The universe is at once life and death,

destruction and creation, change and

stability, tumult and repose. It is endlessly
made and unmade, forever the same, with
beings that are forever renewed. In spite of

01/11
its perpetual development or becoming
[devenir], its engravings are cast in bronze
and incessantly print out the same page.
Both as a whole and in detail, it is eternally
transformation and immanence.
Ð Louis-Auguste Blanqui, Eternity by the
Stars, 18721

Louis-Auguste Blanqui, president-elect of the

Marina Simakova communards, ironically spent the entire period
of the Paris Commune in a prison at sea. On his
Russian brief release in May 1871, the uncompromisingly
militant French revolutionary and true man of
action began turning his prison notes into a book
Cosmism: A called Eternity by the Stars. This peculiar and
largely underappreciated exercise in cosmology
Foretaste of also represents a creative attempt to seek the
universal premises of political optimism Ð a
purely secular Òprinciple of hopeÓ (to borrow
Revolution from Bloch), which is inextricable from any
emancipatory project. ÒAt the castle of the Bull,
reduced to his potential,Ó writes BlanquiÕs
twenty-first-century translator Frank Chouraqui,
Òa man of action could only be left to his own
musings on the falsity of the difference between
potential and action.Ó2 BlanquiÕs text was
published on February 20, 1872, Òthree days
after Blanqui was sentenced to life in prison by a
Versailles Tribunal.Ó3 At the same time, the
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

philosophy of Russian cosmism had just begun

to emerge by way of its founding father, Nikolai
Fedorov.
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊFedorov and his ideas had a tremendous

and well-established effect on the intellectual
life and culture of prerevolutionary Russia.
Although the nineteenth-century philosopher
and librarianÕs political beliefs may appear
contradictory, unsatisfactory, and at odds with
the revolutionary movement that emerged in his
country at the beginning of the twentieth, his
meditations on social order betray a strong
inclination for radical change and arguably foster
a demand for universal freedom. In this case,
FedorovÕs arguments for immortality and space
exploration could be treated not as a set of
prescriptions for Òethical life,Ó but rather as a
symptomatic critical response to the social and
political circumstances of late modernity.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊRussian cosmism was conceived in the
seething atmosphere of fin de si•cle Russia, an
era possessed by the dual Dostoevsky-esque
demons of political radicalism and insoluble
moral dilemmas. The religious philosophy of
brotherhood and resurrection came into gradual

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

 02/11

Pattern design on theÊendleaf of Louis-Auguste Blanqui'sÊEternity by the StarsÊ(1872).

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

being as a corpus of works written by Fedorov, secrecy or intellectual property Ð that is, of the
none of which were published in his lifetime, but Òarcane knowledgeÓ of a few.
all of which triggered further written and ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSurprisingly (or unsurprisingly), the
published probings in cosmist territory. This praxis/theory divide was one of FedorovÕs key
article will focus upon critical aspects of concerns. In FedorovÕs thought, the preeminence
FedorovÕs thought, his views on justice and accorded to brotherhood is manifest in his view

03/11
equality, and his concept of history. This of the division between men of theory and men of
formation of a world of thought was practice, scholars and non-scholars,4 as a
synchronized with a period of ultimate social primary inequality that precedes all other forms
unrest and political turbulence, culminating in of discrimination.5 For Fedorov, the gap between
the fall of czarism and the October Revolution of philosophy and action is the negative abyss from
1917. Revisiting FedorovÕs cosmist legacy today which any social struggle originates. Existence of
through the theoretical lens of revolutionary such an irreducible gap is the key reason for
politics implies a hermeneutic exercise in what he calls Ònon-kinship,Ó or a Ònon-fraternal
interrogating the different meanings of the idea stateÓ [nerodstvennostÕ] which promotes the
of a Òresurrection for all,Ó the cornerstone idea of rupture between mind and will, and leads to an
FedorovÕs project of the Òcommon task.Ó inability to direct oneÕs thinking according to the
Moreover, reading Fedorov in a revolutionary light principle of the good. In other words, the gulf
suggests situating his thought within a that separates thinking from doing, which was
conceptual matrix of questions that may even created throughout modernity, underlies moral
seem irrelevant to the religious strand of the blindness, social indifference, and tunnel vision.
Russian cosmism that the philosopher spent his This is why Fedorov treats the primal ontological
life developing. Well after FedorovÕs death in question of the foundation of our being Ð the
1903, theorists of revolutionary practice, philosophical question par excellence Ð as
activists, and members of the First and Second tautological. His inversion of the question Òwhat
Internationals wrestled with certain fundamental is being?,Ó which grounds death as nonbeing,
questions: theory versus practice, spontaneity makes exigent the overcoming of death, or at
versus organization, the power of collectivity, least a grappling with its meaning. As Fedorov
and how to act in accordance with history. While puts it, ÒPhilosophers, for whom the world is just
the October Revolution itself seemed to be an a concept, treat it as their own creation, their
answer and a drastic solution to such problems, property, and are proud of this, proud of the
many of them of course remain with us today. So, unconditional knowledge of themselves, a
following the centenary of the Revolution, it knowledge that recognizes neither an equal, nor
makes sense to rethink these questions, a comrade.Ó6 Detached from practice, Fedorov
addressing them to each and every person with a warns, theory is dangerous Ð by definition
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

