Those who allow themselves to be whipped deserve to be whipped.
— Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
In the struggle for the liberalization, there is not only some laudable heroism but something deeply repressive as well. For example, take that good willed coercion to freedom. Although the freedom itself as a subjective awareness of the possibilities variety is undoubtedly valuable for an individual, socially, any revolutionary liberation suggests a dictatorship and violence.
A liberator is the essentially authoritative figure. Its emergence is impossible without some dubious belief in the existence of objective reality. The liberator as an identity is born with a manifesto, claiming that the present order of things is the situation of non-freedom, the human majority is comprised of slaves but I, the liberator, know the best, I see everything and I will come and help. This claim itself projects haughtiness, arrogance, and pure cheek. The existential volition to help the other is a violent conceptualization of that other as someone who needs help.
Starting with an opposition, the liberator then denies the opposition, and there are no revolutions that could bear criticism. They believe any criticism is reactionary and dangerous. The liberator as an aggressive imperative is devoid of dialectics. An ideal revolutionary leader consists of his faithfulness to principles, ideology, and consistency. The same consistency is the backbone of any propaganda. Otherwise, mass emotions simply do not convert into trust and action. Those who do not burn with passionate flame and those who do not claim, “They know the best” will not be able to lead the rebel troops.
I have a right to fight for freedom as my own precious horizon but do I have a right to state the non-freedom of the other? The sense of non-freedom itself frequently turns out to be the subconscious mask of the avarice for power, something that the despised king has today.
All social and political discussions these days are conducted in such a manner that one cannot but think that good and evil exist, and someone unavoidably owns them. The man is the only beast that wants to look proper. Liberals, conservators, anarchists, Nazis, everyone coopts “the light,” and they always see the keeper of “evil” in the other. Politics is, essentially, the aesthetics with its tribal ornaments.
The opposing chimeras are, in fact, jealous twins. As an illustration, one could take the Russian Reporter interview of the Voina art group that got their notoriety after a number of anti-government happenings. The female reporter condemns the imperative of those street activists to steal and “not-whore,” and the activists condemn her desire to be able to buy stuff, and be content with it. These are different ideologies but they reveal themselves as Fascizoid by refusing each other rights to the freedom to act according to their own natures, outside of the ephemeral ethical commentary or the ideologies’ court of law. They still cannot operate without markers, like “the left is good,” or “the capitalism is bad,” as well as other fashionable commodities of the cognitive IKEA store.
The quest in search of freedom for all is the beautiful Odyssey on board the ship with the rotten keel. This messianism is sectarian. The entire history of the post-soviet period is the long line of tsars’ reproduction, and at the same time, of the continuous existence of the valiant minority that sees only crowds of slaves around it. And believes with all their hearts that these crowds are possible to correct, educate, and explain to them that a house is better than a prison pigsty. I feel rather close to this belief but is not there a heroic blindness in this belief, and some double-dyed puritanism?
If a tormentor king reproduces himself in his subjects century in century out, is it possible that the liberals are better not to model themselves after American “peacemakers,” and not to embody this coercion to freedom? Could sadomasochism be the existential modus for the Slavs who are unhappy yet happy in their pain, poverty, moans, and nightmares? It is the tsar, the bars, the darkness, and the mess for them all over again. Is it not the whim to enforce one’s own sexual preferences on the other? What kind of Fascism would justify the coercion of a sadomasochistic nation to the vanilla democratic coitus?
The problem of classic revolutionary liberators is the one of negation of the right to the individual choice, the one of the power complex, and the one of the battlefield selection. The idea of the liberal uprising is the idea of infectious rallies that eventually evolve into the Tahrir Square where a rainfall of angels inevitably occurs, accompanied with the free will, and justice. Nevertheless, the real dictator and the real Tahrir Square are always inside. I contrast the social struggle for the liberation of all with the individual struggle for freedom as something subjective. Only in the subjective, the freedom is truly multi-faceted, as it lies outside of politics and any ideology.
When watching the Strategy-31 actions in Moscow, I see the army of beautifully self-realized people. Some of them gather, others disperse them and everyone is happy. They are the invocations of Masoch and De Sade of the post-socialist reality.
When a red-faced, winded, literally pornographic cop drags a young man to his cop bus, and the young man immediately is seen through the window, with an orgasmic expression on his face, screaming, “Revolution!”—I realize, everything is alright. It is the order of things even though I do not like this order of things, personally. It is truly every man to his taste, and the true catharsis of freedom is to accept the other’s right to non-freedom. If someone were really a slave, only a complete Kim Jong-il would think of not letting him be whatever he wants to be.