Robakidze contra Stalin: The Mythological Hermeneutics of Stalin’s Ahrimanic Essence and the Image of the Bolshevik Leader in Grigol Robakidze’s Philosophical Essays

Abstract

The author's English summary from the article:

Key Words: Grigol Robakidze, Stalin, Dionysos, Ahriman. In his literary and philosophical essays Grigol Robakidze (1880-1962) always stresses the necessity of “a metaphysical explanation” of a phenomenon, or in other words the necessity to penetrate into the source or mythical phenomenon. He bases his method of mythical hermeneutics on Goethe’s Proto-Phenomenon (German: Urphänomen) and applies the method to perceive existence and existential phenomena. While explaining the phenomenon of Stalin, Robakidze bases his argument on the hermeneutical method and in the essay Stalin as Ahriman’s Power (Stalin als ah- rimanische Macht) (Robakidze 1935: 64-106) appearing in his German cultural philo- sophical collection of essays, published in 1935, entitled Demon and Myth (“Dämon und Mythos”) Robakidze is widely concerned by it.

As it can be seen from the essay’s title, Robakidze identifies Stalin’s personal- ity with Zoroastrian myths and the evil, dark lord Ahriman. The name Ahriman itself is derived from the Zoroastrian theological term Angra Manyu meaning “devastating soul: (Mythologie www:...). Thus, Stalin (respectively, Stalinism) in the real historical-political space embodies this demonic-destructive power; As a Bolshevik totalitarian power and the leader of the totalitarian state he manifests the metaphysical-mythical ahrimanic destruc- tive force in a specific historical time, which Robakidze calls “the time without myths” (“die mythenlose Zeit”) (Robakidze 1935a:103), or the desacralized, godless, “disen- chanted” time (“entzaubert”).

This Ahrimanic-Stalinist power in the totalitarian state and by this state destroys the primary divine order (Robakidze’s “Sacred Order”), resulting into the expulsion of God from existence, first of all being manifested in the idea of ​God being exiled from human consciousness, as well as the destruction of divine ethos in hu- man spirit. Consequently, the Ahrimanic-Stalinist power is opposed to the idea of human be- ing a ​God-like image, the idea of being God’s son. This is done in the totalitarian space, through ideological and repressive pressure, and on the other hand, by the fetish of ra- tionalism and technological progress (ideological scientism and technocracy), which de- stroys the soul of Godly fear and the beauty of the divinity and mysticism.

At the same time, this process results in the hysteria for God’s denial. The founder and ruler of the totalitarian state will replace God, the idea of ​God and establish himself as a pseudo-God. The ruler of the totalitarian state, due to his ahrimanic essence, abolishes the sacred structure, which is primarily manifested in the destruction of the idea of ​God-like nature in the human being. It is not accidental, that Stalin in the text of the essay is compared to the prehistoric lizard, or biblical snake, which is an indication of the mythological-metaphysical essence of Stalin’s ahrimanic-destructive nature; thus, in the essay Stalin serves a biblical snake, a metaphor of primordial fear (Urangst), nothing- ness (das Nichts), existential inability and impersonality.

According to Robakidze, the sacrilege also implies to the memory of the mythical image of the father in the son’s consciousness. It is here that the idea of ​Goethe’s Ur- phänomen (Primary Phenomenon) is most clearly depicted, as a metaphysical connection between the creations of the God: hence, the genetic mystical-sacred union of the father and the child, this mythical and mystic memory is enables the “self” to have a memory of the metaphysical basis. Robakidze argues that the memory of my father’s mythical images gives the “self” the ability of spiritual cognition, which is vital in order to understand and feel the similarity between one’s self and metaphysical divinity.

