Soviet Struggles

What happens to a country that has experienced the most vehement revolution in the early 1900s and has failed the ideals of that revolution about eighty years after? After the break-up of the Soviet Union, most of the Soviet bloc and Soviet states were completely disillusioned with communist revolutions. They first-handedly experienced the tremendous hypocrisy of the Soviet State 'communism' that most of us in the West can never imagine. The case of Russia is probably on of the most interesting especially with the current situation in play. Russia, the largest of the former States, has increasingly moved towards Fascism. This is quite ironic because every child grew up fearing and hating the "Fascists." The "Fascism" of the past was attached to the villain in Marxist ideology and most importantly to Germany in World War II, but not to Russia's politics. Now that fascism or hyper-nationalism has been used by Russians, it is no longer a vile thing but a way to get back to Russian roots and has become distinctly Russian. The amazing thing about fascism is that how quickly it is assimilated into culture. To return to the original question; this article will attempt to describe the past, present, and future of Russia. The attempt will be diagnosing Russia and prescribing an antidote manufactured by Julia Kristeva and Hannah Arendt.

Under the Soviet Union, everyone was forced to take part in the "society of spectacle" as Kristeva would say. The "society of Spectacle" was a distinct society in USSR and slightly different from Ktisteva's definition. This society required everyone to go on demonstrations that were staged, participate in "reenactment" of a revolution, do community service, and countless other events that usually occur spontaneously and without force elsewhere. Plurality was hunted down. After 80 years of fake protests and coerced community outreach, every member of the communist states abhorred demonstrations and community altruism. There were people dumbstruck upon arriving in US and other European communities where they saw people volunteering out of their own will. They asked, "Why would someone do that if they were not forced to do it?" The Soviet party managed to quell basic instincts humans have possessed throughout their existence of basic cooperation and community-building. As many post-Soviet figure of reconstruction have lamented this coerced spectacle has dampened the ability to form a civil society which is vital to a functioning democracy (at least in the opinion of Western political scientists).

This is a great beginning point to address the problem that Kristeva and others have articulated. How do you instill revolutionary spirit or how can a revolution occur in a society where "revolution" is and has been a tool of the oppressor, Soviet Party? Kristeva's two books Sense and Non-Sense of Revolt and Intimate Revolt redefine and displace the revolution in the psyche. She sets herself out the task of pointing out the way for a culture of revolt, a culture that would move us "beyond the two impasses where we are caught today: failure of rebellious ideologies, on the other hand, and the surge of consumer culture, on the other" (2000, 7).
Kristeva calls for a low form of revolt. The massive political revolutions have failed especially in Russia; therefore, one can only rescue revolution by shifting in the psyche. She even states that only since the 1800s has the concept of "revolt" or "revolution" has been co-opted by the political, so in her two volumes she tries to rescue revolution from the political by displacing it in the psyche by using Freud.

As we have seen though, the future of Russia after the break-up of the Soviet Union has been bleak. Russia has been plagued with the worst economic collapse and reduction of longevity. Most Scholars would agree that the USSR was an imperialist regime that was bent on "Russifying" everyone and everything. This can be proved, for example, by the forcing of the Russian language on every other Soviet member, preferring ethnic Russians to high post, and most importantly the failure of working class ideology. Since Russia has lost its great empire, they have doubled their efforts to keep their "near and abroad" countries and places under their influence either by force or aid. The population suffering from tremendous amount of hardships has turned to nationalism or the government has used nationalism to co-opt the population who was/is suffering from men's life expectancy of 50 years of age in the 90s, binge-drinking and serious prostitution. Nationalism has fueled new "joie de vivre" for many who would like to blame others for their misery and rejoice in their ethnic suits.

The real nationalist movement began when Putin came to power in 2000. He was an ex-KGB agent who is/was the biggest Mafioso of the oligarchs. He dismissed and/or limited the power of any other council or legislative body and slowly cracked down on journalists. In a totalitarian regime, one must limit speech as Hannah Arendt believes because when there is no speech there is violence. Speech is what separates us and binds us and is equated with action for Arendt. Speech allows for pluralism. An ideology like nationalism cannot allow speech because it is against heterogeneity and action. A perfect example of violence and speech is the recent killing of Anna Politkovskaya. She was an extraordinary Russian journalist who relentlessly pursued freedom of speech by which she uncovered the atrocities committed by Russian-backed Chechen government. Another person was murdered by poisoning in the UK because he was investigating Politkovskaya's death and Putin's atrocities. There are so many other journalists and others have been killed to limit the power of speech and commit tremendous amount of violence towards other groups. As one reporter from Rustavi 2, a Georgian media, states "As long as we keep doing what we are doing, there is still some hope."

In 2001, September 11 occurred in the US. Right after the event, Bush declared "war against terrorism." Putin was one of the first to offer services to Bush in his war. This statement led Putin to declare his membership in the war on terrorism. The region of Chechnya has tries to secede from Russia unsuccessfully. Russia has used brute force to quell independence. They have placed a puppet government in Chechnya that commits heinous crimes against humanity sometimes disguised under Islam. The Chechen rebels who fought for independence have escaped into Georgia and other countries near by or have been tortured and killed. Putin justifies his actions in Chechnya including murdering and torturing women and children, as his "war against terror." Of course, these rebels fit the stereotype of terrorist such as being Muslim and violent. Many don't understand that these people are not violent in a vacuum but are hunted down and oppressed which leads them to defend themselves. It is the Muslims that are backed by Russia that commit horrible acts in the name of Islam. Putin also uses the jargon of international politics such as "state terrorism" in accusing Georgia of being state terrorists when the government arrested Russian spies who were trying to undermine their government. We saw what happened to Yushenko in Ukraine after the he went against Russain interests and joined the Western countries, Russian spies poisoned him.

