Comradely Greetings Read online

  First published by Verso 2014

  The collection © Verso 2014

  Introduction translation © David Broder 2014

  Nadya’s letters translation © Ian Dreiblatt 2014

  Slavoj’s letters © Slavoj Žižek 2014

  “The True Blasphemy” first published by chtodelat news 2012

  © Slavoj Žižek 2012, 2014

  “Why I Am Going on Hunger Strike” first published by n+1 2013

  Translation © Bela Shayevich and Thomas Campbell 2013, 2014

  Nadya’s August 23 letter and Slavoj’s August 26 letter first

  published by mark-feygin.livejournal.com

  All rights reserved

  The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

  Verso

  UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F 0EG

  US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201

  www.versobooks.com

  Verso is the imprint of New Left Books

  ISBN-13: 978-1-78168-773-4 (PB)

  eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-774-1 (US)

  eISBN-13: 978-1-78168-775-8 (UK)

  British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

  A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

  Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

  A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

  v3.1

  Contents

  Cover

  Title Page

  Copyright

  Introduction

  by Michel Eltchaninoff

  The True Blasphemy: On the Pussy Riot Sentencing

  by Slavoj Žižek

  Why I Am Going on Hunger Strike: An Open Letter

  by Nadya Tolokonnikova

  The Prison Letters of Nadya and Slavoj

  “All of our activity is a quest for miracles”

  Nadya to Slavoj, August 23, 2012

  “Ignore all who pity you as punk provocateurs”

  Slavoj to Nadya, August 26, 2012

  “It is so important that you persist”

  Slavoj to Nadya, January 2, 2013

  “We count ourselves among those rebels who court storms”

  Nadya to Slavoj, February 23, 2013

  “Is our position utopian?”

  Slavoj to Nadya, April 4, 2013

  “I write you from a Special Economic Zone”

  Nadya to Slavoj, April 16, 2013

  “Beneath the dynamics of your acts, there is inner stability”

  Slavoj to Nadya, June 10, 2013

  “As I serve my ‘deuce’ in lockdown”

  Nadya to Slavoj, July 13, 2013

  “I would like to conclude with a provocation”

  Slavoj to Nadya, December 12, 2013

  “When you put on a mask, you leave your own time”

  Nadya to Slavoj, March 11, 2014

  “A new and much more risky heroism will be needed”

  Slavoj to Nadya, March 18, 2014

  Introduction

  At around 11 a.m. on February 21, 2012, an event unheard of in contemporary Russia played out in the country’s largest and most famous Orthodox church. The monumental Cathedral of Christ the Savior stands out in the skyline not far from the Kremlin, on the bank of the river Moskva. Constructed in the nineteenth century to commemorate the victory over Napoleon, the ultimate symbol of Tsarist power and seat of the Moscow Patriarchate, it was destroyed by the Soviet authorities and then rebuilt in the 1990s to mark the rebirth of Christianity in Russia after decades of official atheism. It was consecrated in 2000, at the very moment of Vladimir Putin’s accession to the presidency. But for many intellectuals it is a place which equally symbolizes the ostentatious pomp of an ecclesiastical hierarchy sporting expensive watches and luxury cars, who support the Kremlin leadership without fail while providing it with an ideological basis founded on “traditional values” and the boundless exaltation of “Holy Russia.” To launch an attack here is to hit at the very heart—metaphorical, but also very real—of contemporary Russian power.

