Chapter 1 - The Need for a Radical Alternative
In our society today there are two fundamental projects regarding the Russian future. They to one degree or another affect all aspects of national life, economics, geopolitics, international relations, ethnic interests, industrial structure, economic structure, military construction, etc.
The first project belongs to radical liberals, “reformers” who take Western society, the modern “trading system” as an example, and fully subscribe to projects about the “end of history” developed in the famous article of the same name by Francis Fukuyama. This project denies values such as people, nation, history, geopolitical interests, social justice, religious factor, etc. Everything in it is built on the principle of maximum economic efficiency, on the primacy of individualism, consumption and the "free market". The liberals want to build a new society on the site of Russia that has never existed historically, in which those rules and cultural coordinates will be established, according to which the modern West and, especially, the USA live.This camp can easily formulate the answer to any questions regarding a particular aspect of Russian reality on the basis of models already existing in the West, using Western liberal terminology and legal norms, and also drawing on the developed theoretical structures of liberal capitalism as a whole. Some time ago, this position almost ideologically dominated in our society, and even today it is it that is most famous, since it coincides with the general course and the fundamental logic of liberal reforms.
The second project of the Russian future belongs to the so-called the “national-patriotic opposition,” which is a diverse and diverse political reality, combined with an rejection of liberal reforms and a rejection of the liberal logic advocated by the reformers. This opposition is not just national and not just patriotic, it is "pink and white", i.e. it is dominated by representatives of communist statesmen (who have largely departed from the rigid Marxist-Leninist dogma) and supporters of the Orthodox-monarchist, tsarist type of statehood. The views of both components of the “united opposition” differ quite significantly, but there are similarities not only in the definition of a “common enemy”, but also in some mental, ideological cliches shared by both.Moreover, the patriotic “opposition” overwhelmingly consists of the leaders of the pre-perestroika system, who bring elements of a purely Soviet mentality even to the “white”, “tsarist projects”, to which most often they did not have any historical, family or political relationship before the beginning of perestroika, feeling great in Brezhnev’s reality. Be that as it may, the opposition project can be called "Soviet-tsarist", as it is based on some ideological, geopolitical, political, social and administrative archetypes that objectively bring together the Soviet and pre-Soviet period (at least in the framework of XX century). The ideology of patriots is much more controversial and confused than the logical and complete constructions of liberals,and therefore, it often does not manifest itself in the form of a complete concept or doctrine, but fragmentarily, emotionally, inconsistently and fragmentarily. Nevertheless, this grotesque conglomerate of mixed Soviet-tsarist mental fragments has some integrity, which, however, is sometimes not easy to structure rationally.
Both of these projects, both liberal and Soviet-tsarist, are essentially dead ends for the Russian people and Russian history. The liberal project generally involves the gradual erasure of the national features of the Russians in the cosmopolitan era of the “end of history” and the “planetary market,” and the Soviet-tsarist effort to revive the nation and state precisely in those historical forms and structures that, in fact, gradually led the Russians to collapse .
On the other side of the liberalism of the "reformers" and the Soviet-tsarism of the "united opposition" there is an urgent need for a "third way", for a special ideological project that would not be a compromise, not a "centrism" between the two, but a completely radical innovative a futuristic plan breaking with the hopeless dualistic logic of “either liberals or the opposition” where, as in a maze without a way out, the current Russian public consciousness rushes about.
It is necessary to cut the Gordian knot and establish a true alternative, opposing both of them. At stake is the great nation, its interests, its fate.