In cases like serious oppression such as Chechnya it is difficult to demand an "apolitical revolution," like the kind Kristeva forms. Kristeva describes today's situation as not having anything to rebel against in the age of globalization, but here in this case there is clearly a figure of Putin and Russia these figures are fighting against. The only really difficult thing is Chechens fighting Chechens who are supported by Russia. The ethnic question gets really blurred. If Chechens are basing their independence on their ethnic and religious identity, then the same people they want to liberate are the ones that defend the existing system. That has always been a major issue with present and former colonial countries. Perhaps, we can use the quote Kristeva wants etched everywhere that states, "If I knew something useful to myself and detrimental to my family, I would reject it from my mind. If I knew something useful to my family but not to my homeland, I would try to forget it. If I knew something useful to my homeland and detrimental to Europe, or else useful to Europe and detrimental to mankind, I would consider it a crime" (1991,130). Many people understand the quote up to forgetting the something that is detrimental to the homeland, but not past that. Neither Chechnya or Russia is an exception. Then again, one cannot help but wonder if these types of thoughts and ideals are in any way pertinent to a place torn by civil war from Russian antagonism? Kristeva does not address the luxury of thought.
In Russia where most of the population is hijacked by nationalism and its agents, how can one ask the concept of "Je me voyage?" This concept is Kristeva's internal revolt or journey. It is the equivalent to "I journey myself." Instead of the political or other dominating the person, the person is able to go within themselves by the way of the Third. This concept of the third comes from Freud. This means that a revolt in the psyche can only happen by withdrawing of affective ties from an ideal object and of the establishment of new ties with a new object. In other words through distancing or hesitation, thoughtfulness is possible. The third can be psychoanalyst or in general a socio-symbolic support. Requires the Third to be directly involved in order for mediation and abstraction. In a place as destitute as Russia and as fascistic, can one find the Third? "Je me voyage" cannot be rescued from the material conditions that prevail in Russia.

Those in the "society of spectacle" which is the virtual rather than real world in which the media, strengthened by a complex network of information technology which fosters and promotes the society of spectacle and the culture of entertainment, it is up to the members to resurrect a culture of revolt. This "society of spectacle" is harder to pin down in Russia because it has signs such as complex networks of information that propagate this society, but the means available to the population is limited compared to Western countries.

Kristeva states, " I can never sufficiently emphasize the fact that totalitarianism is the result of a certain fixation of revolt in what is precisely is betrayal, namely, the suspension of retrospective return, which amounts to a suspension of a thought" (2002, 6). An example of this is Russia's move towards fascism which is a withdrawal into old values or dogmas that prohibit returning to "the scene of the crime" instead of creating new values that would relentlessly repeat retrospective return. Kristeva believes we must return to the moment of trauma over and over again and articulate it every time because though the subject can never be exhaustible we must attempt to articulate it. The diagnosis of modernity is just that an inability to return to the trauma and express or narrate, but keep returning to the trauma over and over again without expression.

In today's Russia we can find a state that has lost its ideals and has turned itself inwards. Instead of finding new values, they have adapted old one like nationalism and fascism but in Russian colors. The situation does not seem to get better as racist rhetoric is being strengthened and hate-crimes are proliferating. After the Georgian government arrested Russian spies, Putin accused Georgia of being state-terrorists. Since then, Russia has tried to economically stifle Georgia. Last year Gazprom, the Russian gas giant cut off gas to Georgia and Ukraine in one of the coldest winters. This year after the scandal, hundreds of Georgians were deported from Russia as well as their businesses were shut down. One men died in the airport because he was asthmatic an the Russian officers wouldn't let him see a doctor. One of the worst things to occur was making it illegal for Georgian children to attend school. There were signs that beginning of October no ethnically Georgian child could go to school. These were all documented, and no one did anything. Russians in general started speaking loudly about the racial inferiority of Georgians. The government did nothing to ameliorate the situation instead unleashed propaganda machines to groom the anti-Georgian sentiments.

The racial and ethnic hate crimes have been going on for over a decade in Russia, but it has been underreported. In St. Petersburg, nationalist newspapers fill the newsstands while critical media is abolished. Hate-crime groups have modeled themselves after Nazis and have idealized such figures as Stalin and Beria, the two most vicious murderers of the USSR who ironically are both Georgians. Their mission statement is to get Caucasians (include Georgians), Central Asians, Blacks, and others out of their country because they are to blame for the hardships of Russia. Their biggest accomplishment was to murder a prominent figure of tolerance with a Nazi gun. They have also murdered an eight year old girl from Central Asia for not being Russian. Some might say that these are kids who did these acts, but their ideologies were found by influential government figures who own many of the magazines and newspapers of hate. The prohibition of speech is violence to Arendt while hate speech is also violence.

Sixty years after Hitler, we see the same thing occur in Russia who at the time paraded around like the greatest enemy to Nazism. In this globalized world where everything is so connected, we are left again in this society of spectacle where this interconnected world and media fails to report fascism developing under our nose. People like Arendt dedicated her life to fighting totalitarianism and Kristeva has taken over the reigns from her, yet we still see the rise of totalitarian systems and we can attribute that to modernity.

Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. On Revolution. England: Penguin Books, 1990.
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago UP, 1998.
Kristeva, Julia. Strangers to Ourselves. New York: Columbia UP, 1991.
Kristeva, Julia. The Sense and Non-Sense of Revolt. Vol. 1. New York: Columbia UP, 2000.
Kristeva, Julia. Intimate Revolt. Vol. 2. New York: Columbia UP, 2002.