stake in Òradical thoughtÓ and action Ð Fedorov ignorant of its future implications outside of the
included. ivory tower of science. Awareness of the
potential danger in detached theory compels
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

The Relationship between Theory and Fedorov to develop an argument that has
Practice normative as well as political significance: any
Marx famously diagnosed the problem of the knowledge of truth that enables us to distinguish
relationship between philosophy and action in between right and wrong, good and evil, makes
his eleventh thesis on Feuerbach. The dichotomy little sense if it does not become an intention to
later reappeared in vastly different philosophical do good and eliminate that which is evil or ill.
enterprises Ð ranging from BakhtinÕs Therefore, knowledge must convert into will, and
phenomenological Òphilosophy of the actÓ to the vice versa. On the other hand, Fedorov warns,
Òphilosophy of praxisÓ coined by Antonio Labriola action estranged from contemplation engenders
and developed by Antonio Gramsci. The rupture three forms of pure destruction: military
or imbalance between speculation and social conscription as a part of the army system; mass
reality, thinking and doing, philosophy and production with its hard, backbreaking labor; and
action, preoccupied them all. In the present the market system, in which everything can be
world of creative economies, cognitive labor, and sold. The dangerous divide between thought and
popular science, it is tempting to believe that we action determined the working regime and
are finally witnessing hybrid forms of theory and popular lifestyles of the industrial era: hard,
practice, produced and shared by everyone living monotonous, assembly-line labor is followed by
today in the information-driven world. And yet, scant hours of leisure filled with idle and
the ideas subtending both the principles and the senseless pursuits.
purposes of technological development and ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊEducation is perhaps the ÒofficialÓ starting
contemporary politics are singled out as point on the road to knowledge. But traditional
confidential assets, remaining a subject of state education always implies the existence of

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

 04/11

Constellations from Johannes HeveliusÕs celestial catalogueÊUranographiaÊ(1690). Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

masters, whose authority is rigid and demands ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe idea of resurrection also contains the
loyalty. As an advocate of intellectual struggle against an intellectual, cultural (and in
emancipation and active study, Fedorov railed the current era, possibly even digital) divide. The
against the idea of a mastery that implies production of an artifact, a text, or a work of art
obedience and a noncritical acquisition of has always been a means of conquering oneÕs
knowledge. The concept of the Òorganic existential fear of death. On the other hand,

