Katehonic Position of the October Revolution

To adequately assess the Bolshevik revolution - it should be properly located in relation to previous events of Russian history (and the universal one). It is a typical Western misunderstanding to imagine that “the Bolshevik wilderness overcame a stable social Order, based on the alliance of the Imperial Throne, Orthodox Altar supported by the committed Elite of the Land and the Army. No, definitely not.

February Revolution as the biggest tragedy of Russia

First of all, we must remember that the October Revolution was preceded by the February one. The greatest tragedy that could ever happened to Russia: geopolitically, socially, politically, and economically and in goals and assumptions. The Russian elites were already ill, infected with the virus of self-destruction, suicidal hate to their own country, its system and World position. Just a small game of British intelligence was to enough to collapse the Tsarist regime as a paper-mâché construction, just because the Romanovs (the same as the Bourbons 120 year earlier) were not able to break away with their traditional but false background, those treacherous elites, and find the real roots of any monarchy, Slavic in particular - the people, the Nation. The main idea of the Russian state was based on the faith of the Russian people in the Tsar's ability and will to implement all necessary reforms and reliefs for the faithful subjects. Russia has for centuries been a model example of the legitimacy of a conservative way of progress in which only those changes were made which solved real problems - and it has been happening in the only one natural direction, from the Imperial top – down, to the Nation.

In 1917 even the blind knew that there could be only one program for the Empire, expressed in two words: PEACE and LAND. At near the Tsar on that time, there was even a man who exemplified both of these postulates and portrayed: Rasputin (therefore, in the British revolutionary plan was, in the first place, to eliminate Grigori Yefimovich). But the Tsar not only did not save his people, did not make Peace and gave no Land, but he did something even worse. Tsar betrayed his people, relinquishing the Crown. Tsar betrayed his people - so he was killed. This is only summary of the sad life of Nicholas II.

At that moment, however, the emperor without a crown lived, and the power over Russia was in hands of the British embassy, but without any possibility to control even the situation in Petrograd. Yes, that was the West who provoke and organise the Bolshevik reaction, but not by putting Lenin in train.  The real cause of the October Revolution was… Western rush. Even before the outbreak of the Great War, primarily because of Stolypin’s policy - Russia began to fall into a systematic, deep dependency on Western loans and investments, and the reforms were only intended to facilitate the control of British and French "partners". The loss of geopolitical autonomy by the Empire was only a confirmation of the phenomenon that took place primarily in the field of economics (and as previously mentioned - also the elite consciousness). And if the British did not hurry to take over everything and immediately - perhaps in some decades, the scale of Western-Russian ties would be greater than in the infamous 90s of the Twentieth Century, and the major threat to the World hegemony of the London City would disappear.

The British, however, mentioned - were impatient, noticing that in Russia there is no force able to oppose their interests. And yes, Dear Reader, you are right - they have missed. Because there was such a party!

The Bolsheviks as defenders of Russia

Therefore, with all the absurdity of the communist ideology, with all the tragedies caused by its practice, it should be noted that the Bolshevik revolution itself was paradoxically ... Katehonic. This was evident during the Civil War - when among the active opponents of the Reds we do not find many monarchists, reactionaries, traditionalist. On the contrary, all liberals, democrats, social democrats, or representatives of such left-wing parties, like the SRs, who could be probably more bloody and mad than the Bolsheviks, after coming to power. Even more clearly, the Katehonic position of October, however, was seen as part of the fight against foreign intervention, which allowed the process of integration of the country and Nation, which ended only a quarter of a century later, during the Great Patriotic War.

So, although the leaders of October themselves set different goals, and many of them sincerely dreamed of a World communist revolution, and genuine imperialist tendencies were to emerge in the leadership of the state many years later - the Bolsheviks defended Russia from the threat of falling into dependence on foreigners, the largest since Napoleon's invasion and Poles in the Kremlin. Moreover, Bolshevism represented a revolutionary principle - it had a passionarity, forgotten or unreachable for the Tsars. Russia renounced her geopolitical interests, withdrew from the Great Game, was not interested in continuing the simple to win war with Japan and gaining a greater presence in the Far East – was left a step behind, while the USSR's with its ideological engine started to compete for the World hegemony, covered the new areas of the Globe, where no one even want to look at the Tsarist Times. For countries like Poland, no longer able to build their own empire, but interested in defending their national security against existential threats (from the German side) and geopolitical-economical ones (first caused by the UK and then by the USA) - the emergence of an Eastern partner was just a life chance. And although not immediately and painlessly - so after all, in the next few decades after the October it happened.

