of military parity with the West, but I think it's equally true that maintaining such a vast empire with a large contingent of relatively unproductive citizens also took its toll. Speaking mainly about the Central Asian republics which were essentially welfare cases.
Also, coming from a peasant background I find it odd that Zinoviev doesn't cite the collectivization of agriculture as a major element in the decline. At one point the USSR had to borrow money from the USA to buy food. I remember those ships loading grain in Toronto. I also recall the adage, "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" which reflected the generally negative attitude towards collectivization. Collectivization runs counter to human nature which primarily strives for personal and family advancement. To not recognize this fact and incorporate its positive aspects into socialist doctrine to me seems like a major failure - a result of the official fantasy of forging a New Soviet Man, as if such a thing was even possible.
Two events that for me stand out as definitive, but are hardly ever mentioned in narratives of the Soviet collapse are the war in Afghanistan, and the disaster at Chernobyl. The war took an enormous toll on Soviet society, and while US involvement played a role, the task itself was insurmountable with or without US support for the Mujahideen. This had a similar effect to the Vietnam war in undermining national confidence and creating an atmosphere of disinterest and rejection of socialist ideals among the young. Again, I saw this play out first hand in the West and was myself drawn into that nihilistic vacuum for several years. Distrust in government was the defining feature of life in both the USA and the USSR throughout that period, which coincidentally lasted 10 years on both sides. As for Chernobyl, the accident itself, the botched cover-up, and the horrific human toll of not just the accident but also the clean-up, undermined what little confidence remained in the central government, and it was all downhill from there.
Another factor not often mentioned, which while external, can't be attributed to any sort of master plan on the part of the West is the 1980's oil glut which by 1986 had cut world oil prices in half. As a major oil producing nation, this had a devastating impact on the USSR's foreign earnings, which it desperately needed to offset the decline in food production caused by the previous collectivization and subsequent failed agricultural policies.
These are just a few of the variables in play over the years, so I wouldn't place the entire blame for the collapse on government mismanagement, but that definitely played a major role in my opinion. One thing piled on another basically, with an inadequate response at each turn due to an inflexible ideology. These factors to me seem more causative than any nefarious program cooked up in the West.
The point made is the policies of both sides worked to weaken what might have become strong before WW2, and later the inability to manage development that was exacerbated by externalities. Chernobyl was as you said a huge pitfall. It can be said the Team Putin has learned and profited from those mistakes. The mistake not to align with China in the 1950s was another big error which Puti rectified as soon as he consolidated his position as president in 2002.
There was clearly a western policy of opposing the USSR, pretty much from the get-go. Britain's Great Game of pitting Germany against Russia/USSR, the Red Scare, the Domino Theory, The Bay of Pigs, the fictitious 'missile gap' support for fascist governments in Latin America and elsewhere, all point to this. I just felt the author put too much emphasis on external pressure and too little on the internal dynamics.
Today's Russia demonstrates that it is possible to withstand the type of attacks that characterized the West's attack on the USSR, even to the point of turning them to their advantage. Ideological rigidity, combined with attempts to force drastic social change in too short a time frame was probably the main factor undermining social cohesion - much like Mao's Great Leap Forward, it was too much too soon. The people just weren't ready for that degree of sacrifice in the name of something they didn't fully understand or agree with. I think Russia's leadership has taken that lesson on board, which is why the current heavy focus on traditional family values, because that speaks directly to where people live.
Putin and others speak of two homelands--the little/local and the nation--and how these two loyalties intertwine and can make each other strong. Then there's the continual political-economic emphasis that all is for the people because the people create all. I've noted this aspect several times before: the equality given to Labor, Business and Government--they all sit together to plan, which is the opposite of the Western method. Everyone has a stake in the process and outcome. I'm following this whole process in an attempt to map it so it can be explained to a larger audience.
External pressure vs. internal dynamics: Having moved westward, Zinoviev would have inevitably adjusted his geopolitical viewpoint, yet he remained fully aware of the internal predicament of the USSR; cf. Yawning Heights, an incomparable guide to homo sovieticus. https://archive.org/details/yawningheights00alek_0
His perspicacy remains unsurpassed.
Thanks for posting that link. I found numerous copies available via Alibris for $5 plus shipping.