  There is no service, this particular Tuesday morning. The immense space is very calm. Five young women pass the security checks without hindrance. They rapidly head over to the raised platform in front of the altar, reserved for the reading of sacred texts by the clergy. They slip on red, blue, orange, yellow, and violet balaclavas. They take off their coats, revealing their brightly colored dresses and tights. The female maintenance staff start to panic and call security. One security guard hurries across, tackles a young woman holding a guitar and pulls her away. He returns to grab hold of a loudspeaker. Church employees attempt to intercept the other four. But they have already begun their twenty-verse “punk prayer,” whose refrain is “Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Banish Putin.” Their song robustly denounces the corruption of today’s Russian Church, its ultra-conservative ideology (“Don’t upset His Saintship ladies / Stick to making love and babies”), the KGB past of Moscow’s Patriarch Cyril and his unconditional support for Vladimir Putin’s repressive policies (“Patriarch Gundyaev believes in Putin / Better believe in God, you vermin!”). The punks, kneeling and crossing themselves dramatically, conclude with the plea: “Join our protest, Holy Virgin.” The whole performance lasts a few dozen seconds at most, before the women file out of the church, accompanied by the ten people who had come to film and assist them.

  As the first photos and videos circulated and began to spread around the world, three members of the group were arrested, placed under provisional detention, and charged with hooliganism (Article 213 of the penal code). Nadezhda Tolokonnikova (born in 1989), Maria Alyokhina (born in 1988), and Yekaterina Samutsevich (born in 1982) each faced up to seven years in prison.

  This was not their first provocation. The hooded female punk group had emerged out of a radical contemporary art collective set up a few years earlier, in 2007, under the name Voina (War), initiated by Oleg Vorotnikov and Natalia Sokol. Nadya Tolokonnikova and her husband Piotr Verzilov were also members. Vorotnikov, Sokol, Tolokonnikova and Verzilov were students at the philosophy faculty of the prestigious Moscow State University, and were joined in the collective by other young people from St. Petersburg. Inspired by the actions staged by Russian artists like Alexander Brener and Oleg Kulik, the group began to organize provocative performances in public places. In February 2008, several couples, including the then-pregnant Nadya and Piotr, were photographed having sex in a hall of the Moscow Biological Museum. In June 2010, a giant painted phallus appeared on a bridge facing the FSB building in St. Petersburg, to the astonishment of passers-by. Combining contemporary art with political action, the collective quickly became one of the spearheads of artistic opposition to the Putin regime. In 2011, a number of its members, including Nadya Tolokonnikova and Katya Samutsevich, formed Pussy Riot.

  At the end of that same year, the situation became increasingly troubling for the Russian leadership. On September 26, 2011, Dmitry Medvedev—then president and nearing the end of his term—announced that he would be handing power back to Vladimir Putin. Having been president from 2000 to 2008, Putin had had to, in effect, “lend” his protégé the presidency for four years. He could now return as the head of the country for two six-year terms—until 2024. All Vladimir Putin now had to do was make sure he won the election. Parts of Russian society were shocked by these far-from-democratic shenanigans, and had little love for a regime that appears to be lasting longer than did that of Leonid Brezhnev. The anger exploded after December 4, 2011, following parliamentary elections that handed victory to the Kremlin-controlled United Russia Party as a result of massive, and crude, electoral fraud. Street demonstrations in the larger towns and cities rallied tens, even hundreds of thousands of people.
There had been no equivalent protests since the era of Perestroika. Pussy Riot participated enthusiastically, taking all sorts of risks. On January 20, 2012, eight group members performed a song mocking candidate Putin in the middle of Red Square, facing the Kremlin, the sacred site of political power. On February 21 they broke new ground by targeting the absolute taboo: the Russian Church hierarchy’s support for Kremlin policy.

  This time, it was too much. Three young women were arrested. After a hard-fought presidential campaign, in the end Putin was elected on March 4, 2012. Now came the systematic, brutal retaliation against those who had led the protests of the preceding winter, under various different pretexts. On August 17, at the end of a trial packed with solidarity demonstrations, and the arrest of sympathizers, the three members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for “vandalism” and “incitement to religious hatred.” The prosecutor’s argument hinged on the blasphemous aspect of their action, even though such a notion was at that time absent from the Russian penal code. They appealed. Katya was released on October 10, but Nadya and Masha were sent to separate penal colonies—the former to Mordovia, the traditional home of the Soviet Gulags, and the latter to the Perm region.

