agreed Philipp Philippovich sadly...
Mikhail Bulgakov, Dog’s Heart
but there is something still better,
and that is love for the truth’’
Petr Chaadaev
As we know, extremes do meet. I will say even more: extremes often spring from the same root, nurse from the same juices, and rest on the same foundation, without even suspecting their proximity. In Ukraine’s political life, there are two extremes that present rather a serious danger to it: Marxism and nationalism. A great number of researches have been devoted to these phenomena, tons of paper used on them, and thus it is rather difficult to say something new in this field. This writer, however, does not have any such goal. My objective is far more modest: to try to point out the main reason why these two antagonistic political trends are popular. (True, recent developments in Russia have shown that Communists can well be nationalists at the same time, which again proves their inner unity.)
What made me take up this subject? Our heroes do not seem to lack for press coverage. The theme of Marxism, as applied to our long- suffering fatherland, seems to have long attained permanent relevance. The nationwide impact of nationalism has only become evident in the past few years, attracting less attention in the mass media, but still it would be wrong to say the media have been hushing up the problem of nationalism. Serious people are writing, researching, analyzing, and explaining to us why the Communists have defeated the nationalists at this stage, although it was just the opposite quite recently. And, of course, our respected analysts point out in their studies the reasons why the followers of Karl Marx and Stepan Bandera have both been gaining points. There are plenty of these reasons. Among them, the corruption and/or impotence of the current regime, which has brought about a fall in the living standards and aroused nostalgia for the notorious stagnation (this works for the Left). Also among them is national pride, age-old hatred for Big Brother still infected with the imperial disease, the successes of Dynamo Kyiv, and, finally, all the delights of the independence we have won (which, of course, favors the Right).
All this is true. But, in my opinion, the main reason is not being stated. As already stressed, this reason is the instinct of one for all, which is really for two. (This is also, let me note between the lines, the reason of all our troubles at the national level in general). And this reason seems to me so obvious and simple that I am surprised at the following: I have never seen until now any clear-cut and coherent indications of it in the press and other mass media.
I will not keep the reader in suspense any longer: I see the low level of culture in this country as the main reason for the popularity of both the Left and Right. This idea is, alas, by no means new. I even feel somewhat awkward writing on this subject. I almost immediately see the haggard face of a certain “intellectual” who blurts out, looking up in despair: “How much of this can we take?” That this subject became taboo in our press can perhaps be explained away by fear of this kind of reaction, as well as the fear of being accused of a cavalier attitude to the “ordinary people” or even (why not?) the whole nation. Too bad. Such delicacy can hardly be justified. Even Maxim Gorky, in his Untimely Thoughts, was not afraid of being accused of arrogance, nor did he pull punches to point out the low cultural level of the so-called popular masses. Why, then, are our present-day enlighteners so timorous? Who knows, perhaps they could even have changed something.
It is hardly necessary to prove that the cultural level of the average Ukrainian leaves much to be desired. Suffice it to cast glance, for example, at our People’s Deputies, the people’s choose
I daresay that both Communists and nationalists need precisely this. First, all of them, in the aggregate, are not distinguished, to put it mildly, by very good manners. Secondly, which is the main thing, lack of culture, stupidity, and ignorance provide fertile ground for these doctrines.
It is common knowledge that a person, not overburdened with excessive culture, gravitates toward a simplistic, black-and-white, or, to put in simple terms, primitive outlook. Good-bad, kind-cruel, friend-foe, pay-no pay, etc. This system of views is a favorite of both Marxists and nationalists.
Marxism is subject to pie-in-the-sky promises by its very nature and is oriented toward easy digestion, first of all, by the so-called common people. The same is true of nationalism. However, it should be added to this that, speaking about the popularity of Marxism and nationalism, we mean primarily the popularity of Marxists and nationalists. For very few people have read the works of the founders of these doctrines. And ideas are usually spread via the grapevine, when they are distorted by further simplification. And a simple idea, as one wise man said, has more chances to capture the masses. Which it (to be more exact these ideas) is doing successfully.
I would like to draw your attention to the following. Both the Left and the nationalists mostly think in negativist categories, according to what one is against. “Now it is bad, so this means it used to be good,” repeat the advocates of the guaranteed poverty. “No, it used to be bad, for we were dependent on Moscow,” their adversaries remind us. “Hence, to the contrary, it is good now.” But suffice it to take away from both camps their trump cards, the image of the enemy, and it becomes clear they are unable to offer anything constructive and mutually acceptable. The former push us toward a rancid past, while the latter, blinded by hatred for that past, pushing us away from it. As the saying goes, they lack other fantasies. And, frankly speaking, they do not need it. For the picture of the enemy is by far the best impulse that mobilizes and unifies the mob. All we have to do is to track him (the enemy) down. Well, we don’t need to be taught how to do this. Just see how many enemies we have: moskali (Russians — Ed.), dirty Jews, commie bastards, Bandera nationalists, and finally the government. It is easier and more pleasant, instead of soul- searching, to target your enemy and, together with your comrades, tar and feather him from head to toe. It eases one’s mind.
So neither the Left nor the Right are interested in raising the culture of the people. But who is? Logically, such interest should be evinced by the Center, but, as a song says, “Where can I find it?” And somebody might ask, “What about the state? I fear we will not find such a degree of interest here, for it has been known from time immemorial that it is easier to manipulate primitive, downtrodden, and uncouth people. We had a vivid example of this in our recent past.
Let us recall the year 1991. More than 70% of the electorate voted in the spring referendum for the preservation of the USSR (I do not remember the data for Ukraine, but in any case such people were in the majority). But as soon as December 1 of the same year, following a three-month most active brainwashing campaign in the required vein, over 90% of the same electorate cast their votes for the independence of Ukraine. Does this not prove that the bulk of our compatriots played, without even being aware of it, the role of puppets in the deft and experienced hands of wily politicians? And must I reiterate that a cultured person will never allow himself to be treated like cattle and be manipulated?
Moreover, the state always has a seemingly valid excuse that explains insufficient attention to culture: a shoestring budget. We cannot afford to subsidize culture and education on the required scope, when... Then comes the list of top-priority expenditure items. The picture is bleak indeed...
As mentioned above, this writer is well aware of the subject he treats being hackneyed. But I, as they say, do not seek originality. What made me take up the pen was a reminiscence about the Roman Senator Cato the Elder, who concluded his every speech with the words, Delenda est Carthago (Carthage must be destroyed). Thus, long before the inception of psychoanalysis, that person understood what an interesting thing the subconscious is and how important it is to be able to influence the latter. Cato managed to comprehend what many centuries later, Voltaire, who believed that even a beautiful idea bores if often repeated, did not. Cato was not afraid of being boring, so he reached his objective. Carthage, as we know, was destroyed by Rome, and we learned a good lesson to be guided by: if you think your opinion is correct and want it to be heeded and remembered, don’t be afraid to repeat it over and over. Incidentally, if I am not mistaken, something of the kind was also said by another great man, Genghis Khan.