05/11
intellectual,Ó developed two decades after those who remain on the periphery of cultural
FedorovÕs death, seems very close to his production have always been bound to overcome
perspective on the ideal educational process. A mortality through their children. ÒResurrection
university, in FedorovÕs words, is a Òslave of for allÓ means that individual processes of
industrialismÓ that turns any idea of a living creative production are of little existential
world into a lifeless concept. Academic training consequence: all will be saved, and all will be
is also, of course, a privileged form of education, equally recognized and remembered.
with the academy a sanctuary for what Fedorov ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe first gesture of resurrection, for
calls Òclass science.Ó Beyond the university, the Fedorov, was when our human ancestors stood
two alternative institutional forms of education upright, Òa sentry and laborious stanceÓ Ð a
Fedorov finds compelling are the library and the perpendicular position that humans developed in
museum, in which Òeverything must be an object relation to the earth, which distinguished us
of knowledge, and everybody Ð a subject.Ó7 from other species.9 Standing upright is what
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhether in the university, the library, the once enabled human beings to observe the world
museum, or outside of these institutions, a from a different angle, for the first time seeing it
radical divide between theory and practice is as a whole Ð a planet placed between heaven
palpable in our communication and in the simple and earth, between high and low. In FedorovÕs
rituals of daily life. In wishing for others to be logic, an understanding of human interrelations
well (for example, while greeting each other: the made our species conscious of natural laws and
Russian equivalent for ÒhelloÓ [zdravstvujte] is the possibility of ameliorating life on earth (e.g.,
literally a wish of good health), one rarely does the sun shines and the rain pours from the sky,
anything to support this wish, believing that a and this is what affects the soil and actualizes
verbal and ÒautomaticÓ expression is enough to its fertility). It was a gesture that signified the
somehow positively affect the situation. Such a unity of theory and practice Ð a symbolic
performative utterance (in J. L. AustinÕs beginning of what Fedorov calls ÒHeaven-
terminology, this refers to a statement that is knowledge,Ó or ÒWorld-knowledge.Ó10 More
neither descriptive nor evaluative but serves as, importantly, standing was an act of uprising in its
or is a part of, an action, such as ÒI promise not literal and political sense Ð an insurrection
to lie, cheat, or stealÓ) is a surrogate of a real act, against the forces of nature.
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

an excuse to remain passive. At the same time,

wishing health as a mundane ritual greeting, Spontaneity and Organization
along with many similar greetings, contains a One of the most burning issues debated in
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

grain of universal concern for the overall well- revolutionary circles Ð such as among socialist
being of the other, even if this concern is and labor parties Ð in the late nineteenth and
culturally suppressed or underdeveloped. The early twentieth century was the balance between
repetitive expression of implicit care for the good spontaneity and organization. Once the impetus
of others reveals the superstitious core of our to form and galvanize mass movement was
speech acts, and probably even the superstitious established, the question of how to organize
element within what in our secular age is called became vital for understanding political action
Òthe performative.Ó At the same time, this grain and the creation of a relevant revolutionary
of universal concern indicates the strategy and tactics. In a broader sense, the
compassionate content of words as Òreservoirs debate on organization and spontaneity Ð that is,
of life experience,Ó and proves that everyday on the proper balance of regulated and
language itself is full of long-established extemporaneous resistance Ð can be seen as a
empathies (in other words, philosophical problem of channeling solidarity, of coordinating
language is not alone in holding empathy Ð nor, demands according to the difficulties of the
as will be argued by Bloch, is poetic language).8 present and the varying views of a better future.
FedorovÕs maxim for conquering death, Fedorov obviously stood before and apart from
formulated as Òresurrection for all,Ó turns out to this discussion, and his skeptical interest in
be a practical embodiment of the common ÒspontaneityÓ [stihijnostÕ] has no relation to
concern and collective desire for the common fostering political engagement.11 At the same
good, both of which seem to reside in the core of time, his critique, strongly determined by the
our habitual, and often formal, wishes of health etymological peculiarity of the Russian word, is
to others. suggestive for understanding the term as part of

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

 06/11

Natalia Goncharova, Khorovod, 1910. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

an international political vocabulary. FedorovÕs refusal to accept this apocalyptic
Spontaneity, for Fedorov, is nothing but a blind pessimism motivates his project of resurrection:
force of nature that knows nothing of itself; it is a resurrection as the transfiguration of all is
natural potentiality that is actualized counterposed to death as salvation for the few.
incidentally and operates until it has fully Regulation is an act of support for the weak, and
actualized itself, or when an external every human being is vulnerable and weak by