That’s why, justly mourning the sacrifices of the Revolution and understanding all the miseries that Bolshevism has brought to Russia and the World - we must remember, however, that Spiritus flat ubi vult. And sometimes the role of the Katehon is played by someone / something we would never suspect. And who would never admit it himself…

OK – say someone – even if the October Revolution was Katehonic – so what did happen in the 90’s?! And

Where is the Katehon now?

Among the numerous versions of alternate history, the most important question for our part of Europe is this about “Was the fall of Communism historic necessity?”, with very unsatisfied answer: "It must have happened, if it happened!". In Eastern countries if someone asking like that more often it is just pure satire or primitive propaganda, where we are to be happy having smartphones and more modern cars than 30 years ago, what of course never would happen if communists were still in power in our states. More serious reflection is lacking once because some analysts openly despise alternative analyses not appreciating their cognitive significance, and secondly, we have to do with the axiom: "Communism simply collapsed as clearly worse than liberal democracy supported by globalizing Capitalism” (paradoxically, in that way "communism" proved its legitimacy, at least in the field of historiosophysical mechanisms, because supporting the thesis of the inevitable victory of demo-liberalism is just the most ordinary Marxist historical determinism, only à rebours).

The official version of history is so well-known that there is no point in citing or analyzing it, although the accent is unfolding: the undeveloped economic and social contradictions of communism, the growing social conflict, the insoluble crisis of confidence in the line: “political power – society”, Gorbachev, Reykjavík, IMF, Rothschild, etc. Some of these circumstances actually had a bearing on the choice - yes, the choice made in the Eastern Bloc to complete its separate existence, with the formal ending of  the "Cold War" (interestingly, at the beginning of the Nineties, very fashionable, especially in the Polish center-right, were these "sovietologists" who, like Guy Sorman and Alain Besançon, generally denied the thesis of the collapse of the USSR with its neighbors, sawing only the gigantic manipulation and “regrouping of the Evil Empire for the final game with the West”. Echoes of these visions are still heard today in the stories about the "KGB=Putin", which still implements the same sinister scenario for the free World, in which all in Russian policy was prepared and planned 60 years ago by Stalin… What’s a pity, that it is only imagination…).

Who highjack the Bank?

In fact, however, the history of "communism" as a geopolitical-political experiment was ended first and foremost in psychological and then sociological processes, not so much as the crisis of faith in "communism" (since the Stalinist period in practice has been constantly decreasing), but increasingly as the need for a shortcut, fastening of the march to increased and higher quality of consumption. That were not the ordinary people wanting cars, satellites and VHSs who grab the Eastern Block, but the ruling class broke off ties with the ideological Superstructure! They wondered what they could achieve if the system lasted. After answering the question, he immediately collapse it.

Polish searchers of the alternative route of economic and political transformation for Poland, and in particular the followers of the "Chinese Road", have repeatedly deplored the idea of philosopher Miroslaw Dzielski, and his famous 30 years ago "Letter to Lieutenant Borewicz" (the person from the popular in the 80’s TV-series “Доложи, 07”, officer of the Militia living in communistic state, but following some Western standards, withouth any ideological approach). That was a conception addressed to the authorities of the People's Republic of Poland proposing a division, exchange: “for recognizing the unrestricted freedom of the citizen - be rich”. The whole problem seems to be in the fact that the leadership (not only Polish, but above all the Soviet comrades), carefully analyzed exactly the same problem as the Cracovian philosopher - and found it more profitable to take the money and left shadows of political power to the people.

Communism, as it is known, has taken from the revolutionary triad "equality" and, being implemented in the less developed part of the World, has had to reach the consumer shortage, which means despite consistent economic progress, its effects have been flattened and slowed down by uravnílovka, legitimate and immanent feature of the system. Thus, ordinary people were upset that they did not have canned beer as their counterparts in the West, but also what the leaders could count on, whose privilege was relative? On the "dachas" in the size of Western middle-class houses? Something had to be done, to end frustrating all equality, to lead to economic delinquency, and start concentrating capital and wealth in select hands.

