Populism or principles?

Quite unexpectedly, a serious issue for the Russian left has become the question of whether it is worth using the tools of conservatives and whether it is worth refraining from criticizing them. This concerns, for example, such conservative values as patriotism and religion, as opposed to post-nationalism and atheism.

Some social democrats believe that patriotism and religion should not be criticized because this may alienate broad masses; some on the left even propose using, for example, their own version of patriotism¹, in order to more easily gain support among the masses. In essence, this is a policy of populism. According to one of the definitions from Dictionary.com, populism refers to political practices that appeal not to any coherent ideology, but to the opinion of “ordinary people”². A similar definition is found in the Cambridge Dictionary³ and in the Ozhegov dictionary⁴. The Great Russian Encyclopedia states that populism is “a political practice and a related style of rhetoric aimed at rapidly gaining popularity and mass support”⁵. That is, if we shape our demands in accordance with the opinion of “ordinary people”, who are under the influence of the propaganda machine, then this is populism. Accordingly, if someone says that social democrats should express not the most well-argued position, but the one that will appeal to the broad masses, this is a proposal to use populism. How might events develop if populism is used?

Volatility of public opinion

So, we are faced with a question — should we adhere to the viewpoint that is popular, or the one that is best substantiated? First of all, it should be noted that popularity is a dynamic phenomenon. As Vedomosti reports, citing Lev Gudkov, director of the Levada Center, “in the 1990s, Russians had a predominantly negative attitude toward Stalin”⁶. By 2019, however, Stalin’s approval rating had reached 70%⁷. According to the 1897 census, adherents of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism alone (not counting other beliefs) made up nearly 94% of the population of the Russian Empire⁸. In the 1970s–1980s, as Doctor of Historical Sciences Lyubov Soskovets reports, “most domestic sociologists of religion cited moderate figures for believers in the country — 15–20%”⁹. Finally, according to RIA Novosti, citing the Pew Research Center, in 1991 Orthodox Christians in Russia accounted for 37%, and by 2017 this figure had risen to 71%¹⁰. Thus, we see that public opinion on many issues often “swings” from one side to another, meaning that the masses do not have a stable opinion. And it is precisely this unstable opinion that supporters of populism propose to rely on.

By relying on populism, one would have to change their position along with the majority, which will ultimately lead to a reputation as “political prostitutes” and “corrupt politicians” with no principles of their own. Populism is therefore aimed at short-term gains (which it will not achieve without significant funding), but loses in the long term. If, instead, we determine — through the collection of arguments and data — the position that best aligns with our values (choosing among patriotism, nationalism, internationalism, post-nationalism, and so on), and consistently adhere to it, then, provided the work is properly structured, we will gain strength each time public opinion shifts (rather than suffer a loss of reputation).

As Doctor of Law Alexander Malko notes:

The immorality of populism lies in the fact that it manipulates people’s trust and distorts it. In the history of humanity, the need to unite efforts, including in the implementation of a specific political course, has always given rise to the need for mutual obligations (of politicians and rulers, on the one hand, and the people, on the other) and, consequently, for their mutual trust.

Trust, in turn, is an attitude toward the actions of another person and toward that person themselves, based on the conviction of their correctness, reliability, decency, and honesty. Trust, as a certain moral relation, is not a simple result of real interdependence among people. It has a proactive character, which is expressed, for example, in the maxim: “One must trust a person”. Preceding actual relations between people, it is then either reinforced and deepened by these relations or, on the contrary, destroyed by them.

Populism, often establishing — with a degree of hypocrisy — deliberately fictitious mutual obligations (a kind of deal concluded under deception), destroys people’s trust in politicians and politics, and devalues even the most admirable ideas and values. This constitutes the main social harm of populism, since trust is the necessary foundation upon which any constructive policy can be built¹¹.

Relations with allied movements

Second, political movements rely on ideological allies. For conservatives, these include believers, militarists, patriots, and so on. For social democrats, these include atheists, pacifists, cosmopolitans, and so on (we have already written an article listing the allies of social democrats). To play on the “patriotic field” means to play on the field of conservatives. If you begin to flirt with patriots, you may gain their approval, but not their support. They will remain the electorate of conservatives; for them, you will be, at best, merely an enemy who has made a slight concession, and at worst, a “submissive pushover”, to use the language of some of them. And if you try to orient yourself toward them, you may ultimately drift into conservatism and “corrupt politics”.

