The Russian People as a Simulacrum: The Myth That Sustains the Empire
Russia is an empire, and every Russian is an imperialist. Anyone who justifies the existence of Russia justifies the necessity of further oppression of nations, usually driven by their own rather prosaic and vulgar mercantile interests.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Russian. And all his reflections on democracy within the empire are nothing more than a farce and a comedy. 🎭
"I do not believe that any nation is unworthy of democracy or not ready for it," says Kara-Murza, quoting Ronald Reagan. But democracy within an empire, just like in a prison or a concentration camp, is nonsense. In Russian history, Pskov and Novgorod were free only until they became colonies of Moscow. The Decembrist uprising, no matter how romanticized by Russians, was merely a palace coup in the interest of one of the ruling elites. None of them planned to free the colonized nations.
"The history of Russia is a history of resistance to despotism. Every time there was a chance for free choice, the Russian people chose democracy," Kara-Murza claims.
But who exactly is this "Russian people" among more than a hundred nations who are today, in essence, prisoners of the concentration camp called "Russia"? Whom exactly did the "Russians" resist when they were conquering Astrakhan, Kazan, Siberia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and dozens of other nations? Against which despotism did they ever fight?
"There are no historical reasons to believe that the Russian people are not predisposed to democracy," he continues. But what is this "Russian people" in reality?
Is it a nation? — No.
Is it an ethnicity? — No.
The "Russian" identity is a simulacrum, an artificial construct, a generalized term for the slaves or subjects of the Moscow Empire, who were forcibly stripped of their national identity.
Now, let’s plug this definition into his statement:
"There are no reasons to believe that the slaves of the Moscow Empire, forcibly held there, are not predisposed to democracy within a slave-owning empire."
Does this make sense? How can a slave, who is essentially a possession, have a predisposition for anything? They can’t. A slave has no rights, no will, no freedom, and consequently no predisposition—something the "Russian people" have proven with their centuries-long obedience.
All of Kara-Murza’s words are nothing more than an attempt to stretch an owl over a globe. Russia, as a conglomerate of Moscow’s colonial territories, cannot possess subjectivity if any of the colonized nations gain the right to self-determination. But Kara-Murza remains silent about this.
❓ Why doesn’t he say that a normal, democratic empire cannot exist by definition?
❓ Why does he lie and manipulate, calling a circle warm?
The answer is right on the surface. The idea of preserving colonial borders rests on the enormous profits they generate. With zero exploitation costs and slave labor, these profits grow even larger.
There is no such thing as the "Russian people" or "Russia" as a coherent subject. There are political groups vying for control—some trying to maintain their grip on these streams of wealth, others salivating over the chance to seize it.
And where, in all this, is there room for democracy?
Behind the facade of "democracy" and "the will of the people," so-called "opposition figures" mask the harsh reality, legitimizing their predatory ambitions. They justify their desire to take control of the looting of the colonized populations under the guise of "justice."
👥 If they had even an ounce of humanity, they would begin their speeches with the words:
"Russia will become free and democratic only when the empire ceases to exist and the colonized nations are granted their freedom."
🔥 Freedom for the nations of the concentration camp "Russia"! 🔥