The Thinking Reed

AC: What is hard-line Stalinism today as a political project?

BK: The Stalinist project states, first, We must re-establish the initial values of the system, not liberalize it, not change it, not democratize it, but recognize that the only way to solve our problems now is to turn back to the initial stage of the system, of the thirties, to restore the same structures and the same mode of operating inside the structures. Second, as one Stalinist author wrote, We need a whip. That is, to make functionaries and workers more productive, democratic elements in the system should not be nurtured; per contra, some kind of moral terror should be established. Their economic project is simply to limit consumption, to destroy Western patterns of consumption, thus to free up resources for the second industrialization, which means scientific breakthroughs with computers and so forth. What is interesting is that, psychologically and ideologically, these Stalinists have a lot in common with Reagan’s neo-conservatives. They’re always talking about national pride, traditional values, moral climate, while at the same time urging struggle against subversive external influences, liberal tendencies of an allegedly counterproductive nature. So, psychologically, neo-Stalinism is more like Reaganaut neo-conservatism than like old-fashioned Stalinism. Now, that kind of propaganda is very efficient — not among the youth but among the older age groups.

AC: That’s a strong intellectual current?

BK: You can’t find too many self-respecting intellectuals in this camp, but you do find these ideas at the popular level. Then there is a liberal, Westernizing current, which, naturally, is better than neo-Stalinism but, all the same, is rather out of touch with reality. Its adherents want to copy Western modes of management, thinking, behaviour, without considering how ordinary people would react. They don’t think about traditional Russian or Soviet culture. Not ideology but culture. Russian culture is not consumer oriented or profit oriented. Even Russian capitalism was inefficient because the capitalists were always more interested in the moral influence they could have on the workers than in the simple business of profit.

Then there is a current called cultural democracy. Those of this mind say they aren’t interested in capitalism or socialism. They say, That’s not our problem. They say they want free culture; under which system is a matter of indifference.

AC: They don ’t think about the relations of production?

BK: Not at all. It’s a kind of historical liberalism. There’s also a current — weakening — of liberal communism of the Twentieth Party Congress genre, which is simply trying to say once again everything said during the Khrushchev period. It’s influential among people in their sixties, for whom the Khrushchev period was very important, their shining hour. It has absolutely no influence on youth. There’s also a growing nationalist tendency. It’s not 100 per cent Stalinist, but there is a de facto alliance between the two.

AC: You ’re talking about Pamyat'?

BK: They’re anti-Semitic, saying the Jews are responsible for things that go wrong, force them to pay and so on; but the most important thing is that it is based on some feeling of frustration, especially among the petty bureaucracy — engineers, bureaucrats who are underpaid but not qualified for raises. They don’t want competition, especially with Jews.

AC: As Bebel said, anti-Semitism is the socialism of the fools.

BK: There are a lot of people thinking like that.

AC: You’re 29. What was formative for your generation — people from 25 to 34, say?