On the other hand, if you begin to flirt with patriots, you lose the support of cosmopolitans — and most likely forever. If you remain aligned with friendly ideologies, build relationships with them, and support their development, the result will be, in the worst case, a small but highly cohesive and capable movement; in the best case, a large and cohesive one.

No benefit, only harm

Third. The protest of supporters of conservative values is not really a protest, but rather discontented grumbling. They may criticize the government, corrupt media, and the “Putin gang”, however, when those same media tell them that the protests are funded by the West, they will begin fighting the “orange plague”¹². And the left, having managed to recruit patriots into their movement without explaining to them the harm of patriotism, will end up with a faction within their movement working toward division and a rightward shift. In order for opposition-leaning supporters of conservative values to become genuinely oppositional rather than controlled by the government, it is necessary to actively criticize the entire system of their values, to overturn their consciousness, and to fully win them over.

In the article on the mistakes of the Bolsheviks, we already examined one of them — they did not work to exclude conservatively minded members, and as a result a group of such members (Stalin’s group) carried out the mass extermination of Bolsheviks and a conservative coup. Resorting to populism and concessions regarding conservative values means repeating the mistakes of past political movements, stepping on the same rake again.

According to Jan-Werner Müller, a professor of political science and founding director of the Project in the History of Political Thought at Princeton University, populism harms the democratic system as a whole¹³, and “populists should be criticized for what they really are — a serious threat to democracy”¹⁴. He notes that appealing to the opinion of the masses may be mere hypocrisy:

Often it appears as if populists stand for the common good that the people desire. But upon closer inspection, it turns out that populists are concerned not so much with the outcome of a genuine process of popular will-formation or with the common good in a commonsense understanding, as with the symbolic representation of the “real people”, from which the “correct policy” can be derived. Thus, the populist’s political position becomes immune to empirical refutation. Populists can always play the card of the “real people” or the “silent majority”…¹⁵

A service to conservatives

Fourth. If we do not criticize patriotism, more citizens will believe that patriotism is good. If we do not criticize religion, more citizens will believe that religion is good (and in the article on the harm and benefits of religion, we emphasized that it contains many negative aspects). Because we do not convey an alternative point of view. In essence, we reduce the circle of our potential supporters. If we do not criticize patriotism, we thereby do a huge favor to conservatives, whose positions largely rest on patriotism.

Alexander Malko notes that “populism is an evasion of the real problems that exist, of the objectively existing interests and needs of people”, that “populism is the creation of popularity through social demagoguery, the attraction of the masses to one’s side by demagogic means and methods”¹⁶. Like demagoguery, it is not what it proclaims itself to be; it presents itself as something else. Evasion of the real interests and needs of the masses, demagoguery — all this benefits those who defend elite interests, but not social democrats.

Often, people who suffer oppression, exploitation, or discrimination say — and are not lying — that they are happy. Many of them even oppose changes that would greatly improve their lives: for example, most European women opposed the introduction of women’s suffrage in the early twentieth century. Some may even actively support the preservation of injustice and cruelty — like those slaves who became overseers of other slaves and their first oppressors, such as Stephen, the character played by Samuel L. Jackson in the film “Django Unchained”.

These people think they are happy because they have accepted — as is now said, “internalized” — the values of their oppressors or discriminators. Marxists call such cases false consciousness¹⁷.

Progress means unpopular positions

Fifth. Virtually all inventors, pioneers, and authors of breakthrough concepts are those who took unpopular positions. When you adhere to popular views, you are just one among a crowd of similar people. But when society changes, this entire colorless crowd is overtaken by a small handful of innovators.

We must change the average person, not adapt to them. How can we change them if we indulge them? Only a person who has broken with the conservative attitudes of the authorities will be ready for change and struggle. If they have not broken away, they will not become a driver of change; there is no point in relying on them. We must increase the number of people who truly, genuinely reject this власть and its policies, and understand why. If we, for example, indulge the homophobia of Russians, they will remain homophobic and will listen to homophobic populists. That way, we will not change anything. We must instead uproot homophobia from their consciousness.