Also available at Anna's Archive
https://annas-archive.org/
I keep forgetting about Anna's. Thanks!
these are also useful
oceanofpdf.com
https://pdfdrive.to
www.holybooks.com
https://spitfirelist.com
Of course there's a ton of others, some good some sketchy, but these are the ones I've found that don't require a membership.
You make some good points, most of which I agree with. Talking to people who lived through the disastrous reign of Gorbachev, however, it is pretty clear that economic sabotage from within played a considerable role in further undermining people's confidence in the Soviet system. If we add to this well-documented testimony from Sazhi Umalatova in which she states unequivocally that the majority of the members of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR were bribed (often with what we would consider trifling insignificant amounts) to support Gorbachev, there is quite a body of evidence to suggest that the woes you list were added to by intentional internal sabotage of the system and an already profound dislike and distrust of the bureaucracy. Umalatova is clear about the corruption, so the obvious question arises as to who was doing the bribing?
The money printers in DC were doing the bribing.
Zinoviev: "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."...Mr. Zinoviev puts into words what I've been feeling for decades, that US elites have zero interest in the safety of its taxpaying citizens. "National security" doesn't exist. The end of the Soviet Union freed US mobsters. Russia is same "problem" for US as Soviet Union was: it's just too big and must be chopped up and handed out to others.
Certainly an intellectual of his time and very perceptive.
I have given it a first reading and much there that I fully agree with - much that requires further thought - and much that must be of real interest to RF and China.
One thought that did really grab me (if I have discerned it reasonably accurately) - to survive the encroaching Western Hegemon and its powerful controlling structures - military power is necessary but insufficient - it is essential that it is complemented by a very strong social, educational, cultural, intellectual, historical and psychological sense of a people's own civilization and right to its own destiny.
On this latter point - not a single country in Europe meets these criteria - except for RF which is both European and Asian, and attempting to move in said direction - along with China.
Onto Kazan and baby steps to take on, and keep out, The Big Baad Baby!
More please Karl. D.
Yes, socio-cultural power is required above all to repel the propaganda/values assault. It's possible to see that Zinoviev's thinking is present within Russian policies--the Year of the Family is clearly one example among many.
Yes. We agree on that one.
What a rich gift! To be read and re-read... Thank you!
Thanks for this, so much excellent insight.
Interesting that in no way did he envisage the rise of China to be the new challenger to the West, and also very much got it wrong with "world government". The US oligarchy still rules the roost of the West, Sean Starrs work on the ownership of US and Western corporations very much shows this. Russia has also arisen as a lesser national project that challenges the West, as has Iran. A bit too much pessimism, but it can be understood given the very dark period when this interview took place.
Foundations of the logical theory of scientific knowledge
https://annas-archive.se/md5/c843bb6ad943d53b9db10b3138e0653c
Logical Physics
https://annas-archive.se/md5/dcff8b231f8463cd5d5ab463aeef2a49
The Yawning Heights
https://annas-archive.se/md5/eb5765367c94e04ab66b665b62bed507
https://annas-archive.se/md5/0bf386b229f16dcebcfbedb1b8fb4d1b
https://annas-archive.se/md5/d86454136243f15169312b6035cc8401
The Radiant Future
https://annas-archive.se/md5/4d6ac6923e6aafee53f2c7f5aee1b8bb
https://annas-archive.se/md5/ff23baa909de3974112322d8cbb0f993
Communism as a Reality
https://annas-archive.se/md5/b3be5b5ec0d07e7880a4bdb0e46f920c
https://annas-archive.se/md5/45864dd643e50b2e6f1c8fb2e26cf40e
I had pretty much forgotten him - many thanks. The interview is greatly appreciated.
Großartiger Artikel. Sinowjew hat geradezu prophetische Aussagen zu einer Zeit getroffen als Russland unter Jelzien nur den Weg in den Abgrund vor sich hatte.
Also got on Zivoniev due to Putin’s speech. His term of westerners as “westoids” is great
An historical aside (as we are discussing philosophy)
The Philosophers’ Ship
In 1922 Lenin sent Russia’s best philosophers off on a cruise and told them not to come home unless they wanted to be shot. Alexander Razin and Tatiana Sidorina describe a ‘humanitarian act’ by a totalitarian regime.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/31/The_Philosophers_Ship