Robakidze, in his essay, bases his explanation of Stalin’s phenomenon or his per- sonal essence, on the one hand, on Goethe’s mythological metaphysical perspective and on the other hand, on Freud’s Psychoanalysis (Oedipus Complex): From this mythological and psychological approach Stalin in his essence is a patricide, neglecter of his father, who in real historical space “organically” rejects his homeland, is alienated towards it as well as his nation, is detached from them and the denier of his father becomes the rejecter of his homeland, and nation: “The father-hater is against the fatherland and hates it as well (“Der Vaterhasser mußte innerlich auch gegen das Vaterland eingenommen sein”) (Robakidze 1935a: 91).

The lack of fatherhood in such rulers leads him to understand people as a mob, class, impersonal collective and not “God’s embodiment”: “The people were replaced by Mob, and the soul by class”: (“Das Volk wurde durch Masse ersetzt, die Seele aber durch Klasse”) (Robakidze 1935a: 76). It is natural that the state, established by Stalin or any other similar ruler, would only be totalitarian, in which the sacrilege is dissolved, which is primarily expressed in the destruction of the idea of ​human being God’s image. Consequently, a citizen of a to- talitarian state, mainly obsessed with the instinct of self-preservation, reveals the lowest ethical qualities – insolence, insult, chauvinism, betrayal, treachery, killing, etc.

Thus, the universal divine morality at this stage is being turned upside down. From an ontological point of view, a citizen of a totalitarian state is a victim of existential disability, existential fear and non-existence. Grigol Robakidze’s cultural philosophical essays and letters are one of the first attempts to explain and “explore” Stalin’s phenomenon from the Mythological Herme- neutical perspective. In his “esoteric” experiments, Robakhidze used several approaches: the critique of Prometheus archetypal image found in Romanticism (Friedrich Schlegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher), Nietzsche’s Dionysian concepts and the Will To Power (Wille zur Macht), and Goethe’s idea of the primary phenomenon (Urphänomen), as well as the Goethe’s reception of the archetypal image of Mephistopheles.

In a lecture entitles “What is Enlightenment?” (French: “Qu’est-c que les Lumières?”) (1983) Michel Foucault addresses such occasions in histo- ry, which have one and the same characteristic, or a certain fundamental fea- ture, and the necessity to identify the common processes from which they stem. Thus, such historic events, as signs, indicate about the turning point in history, emerge of a totally recent historical process unfamiliar for us before. Further, Foucault emphasizes that these types of signs should be distinguished while analyzing historical development and an “archaeological survey” of their genealogy must take place or as Foucault notes “it is genealogical in its design and archaeological in its method”; to put it in other words the impact of these events on the subsequent development of history should be measured, or how they affected the formation of mentality and values: “The present may be interrogated in an attempt to decipher in it the heralding signs of a forthcoming event.

In his other texts on history, Kant occasionally raises questions of origin or defines the internal teleology of a historical process. In the text on Aufklärung, he deals with the question of contemporary reality alone. He is not seeking to understand the present on the basis of a totality or of a future achievement. He is looking for a difference: What difference does today introduce with respect to yesterday?” (Foucault 2005:842). Based on Michel Foucault’s approach, the main features can be identified, which on the other hand Grigol Robakidze stressed while researching the mythological herme- neutics of Stalin’s phenomenon. The fundamental ones are: 1.

Stalin’s fatherlessness; 2. Stalin’s Nihilism; 3. Stalin as an image of modern technocratic human being; 4. Stalin as a destructive force. Thus, Stalin as well as his Soviet-era personality lacked the spiritual ability of perceiving and understanding his/her self, being and world phenomena in two different directions. In Stalin, as a Soviet citizen and, in general, the person of contemporary, mod- ern epoch the inability of bipolar cognition in his inner self abolished the memory of the metaphysical firsthand, and thus the new sense of their present. This inner state intensi- fied in him the contradictory and ahrimanic passions, which was further demonstrated in the absolutism of the will of political power and political violence or the ideological technocratic exploitation and destruction of nature.

Consequently, in Stalin as well as in any other soviet citizen, the Dionysian/sacred way of life, passion, feast, unconditional, unselfish universal-cosmic love was hindered.

Published in the journal Sjani, vol. 19 (2018), pp. 229–251. Open the paper