07/11
counterforce interferes in the process Ð just as a definition. The most prominent examples of
fire in a forest may be stopped either by rain or regulation already present in FedorovÕs era
by firefighters. This is why Fedorov insists that included food supplies independent of
there is no place for spontaneity in social life; it immediate need, regular hygiene, and health
has to be placed under permanent regulation. care. Human weakness is also a source of
But what does this regulation imply? What kind creativity and care: if there had not been people
of subject does it presuppose? Could it not lead with poor eyesight, humanity would never have
to the establishment of an eternal modernist invented glasses.
dictatorship of reason? ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe state of nonregulation means that the
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊFor Fedorov, regulation begins with organization, or rather disorganization, of our
attention and a rational approach to the natural environment is automatically delegated Ð to
environment, which involve neither the gods and heroes, to those in power, to nature, to
exploitation of natural resources nor their machinery, and to the invisible hand of the
preservation, but rather their control. Such a market. In order to overcome this dependency
view is equally hostile to three major approaches and to break its unseen chains, humanity has to
to conceiving of our relation with nature: its establish regulation as such as the regulative
ultimate subordination to the satisfaction of ideal. So, any resistance based on spontaneity is
human needs, its ecologically responsible illogical because it is grounded in the natural, or
protection, and the neovitalist attempt to enjoy naturalized, order it intends to smash.
natural spontaneous forces as a part of a project ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe process of regulation, in fact, is the
of solidarity with nonhuman objects.12 For realization of FedorovÕs project of resurrection
Fedorov, nature is our temporary enemy that has for all, and the idea of regulation can elucidate
to be made our eternal friend.13 what, at least partially, this project means. When
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSo, regulation starts with reason, but it is, people die, their flesh, or ashes, dissolve into the
of course, different from, if not opposite to, the matter of nature Ð this is the basic concept of
mythological triumph of human rationality that entropy (and the reason why our bodies are just
shaped the edifice of the Enlightenment, which Òhuge hotels for atoms,Ó as Konstantin
has yet to been fully destroyed. Regulation Tsiolkovsky, a young visitor to FedorovÕs library
means responsible creativity and active care. As and a future rocket scientist, would later
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

we know from the patristic period and St. explain14). So, our physical environment is
Augustine, flesh is originally sinful because it is literally made up of particles of the dead. In this
able to sin, and sinful flesh is the main obstacle regard, it is easy to see that the regulation of
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

to the realization of human freedom, of positive nature is a project of care, which starts with the
freedom Ð that is, freedom for. This is the recognition of the material metamorphosis that
perspective from which Fedorov looks at nature: our world is built upon. Suggesting that we
it is chaotic, it knows no piety, no fraternity, and enhance our faculty of knowledge by means of
is therefore far from securing freedom for perception, Fedorov finds it necessary to accept
humanity. In a natural environment, animals are that history qua substance composed of the
doomed to kill and eat each other in order to scattered dust of former generations can be
survive; they do not save the weak, and they live experienced collectively; it can be lived through,
in conditions of so-called natural selection. or even grasped with the five senses. Yet, such
FedorovÕs argument can be seen as an inversion an experience, which is supposed to serve as a
of the social-Darwinist argument: the fact that bonding mechanism in the future, is problematic
there is lethal competition between different while society is torn by power struggles. These
species in natural life is the key reason why struggles impede the very project of regulation
social life has to be organized differently; it has based on a universally recognized necessity to
to be regulated precisely because social life is put under control the hostile impulses of nature,
not nature. Interestingly, with his call for which represent the chaotic disintegration of
resurrection for all, Fedorov was among those matter and therefore the dissolution of history.
who pointed out the existence of a selective logic While there is social discord, people will just
within the Christian canon, one stipulating that imitate natural chaos instead of harmonizing the
only the righteous will be saved. According to world and turning it into a human cosmos.
this logic, the Last Judgment is the moment of Modern culture only fans the flames of Òthe war
unprecedented and ultimate selection. But of all against all,Ó whether driven by the human

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

desire for recognition, as identified by Hobbes, or good is not just the absence of vice, but a real
our economic egoism, as famously stressed by force that is able to eliminate suffering and
Marx. So, before nature and history can be made anger.19 In this sense Fedorov is a quintessential
into a subject of careful regulation, the modernist, in opposition to the tendencies of
regulators themselves have to be regulated. Òweak thoughtÓ Ð whether understood as Òweak
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊDespite his insistence on regulation, there messianism,Ó Òweak communism,Ó or the like.20