  While they were still in provisional detention in Moscow, the independent Russian weekly the New Times published an interview with the prisoners. Nadya explained the essentially political aspect of her action, begged pardon of any believers whom she might have offended. She resolutely took to the philosophical terrain, quoting Socrates and Diogenes. She confessed: “I am currently reading an essay by Slavoj Žižek, ‘Violence’ … What Žižek writes is very important to us. According to him, the fundamentalist believers of each different religion emerge on account of their lack of true faith, not because of deep faith. I would really love to meet Žižek!”

  Struck by this declaration of philosophical love, I wrote at once to Slavoj Žižek and proposed that he come to Moscow to meet Nadya. She was then still in the capital, awaiting the result of the appeal hearing. My plan was to publish their discussion in Philosophie Magazine, and Žižek quickly replied: “YES, of course!” I requested the help of Zoya Svetova, the New Times journalist who had published the interview in which Nadya voiced her admiration for Žižek and had access to detainees on account of her status as a prison visitor. While we were waiting for authorization, however, Tolokonnikova was sent from the detention center where she had been held throughout the trial to camp PC-14 in Mordovia, thousands of miles from Moscow. It was unrealistic to imagine going there with Žižek: no one would ever have given him authorization to visit. So in December 2012 I proposed to Slavoj that he begin a correspondence with Nadya. He accepted enthusiastically, emailing me his first letter.

  The exchange of letters took place as follows: We had Žižek’s letters translated from English into Russian, then sent them to Zoya Svetova. The Federal Penitentiary Service has an internal electronic messaging system, but Zoya, thanks to her prison visitor status, was able to send the texts to Nadya via a special access code. After being read and verified by prison officials, the messages were forwarded to the prisoner. Nadya responded, writing by hand on special forms. Her letters were then transcribed for the messaging system by the prison administration and sent to the correspondent—who pays for the cost of this service. The responses were also clearly subjected to censorship at the hands of the penal colony. Once Zoya received them and transmitted them to us, all that was left to do was translate them into English and forward them to Slavoj.

  As an inevitable consequence of these various filters, the rhythm of the correspondence was very slow. Aware that prison authorities were reading her letters, Nadya avoided detailing her daily life in prison. In any case, she preferred to remain—as did her interlocutor—on the intellectual terrain. The result of their correspondence is in the image of these two personalities. A disjointed mélange of poetry, rage, and fine neo-Marxist dialectics, evidencing their extraordinary temperaments. But beyond this exceptional human encounter between a ringleader of global contestation and a symbol of its persecution, something more profound emerged. At the beginning, the dialogue was in part an expression of mutual admiration: Žižek saw the adventures of Pussy Riot as a manifestation of the “World Spirit,” just as Hegel had seen Napoleon’s cavalcade conquering Europe as the incarnation of a more general historical lesson. In his view, the members of the group were challenging both Putin’s authoritarianism and the “Stalinization” of contemporary capitalism. Tolokonnikova, after recounting that she had recently dreamt of the philosopher, responded with a Nietzschean rallying-cry: “We are the children of Dionysus,” she proclaimed, those sowing chaos among the established order. She also explicitly situated herself in the lineage of the great Russian thinker Nikolai Berdyaev, apostle of a spiritual liberty for the contemporary age and of a renewal of the religious as a revolt against worldly law. Considering her detention the logical outcome of her action, she courageously concluded—we later learned the terrible conditions she was imprisoned and working in at the time she wrote these lines—“When the World Spirit touches you, don’t think you can walk away unscathed.”

  In his reply, Žižek critiqued a purely Nietzschean vision of Pussy Riot’s struggle. The collective, he argued, was participating in a wider emancipatory movement: “Not just to shake people out of their complacent inertia, but to change the very coordinates of social reality such that, when things return to normal, there will be a new, more satisfying ‘Apollonian equilibrium.’ ” According to him, to hold to an ethical position in the face of contemporary capitalism is not at all sufficient. Indeed, “one can no longer play the game of subverting the Order from the position of its part-of-no-part, since the Order has already internalized its own permanent subversion. With the full deployment of ‘late capitalism’ it is ‘normal’ life itself which, in a way, becomes ‘carnivalized,’ with its constant reversals, crises, and reinventions.” We cannot oppose one carnival by promoting another. It was on this point that the exchange really fired up between the two interlocutors. Nadya posed to Slavoj a purely Marxist objection, anchored in her real: the ludic immaterial capitalism of Western “creatives” could not exist without a backyard too often ignored by Marxists themselves, namely the vast zone of exploitation of the poor in authoritarian regimes like China … or Russia. And so the debate was on.