Even Eastern oligarchs are beggars…

The consequences of this path of evolution for Poland and al the Eastern Europe have been described many times. In our case, there is a number of additional factors which have also contributed to the overall unfavorable course of the transformation, further accelerating the process: from consistently reducing the income of the population, by adopting an unreasonable way of ownership change in industry, to paying geopolitical guarantees of irreversibility all these processes. Although there are still  so many "experts" convincing “that was only one possible choice” - it is still a timid tale of memory that the general improvement of living conditions is for the general Poles (and not only for us) that was the end of the 80's, not the beginning of the 90's, so even this instinctive need "to be like the West" - began to be satisfied at the end of the People's Republic of Poland, and other communistic state which ultimately did not affect improved its chances to survive.

It must be noted that the particular Polish point of view, i.e. the answer to the question "Could the People's Republic of Poland survive?" is not sensible because we are talking about changes and decisions carried out within the whole Bloc, with the decisive role, of course, of Moscow. The effects of the changes in the Soviet Union were also particularly acute toxic, with Yeltsin-times affectation by the oligarchs. It happened so because (contrary to the popular Polish and Eastern Europe prejudice), there was much more to steal in Russia, than in the other Eastern countries and it was relatively easy to exploit this wealth without much involvement of Western capital, which in Poland proved to be impossible on a large scale. What is important, however - is that the whole that process in Russia would be also easier to reverse and re-subordinate the economy to the interests of the state.

The Polish, and other Eastern Europe economies despite partial oligarchisation, lost almost of theirs potential and independence, even than in the worst Yeltsin-times in Russia. Our "oligarchs" act only as subcontractors of the Western financiers, a bit like franchise shopkeepers. Russian ones, although also dependent on their principals from the Wall Street and the London City were, however, just a little bit more powerful reminding rather (to remain on the commercial analogy) the presidents of shopping malls. And the real reason of that difference was that the Soviet economy, its potential - did not show economic premise of collapse! And on the contrary, despite its distraction, consumerism infecting the Soviet society or the Arms Race (with the popular but purely propagandist Reagan’s “Star Wars”) – Soviet economy would be able to survive even dramatically bad management of the Gorbachev era! The ridiculed so many times on the West Khrushchev forecasts how Soviet economy outrun the Western one had to be corrected (because the West did not give up without fighting, and he defended primarily psychologically, in the sphere of propaganda), and the ridiculous dates of "reaching communism" ceased. But an upward, consistent growing trend, especially in terms of production capacity was obvious and clear. Ordinary people wanted just canned beer and VHS, but speaking about strict macroeconomic data we have no doubt to confirm that the final victory of the East was just at our fingertips!

Ex Oriente Lux – they spoiled - they should fix!

Communism has fallen not so much because it has exhausted its resources and potential for growth and development - but precisely for the opposite reason: for it has generated wealth and potential, which has become more attractive to the alienated center of power, which knew that does not have nor trust, nor sympathy of the ruled subjects. Bolsheviks were able to win when the Tsar's betrayed his people, and gave up power to the democrats, so a new sovereign was to appear. And then - the successors of the Bolsheviks left the ungrateful people, enriched on them, and, in addition, abandoned their geopolitical partners. So it's come full.

So, one hundred years after the October Revolution and almost thirty years after the East Block collapse, the ownership in our part of the World is concentrated in the hands of the few, and geopolitically we found ourselves in a camp not only exotic for our interests, but also creating a permanent danger to us all – and all that happened because of desires of some powerful Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians etc. and their dreams about “the partnership” with the great Western financier… To repair this historic defeat, it is necessary to go this way in the opposite direction, the reverse process. That is why it is so important for us all to awake Russia, to cut off its embarrassing ties with the West, to cut down the oligarchs, and to return to productivity and self-sufficiency superior to those of the Soviet era, based on new alliances based in the all Eurasian area.

New times require new answers - and traditional mechanisms. The Bolsheviks knew that well. And sometimes we should the same tools to rebuild which we used to destruction – so it would be a kind of " the Historical Justice", if Russia find her only possible way. Because the only one possible and final Katehon of our World – is Eurasian Russia.