08/11
is room for spontaneity in FedorovÕs thought. FedorovÕs project, if not entirely convincing, is
Though rarely noticed, the space Fedorov leaves strong, determined, and uncompromising. His
for spontaneity can be found in his fascination understanding of power, paradoxically, is based
with collective gatherings and popular on a materialist ontology and a pantheistic
celebrations: choirs of singers, circle dancers, or worldview; he writes that even if everyone on
even the liturgy that has to be performed outside earth follows the Christian commandments, fire
of the church, embracing the whole of will still burn and water will still flow.21 Yet, this
humanity.15 Apart from the liturgy, these are all naturally given, ontological order has to be
collective, carnivalesque, pantheistic rituals that subverted, and blind power somehow extracted,
have a positive effect on the life of the whole understood, and transformed into a constructive
community. Regardless of FedorovÕs criticism of force for the sake of the whole universe. Only if
the unreflective and archaic nature of these humanity follows the path of the most radical
happenings, overall he found them much closer change and carries out the common task of
to the project of the common task than any resurrection for all will Òlife on earth extend to
expressions of industrial progress. the limits of nature, since nature itself,
recognizing the lack of its own freedom, will pass
On the Power of Collectivity through us, turning into a world of free, infinite
Of the three elements of the famous triad of personalities.Ó22
revolutionary struggle Ð theory versus practice,
spontaneity versus organization, and the power History: Fidelity or Eradication?
of collectivity Ð Fedorov explicitly discusses only The concept of revolution has a very peculiar
the third. The only form of affiliation meaningful relationship to the concept of history. On one
to his thinking is Òbrotherhood,Ó which does not hand, revolution is the ultimate example of a
merely involve blood relations.16 It follows that formative historical event; on the other, it
Fedorov finds it important to understand the signifies a rupture with history. On one hand, it
grounds of collectivity, as well as its power and insists on fidelity to history Ð both in the sense of
expression. Despite his piety and loyalty to many the active creation of it, and in the sense of
Eastern Orthodox dogmas, he Ð quite heretically returning to the moment of the constitution of
Ð finds that the individual act of praying is of order. On the other, it can also be seen as the
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

little worth since it is unable to save a person eradication of history. However contradictory,
from Òinner disturbance.Ó For Fedorov, inner both visions of history are present in FedorovÕs
turmoil is always caused by the chaotic state of thought. Fedorov is very explicit on the point that
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

the social and physical environment. Moreover, fidelity to history, as well as fidelity in general,
an individual feeling of harmony and peace with has little to do with religious faith. He
oneself is determined by the experience of peace distinguishes between the words ÒfaithfulÓ
with others. Praying should be collective; [vernyj] and ÒreligiousÓ [veruyushii], which have
otherwise it has no significance and no effect, the same root in Russian.23 ÒThe faithful one
whether performative or reflective.17 ÒThe cannot help being a believerÓ because the
Orthodox Trinity immanently points out that we faithful one acts according to that which he or
are to be kept in our generic universe,Ó argues she believes, which is not necessarily the case
Fedorov; he continues by pointing to the struggle with a religious person. A faithful action is
against death as the force that can unite people penetrated by love for the object of faith; it is
into a collective body of generic beings.18 This is more than a subject of action; and such
why Fedorov suggests that we start the fight for faithfulness can probably be better grasped as a
a better world from the point of an axiomatic relation with the concept of truth.
equality in the face of our finite being, instead of ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut how can one be faithful to history? For
from our social differences. Fedorov, this necessarily presupposes a truth
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAlthough Fedorov is often portrayed as a procedure, and starts with the correct
pacifist, he accepts the significance of power. comprehension of what history is. Thus, national
Yet for Fedorov, power is better comprehended history, for example, is nothing but a symptom of
through the notion of potentia, or potentiality. division and a manifestation of national vanity;
The concept of the kind or the good has to be history is and can be conceived only as universal,
matched with knowledge and power (the way and cannot become real so long as there are
they are blended in the figure of God), since the wars and power struggles. According to Fedorov,

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

history is often seen as a reservoir of cases and though historical thinking, a vestige of
proofs to be used in a manipulative manner in modernity, is bound to its negation of the past,
pamphlets. Another way to present history is as a this negation is unable to eliminate the presence
Ònovel about the past,Ó or as a combination of of the past Ð both physically and symbolically.
narratives.24 This is a recreation of the past in The past is already always integrated into the
words, not in deeds. Historical thinking, as we project of the future, as well as into the actual