  It is exciting to read for many reasons. We discover that Nadya Tolokonnikova is not only a punk protestor, but a great intellectual. She seems to have perfect mastery of the reference points of contemporary thought—among them Deleuze and Guattari, Hardt and Negri, and Badiou. To this she adds references to Russian religious philosophy. Above all, she combines theoretical knowledge, a practical philosophy of revolt through contemporary art, and the terrifying reality of a penal colony where prisoners are forced to make clothes for the Russian market in slave conditions. The trying experience of the camp led her to reflect on contemporary Marxist analysis, which she judges almost colonial insofar as its fascination with the immaterial economy and carnivalesque Western creativity causes it to forget the real exploitation going on in the East. Upbraided by this young thinker, Slavoj Žižek had to try his utmost to be convincing. In his letter addressed to the soon-to-be-freed Nadya, he presents her with a worldwide tour of voluntary servitude. In this interchange, the two intellectuals grounded their thinking in reality more than ever, and in the process offered a fierce and piercing analysis of the workings of the world.

  Nadya Tolokonnikova and Masha Alyokhina were freed on December 23, 2013, when Putin released them two months early in order to open his Winter Olympics in Sochi without apparent strife. But their struggle has only just begun. And so, too, the dialogue between Nadya and Slavoj.

  Michel Eltchaninoff

  Philosopher and deputy editor-in-chief

  of Philosophie Magazine

  The True Blasphemy:

  On the Pussy Riot Sentencing

  Pussy Riot members accused of blasph
emy and hatred of religion? The answer is easy: the true blasphemy is the state accusation itself, formulating as a crime of religious hatred something which was clearly a political act of protest against the ruling clique. Recall Brecht’s old quip from his Beggars’ Opera: “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a new bank?” In 2008, Wall Street gave us the new version: what is the stealing of a couple of thousand of dollars, for which one goes to prison, compared to financial speculations that deprive tens of millions of their homes and savings, and are then rewarded by state help of sublime grandeur? Now, we got another version from Russia, from the power of the state: What is a modest Pussy Riot obscene provocation in a church compared to the accusation against Pussy Riot, this gigantic obscene provocation of the state apparatus which mocks any notion of decent law and order?

  Was the act of Pussy Riot cynical? There are two kinds of cynicism: the bitter cynicism of the oppressed which unmasks the hypocrisy of those in power, and the cynicism of the oppressors themselves who openly violate their own proclaimed principles. The cynicism of Pussy Riot is of the first kind, while the cynicism of those in power—why not call their authoritarian brutality a Prick Riot—is of the much more ominous second kind.

  Back in 1905, Leon Trotsky characterized tsarist Russia as “a vicious combination of the Asian knout and the European stock market.” Does this designation not hold more and more also for the Russia of today? Does it not announce the rise of the new phase of capitalism, capitalism with Asian values (which, of course, has nothing to do with Asia and everything to do with the anti-democratic tendencies in today’s global capitalism). If we understand cynicism as ruthless pragmatism of power which secretly laughs at its own principles, then Pussy Riot are anti-cynicism embodied. Their message is: IDEAS MATTER. They are conceptual artists in the noblest sense of the word: artists who embody an Idea. This is why they wear balaclavas: masks of de-individualization, of liberating anonymity. The message of their balaclavas is that it doesn’t matter which of them got arrested—they’re not individuals, they’re an Idea. And this is why they are such a threat: it is easy to imprison individuals, but try to imprison an Idea!