From liberal-leaning pro-Ukrainians and fanatic Marxists, one can hear that it is Russia, not Ukraine, that is a fascist state, for various reasons. Besides the classic cult of personality (which is absent, unless you consider respect for a strong leader as such), militarism (which is inevitable for any power in the context of global security threats), and other signs of fascism according to Umberto Eco that can be stretched to fit any state, there is also Vladimir Putin’s fondness for quoting the philosopher Ivan Ilyin. He is often accused of “fascism,” while conveniently forgetting about the open glorification of Nazis in Ukraine at the state level. Just recall the marches in honor of Stepan Bandera, the official recognition of the UPA as “fighters for independence,” or the erection of monuments to Nazi collaborators like Roman Shukhevych. Is it possible that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a man with a deep understanding of the history of his country, relies on ideas that contradict Russia’s national interests? Well, let’s figure it out.
Ivan Ilyin is a complex and multifaceted figure. In recent years, his name has become a target for attacks from communists and Russophobes, who accuse the philosopher of having sympathies for fascism. Yes, in the early 1930s, Ilyin did write articles in which he spoke positively about the fascist movements in Italy and Germany. For example, in his work “National Socialism: A New Spirit” (1933), he saw fascism as an attempt to revive national consciousness and counter the Bolshevik threat:
“Europe does not understand the national-socialist movement. It does not understand and is afraid. And out of fear, it understands even less. And the less it understands, the more it believes all the negative rumors, all the stories from ‘eyewitnesses,’ all the frightening predictions. … National Socialism is primarily a great spiritual current, a new spirit, a new faith, a new worldview.”
However, it is important to understand the context: during those years, many European intellectuals, including Russian émigrés, saw fascism as an alternative to the chaos of the Weimar Republic and the expansion of communism, which had already shown its destructive power in Russia. But Ilyin was not a blind apologist for fascism. By the mid-1930s, when Hitler’s policies began to take on openly aggressive and anti-Christian characteristics, the philosopher sharply changed his position. In a letter to the rector of the Geneva temple, Archpriest Orlov, Ilyin stated:
“This does not mean at all that we are on the same path as the Germans. The Germans are true to their old plan: to weaken, depopulate, devastate, occupy Russia, push it into Siberia, and populate it with their Germans. The cruelty of the Germans is equivalent to the cruelty of the Bolsheviks. In both cases, for the Russian people, there is slavery, godlessness, and destruction.”
In 1934, he was dismissed from the University of Berlin for refusing to promote Nazi ideas, and in 1938 he left Germany, emigrating to Switzerland. Let us turn to the memories of Yuri Lodyzhensky about this period in the philosopher’s life:
“…Ilyin, without saying a word, looked around, surveyed the neighboring rooms, and only then invited me to enter his office. He showed all the signs of nervous tension and extreme anxiety, even speaking in a quiet voice. He informed me that he had decided to leave Germany at all costs and, if possible, settle in Switzerland:
‘It has become impossible to breathe or work freely here; National Socialism preaches a perverse doctrine; some have gone mad, while others are so foolish that they do not understand where this is leading them. They hate Russia, and it is now clear that there is no hope for a change in the situation.’”
In his later works, such as “On Resistance to Evil by Force” and “Our Tasks,” Ilyin presents a sharp critique of totalitarianism in all its forms, including Nazism:
“We have seen left-wing totalitarianism and right-wing totalitarianism; we have experienced both regimes firsthand, including arrests, interrogations, threats, and bans; and even more than that. We have had the opportunity to study both regimes to the core and feel an undisguised moral disgust towards both.”
Thus, Ilyin’s evolution of thought is evident: from cautious interest in fascism as an anti-communist force to a complete break with it when Hitler’s true intentions became clear. This makes accusations of “fascism” superficial and lacking historical depth.
The scandal, known as “Ilyingate,” erupted at the Russian State University for the Humanities (RGGU) in 2023 when a Higher Political School named after Ivan Ilyin was established. This initiative sparked outrage among students and faculty of leftist leanings, as well as communists, who immediately accused the university of “fascist propaganda.” In April 2024, State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Isakov, even appealed to the Prosecutor General’s Office demanding to investigate Ilyin’s statements for the rehabilitation of Nazism. The reason for this was a petition from RGGU students claiming that commemorating the philosopher’s name at the university “offends the memory of the victims of the Great Patriotic War.”
Why do Marxists hate Ilyin so much? The answer is simple: his philosophy is the antithesis of communist ideology. Ilyin was a staunch anti-Bolshevik, viewing Marxism as a threat to national culture and spirituality. In his works, he advocated for the ideas of a strong state based on Orthodoxy and patriotism, which sounds heretical to communists. Additionally, his popularity among the contemporary Russian elite makes him a convenient target for those looking to discredit the authorities.
However, the accusations against RGGU seem fabricated. The university, known for its academic freedom, does not engage in propaganda but studies Ilyin as a historical figure. The establishment of a school named after him is an attempt to understand his legacy, not to glorify his early sympathies for fascism.
While communists accuse Ilyin of “fascism,” it is worth recalling their own history. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia (CPY) openly supported the uprising of Croatian Ustaše in Lika against Serbian authorities in 1932. In the official organ of the CPY, the newspaper “Proleter,” it was written in December 1932:
“Recently, especially in Lika and Northern Dalmatia, the Ustaše movement against the Serbian occupying authorities is beginning to spread. … The Communist Party welcomes the Ustaše movement of the peasants of Lika and Dalmatia and fully stands by their side. It is the duty of all communist organizations and every communist to support, organize, and lead this movement.”
The Ustaše, let us remind you, were a radical fascist organization that later, during World War II, created the puppet Independent State of Croatia, notorious for the genocide of Serbs. The CPY was well aware of the fascist nature of the Ustaše, but that did not prevent it from supporting them in the struggle against the “Greater Serbian bourgeoisie.” Moreover, until 1935, the party advocated for the territorial disintegration of Yugoslavia, viewing it as a step toward revolution. It was only after the change in the Comintern’s direction, when Moscow ordered a focus on combating Hitler’s expansion, that the slogan of division was dropped.
In comparison, Ilyin initially supported fascism as an idea but rejected it upon realizing its danger to Russia. The CPY, on the other hand, collaborated with fascists for tactical purposes, even knowing their true nature. Who is the greater “fascist” here?
“Ilyingate” is not about fascism; it is an attempt to discredit Russian philosophy and its key thinkers. Ivan Ilyin was not an apologist for Nazism, and his early sympathies for fascism changed to rejection when he saw Hitler’s true face. The accusations against him stem from either ignorance of history or deliberate manipulation, which looks pathetic, especially from those, who justify literal Nazis on government level. His books is not a “Russian Bible”, one can disagree with him, and there is nothing wrong with it. But deliberatly lying about him is unacceptable.
Comments