09/11
know, is a product of understanding history as a future itself. Being aware of this, Fedorov offers
teleological process, a timeline that constantly to set the clock backwards and suggests making
demarcates our past from our future. Fedorov the past the one and only project that is to be
objects to this approach, as it is based on an idea carried out in any period that is to come. It is
of progress that eliminates or overcomes the impossible to be faithful to history, if this history
past for the sake of the future. On one hand, he runs off like water, or decomposes like ashes in
offers quite a conservative vision, one that the soil. But if humans fully turn back from the
implies an ultimate turn to the past instead of a forthcoming towards the past, if we make an
view towards the future. On the other, he seems attempt to discover our future in the past, we
to show that the past and future are always can perhaps reverse the modernist logic of
already blended in the present, and our desire to ÒdeadlyÓ history. So it is not the past that has to
isolate history in moments that are left behind is be sacrificed for the future, but rather the idea of
simply anti-historical. In addition, Fedorov progress that has to be abandoned, and the
emphasizes the division between scientific and image of the future dissolved in the creative work
ÒcommonsenseÓ attitudes to history. The former, of memory. This does not mean that
which is Òthe history of historians,Ó is an image, a technological development has to stop; rather, it
concept, a scholarly thought that has been used means that there will be no accelerated
in the development of the theoretical apparatus production Ð only distribution, control, and care.
of historical science. The latter consists of a History, then, is neither a collection of facts, nor
number of emotional outbursts and sentimental a narrative, but a project, and an ongoing action.
(or even sacramental) attitudes towards the To use a metaphor from FedorovÕs era, we could
past, expressed in regular memories and describe this project as the building of a world
habitual rituals of commemoration. Whereas one library (and of course, Fedorov himself was a
is the rationalized cult of heroes and events, Òa librarian) Ð yet nowadays it is difficult to think of
fact,Ó Òa judgment, a verdictÓ (or Òa slaughter- libraries outside of the global system of
bench,Ó to put it in HegelÕs words), the other is a production and digital capitalism. While Fedorov
Òcult of the dead,Ó exercised intuitively and would probably have liked to turn factories into
without prompting reflection upon its objective libraries and museums, we have witnessed an
meaning.25 This gap between two modes of opposite transformation: libraries and museums
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

operation of the past Ð the theoretical and the are turning into factories of objects, statements,
practical Ð has to be narrowed, and these modes and affects. At the same time, Fedorov was not
have to be integrated into one another in order to satisfied with a ÒsuperstructuralÓ view of history.
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

see and make a different, active, and perceivable History is to be found in successive scientific
history as an expression of collective will. What inventions expressing a cumulative trans-
is particularly interesting in todayÕs context is generational experience. Furthermore, history
that Fedorov contrasted Òhistory as science,Ó has to be physically co-opted as a substance via
which he despised, to Òhistory as art,Ó since the the material transfiguration of the human, where
Òtransfigurative, regulative capability of artÓ bodily organs become the tools needed to
renders it a mode of action, a creative element of change external conditions Ð that is, the
our vita activa. conditions of the universe.27
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊFor Fedorov, everyone participates in ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊEnding this exploratory journey into
making history, but this participation is rendered FedorovÕs ideas, it is worth coming back to our
as a struggle for self-reproduction, devastation, point of departure, that is, to revolution and its
and war. Fidelity to history implies a different subjects. The whole thrust of FedorovÕs
idea of participation, and this is where FedorovÕs revolutionary project was to shift our perspective
argument becomes really confusing. Although he from creation to recreation, which was justified
condemns any progressivist fascination with the both ontologically (everything comes from one
future, he Ð paradoxically Ð calls for universal and the same matter) and ethically (we must be
projective thinking, since, in his view, Òa project responsible for the deceased who gave life to us
is a bridge from subject to object.Ó26 What does and enable us to sustain our being). Like
this mean, and how is it possible to think of a recreation, revolution itself contains a repetitive
project without a future projection? This enigma moment: it implies a movement of returning to
can be unraveled by comprehending the something Ð at least to the moment of an
synthetic nature of any moment in history. Even ultimate reconfiguration of all relations before a

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

new sociopolitical order is established, a Marina Simakova is a cultural critic and theorist based
moment of both rescission and reconstitution, a in St.ÊPetersburg. Her research interests include
political philosophy, critical and cultural theory, and
burst of destituent and constituent powers with the intellectual history of the Russian Revolution.
which any radical project is imbued. Any call for Currently, she works as a researcher at the European
change inherits this ambiguity, inviting to us University at St. Petersburg.ÊHer critical essays and
recreate the collective assumption that, translations have been published in e-flux journal,

