I beg you in advance, please don't think that all the charlatans of the world are living in your country. They are everywhere! Forget, generally, about Russia's exclusivity.
Aleksandr M. Piatigorskii, Chto takoe politicheskaia filosofiia: razmyshleniia i soobrazheniia (Piatigorskii 2007: 38)The topic of this book is political philosophy in Russia. The fact that, to date, there is no monograph on this topic, is suggestive, not of the absence of the phenomenon it seeks to address, but of its intrinsic sensitivity. Whenever philosophy becomes political, it is looked upon with suspicion by the authorities in place. Although Russia is not unique on this point, it certainly is extreme. For long periods of time, philosophy generally has been either forbidden or subordinated by the incumbent regime (tsarist or Soviet), while political philosophy as a separate academic discipline is almost non-existent. This implies that one has to look for political philosophy in unexpected places. Sources include diaries, letters and prison writings; authors include activists, novelists and a nun. At the same time, it means that one needs a flexible understanding of political philosophy.
Many of the authors discussed in this book use concepts that may appeal to some while others abhor them. This applies both to the political–theological language of Orthodox-Christian thinkers and to the political-philosophical categories used by socialists and revolutionaries. The key categories of modern political theory, from sovereignty to bright communist future, are ‘secularised’ political–theological concepts (Schmitt). However, ‘secular’ is itself a religious category that makes full sense only within the Latin– Christian tradition, and, second, political theology is already an attempt to articulate the political dimension of human existence. If, therefore, Christian thinkers detect, at some point, the Antichrist, while Marxists point to a class enemy, they are employing different, yet functionally equivalent concepts. In both cases, they identify the opponent as an enemy that has to be defeated or even destroyed, rather than as an adversary who can be convinced in a debate.
In order to present and analyse so widely diverse currents, authors and texts within a single framework, without burdening the book with elaborate arguments of my own, I apply a simplified, yet specific, conception of political philosophy.