Potential for persuasion

Sixth. In many cases, supporters of conservative values can be relatively easily transformed into supporters of progressive values. The reverse process, when a supporter of progressive values becomes a supporter of conservative ones (out of conviction rather than material considerations), that is, an atheist becomes a believer, a cosmopolitan becomes a patriot, and so on, is observed less frequently (if we are talking about people who are truly familiar with the theory). This is one of the reasons why conservative governments often resort to terror and authoritarianism, lacking the ability to persuade large numbers of supporters of progressive values. Therefore, it makes far more sense to push conservatives toward rethinking their prejudices than to nourish those prejudices with silence.

Conclusion

As a result, we have two approaches. The first is to shape one’s ideology based on the opinion of the masses (that is, populism). The second is to shape one’s ideology based on a system of values and evidence-based policy, that is, a scientific justification of the best methods for implementing these values (essentially what is called principledness, or what Jan-Werner Müller above referred to as “the common good in a commonsense understanding”).

The first, populist approach leads to becoming a short-lived political weather vane (or, if there are very large resources, may allow one to gain power in a particular country for some time). The second approach makes it possible to clearly define goals and ways to achieve them, allowing one to focus on practical work. With properly organized efforts, such a movement will grow slowly but steadily. Therefore, the answer to the question “populism or principledness?” for a movement that is not guided by the material benefit of its leadership can only be this — principledness and zero percent populism.

1. Олег Журавлев, Кирилл Медведев. Новый патриотизм — новая оппозиция? Наблюдения слева // Российское Социалистическое Движение (anticapitalist.ru). 17 февраля 2020 года. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://anticapitalist.ru/2020/02/17/3025/ (дата обращения: 28.02.2020).
2. Populism // Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/populism (accessed: 28.02.2020).
3. Populism // Cambridge Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/populism (accessed: 28.02.2020).
4. С.И. Ожегов, Н.Ю. Шведова. Толковый словарь русского языка: 80 000 слов и фразеологических выражений / Российская академия наук. Институт русского языка им. В.В. Виноградова. – 4-е изд., дополненное. – 944 стр. – М.: ООО «А ТЕМП», 2006. – с. 563.
5. О.С. Берёзкина. Популизм // Большая российская энциклопедия (bigenc.ru). [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/world_history/text/3159171 (дата обращения: 28.02.2020).
6. Владимир Рувинский. Как товарищ Сталин снова стал дорогим и уважаемым // Ведомости (www.vedomosti.ru). 16 апреля 2019 года, 21:37. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2019/04/17/799328-stalin-snova-dorogim (дата обращения: 28.02.2020).
7. Уровень одобрения Сталина в России побил исторический рекорд // РИА Новости (ria.ru). 16 апреля 2019 года, 10:44. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ria.ru/20190416/1552727270.html (дата обращения: 28.02.2020).
8. Н.А. Рубакин. Россия в цифрах. Страна. Народ. Сословия. Классы. Опыт статистической характеристики сословно-классового состава населения русского государства. (На основании официальных и научных исследований). – 216 с. – С.-Петербург: Издательство “Вестника Знания” (В.В. Битнера), 1912. – с. 76.
9. Л.И. Сосковец. Советские верующие: Общие социодемографические и культурные характеристики // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Серия: “История. Краеведение. Этнология. Археология”. № 281. – Изд-во Томского государственного университета (ТГУ), 2004. – с. 62
10. Антон Скрипунов. “Индекс веры”: сколько на самом деле в России православных // РИА Новости (ria.ru). 23 августа 2017 года, 8:00. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ria.ru/20170823/1500891796.html (дата обращения: 28.02.2020).
11. А.В. Малько. Популизм как тормоз демократии // Общественные науки и современность. 1994. № 1 – с. 108
12. Rally on Poklonnaya Hill opened with a call to fight the orange movement // RIA Novosti (ria.ru). February 4, 2012, 13:33. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ria.ru/20120204/556506887.html (accessed: 28.02.2020).
13. “What Is Populism?” / Müller, J.-W., translated from English by A. Arkhipova; edited by A. Smirnov: Higher School of Economics Publishing House; Moscow; 2018
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. A.V. Malko. Populism as an obstacle to democracy // Social Sciences and Contemporary World. 1994. No. 1 – pp. 106-107
17. Ha-Joon Chang. Economics: The User’s Guide / Ha-Joon Chang; trans. from English by E. Ivchenko; scientific ed. by E. Kondukova. — 322 p. — Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, 2015. — pp. 155-156.