10/11
inasmuch as the universe is able to materially New Literary Observer, Translit, and other journals.Ê
reconfigure itself, an alternative life is possible.
One of FedorovÕs theses was that the power of
the social exceeds the forces of nature, which is
why the latter can be revolutionized for the sake
of the former. Today, his social critique prompts a
different, if not inverse, conclusion: that our
social life, no less than the human itself, awaits
its material transfiguration. As Blanqui would
probably add, precisely since Òthe future of our
Earth, like its past, will change course millions of
times,Ó new choices can be made and radical
actions taken: ÒFatality has no place in the
infinite, which knows nothing of alternatives and
has room for everything.Ó28 After all, the universe
is full of open potentialities and can neither be
separated from, nor reduced to, the immanence
of the global world.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1 with Non-Human People
Louis-Auguste Blanqui, ÒVII. (London: Verso, 2017).
Analysis and Synthesis of the
Universe,Ó in Eternity by the ÊÊÊÊÊÊ13
Stars (1872), trans. Philippe Le Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
Goff, Peter Hallward, and vol. 1, 393.
Mitchell Abidor, Blanqui Archive.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ14
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2 Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,

11/11
Frank Chouraqui, ÒAt the Prikluchenia atoma (Adventures
Crossroads of History: Blanqui at of the atom) (Moscow: Luch,
the Castle of the Bull,Ó 2009), 18.
introduction to Louis-Auguste
Blanqui, Eternity by the Stars, ÊÊÊÊÊÊ15
trans. Frank Chouraqui (New Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
York: Contramedium Press, vol. 3, 297.
2013), 7.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ16
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ3 Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
Ibid. vol. 1, 249.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ4 ÊÊÊÊÊÊ17
In Russian, the word ÒscientistÓ For instance, Fedorov finds the
or ÒscholarÓ (uchyonii) has an pagan rural custom of circle
antonym that literally means dancing (khorovod) to be an
ÒuneducatedÓ (neuchenii). example of Òlive, active religion,Ó
Fedorov deploys this opposition in contrast to ÒdeadÓ rituals
when he distinguishes between such as individual praying or
Òmen of scienceÓ and Òthe rest.Ó church services. It is worth
noting that the origin of the
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ5 peasantsÕ circle dance Ð the
Nikolai Fedorov, N. F. Fedorov: ritual worship of the sun Ð is
Sobranie sochinenij v chetyreh what makes Fedorov see the
tomah, tom 1 (Collected works in element of collective hope for a
four volumes, vol. 1) (Moscow: collective impact on the forces
Progress, 1995), 42. of nature.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ6 ÊÊÊÊÊÊ18
Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij, Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
vol. 1, 107. vol. 1, 102.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ7 ÊÊÊÊÊÊ19
Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij, Ibid., 110.
vol. 3, 229.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ20
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ8 The most developed theory of
Bloch mainly refers to the Òweak thoughtÓ can be found in
emotional meaning of the work of Gianni Vattimo,
metaphoric adjectives used in based on his version of the
habitual descriptions of the hermeneutic method. See, for
human environment, such as example, Gianni Vattimo and
Òthe wind moans.Ó Ernst Bloch, A Santiago Zabala, Hermeneutic
Philosophy of The Future (New Communism: From Heidegger to
e-flux journal #88 Ñ february 2018 Ê Marina Simakova

York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 24. Marx (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2014).
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ9
Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij, ÊÊÊÊÊÊ21
vol. 1, 114. Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
Russian Cosmism: A Foretaste of Revolution

vol. 1, 110.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ10
Constructed similarly to self- ÊÊÊÊÊÊ22
knowledge, ÒHeaven- Ibid, 111.
knowledgeÓ (or ÒSky-
knowledge,Ó (Nebo-poznanie)) ÊÊÊÊÊÊ23
means getting to know Òthings Ibid, 132.
aboveÓ (i.e., the Absolute, the
cosmos, or simply what is yet ÊÊÊÊÊÊ24
beyond reason), while ÒWorld- Ibid, 136.
knowledgeÓ (Miro-poznanie)
means getting to know physical ÊÊÊÊÊÊ25
and social reality. It is quite Ibid., 146.
striking that, given FedorovÕs
religious views, his usage of ÊÊÊÊÊÊ26
these words indicates that, for Fedorov, Sobranie sochinenij,
him, these two kinds of vol. 3, 285.
knowledge Ð knowing the
transcendent and knowing the ÊÊÊÊÊÊ27
immanent Ð signify one and the Nikolai Fedorov, Sochinenia
same process. (Works) (Moscow: MyslÕ, 1982),
405.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊ11
The Russian term stihijnostÕ ÊÊÊÊÊÊ28
originates from the word that Blanqui, ÒVII. Analysis and
signifies an elemental force of Synthesis of the Universe.Ó
nature (stihija) Ð an outer force
which is wild, violent, and
almost impossible to control.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ12
See, for example, Timothy
Morton, Humankind: Solidarity

02.12.18 / 16:41:22 EST