Hopeless point ru

Sometimes texts and other products of creativity are smarter, more complicated and even talented than the author’s personality. The envy of Salieri to Mozart, as well as the coquetry of Yesenin, who called himself “God's pipe”, is based on this conviction. This is rare. The opposite is more often.

The usual creative failures of famous authors do not make sense to comment: not always in the top ten, tomorrow it will “get”, as always. But sometimes, the phenomenon is hidden behind the incoherents of the text and the logic of presentation. This is already interesting.

The other day, two brilliant publicists, who have hundreds of smart and exact analytical articles in their assets, published texts with a fair amount of inaccurate and incorrect (in my, of course, look) statements and the conclusions attracted by my hedgehog.

I am about Radzikhov’s polemic about dissidents, opposition and fate of the country.

Radzikhovsky is starting from the Discussion of Milov with Litvinovich and on the move makes his branded equivalent conclusion: both are right.

Where and in what Radzikhovsky saw Litvinovich's truth? Not motives (a matter of everyday life and disproportionate), but the truth of the position. A person, while in the leadership of a radical opposition organization, offers:

a) trust the president (without leaving the radical opposition);

b) to lead the Medvedev majority (without revealing the secrets in which place Medvedev keeps this majority and what demon he will be elevated by the OGF);

c) radically change the forms and methods of the organization’s work (to all questions, what and how to change, the invariable answer “I don’t know”).

That is, there is a rare case when in the discussion one of its participant (Litvinovich) is absolutely wrong. As a person who claims that the earth is flat. And Radzikhovsky recognizes this in the first lines. But after a couple of paragraphs, it leads: both are right. For what? But why. This is necessary for the overall design that the LR builds in this (and not only) article and in which it is necessary to emphasize the nullity of the scale of the phenomenon in general and the inadequacy of both opponents in particular. Entomologist's gaze: here are two bugs, both small, ridiculous, absolutely useless. But in general, harmless, they want to live. Let them crawl ...

Further, having pushed away from entomology, LR proceeds to the thesis that dissidents in our country have never had influence. Ryklin objects: dissidents created moral and ethical prerequisites for the fall of communism. In my opinion, Radzikhovsky’s thesis and Ryklin's objection involuntarily support the myth, intensely created for the past 10 years, that communism has buried the communist nomenclature. That is, in the spirit of Real Politician, real business people did the job, and the dissidents aside created moral prerequisites. According to my observations (thank God, not the Kulikovo battle and we are all to one degree or another, accomplices and eyewitnesses of the process), just the moral prerequisites for the fall of communism created not only and not so much dissidents, but the nomenclature, which by the 80s became closely within the framework of state property and party charter.

But the political breakdown of communism was made primarily by dissidents who united in the inter -regional deputy group under the flags of the classic dissident of Sakharov and dissidents with partyboards - Yeltsin, Afanasyev, Popov. It was their efforts that were sold through the resisting “aggressive-auditory majority” of the congress nomenclature the main measures to dismantle communism: elimination of the 6th article, multi-party, freedom of printing and the ban on censorship. And a finishing blow was struck by the direct heiress of the MDG - “Demrossia”, which was created by the dissident “Memorial”, the Sakharovsky club of voters of the USSR Academy of Sciences, “Moscow Tribune”, “April”, “Shield”. The direct initiators were dissidents Viktor Sheinis, Sergey Kovalev, Lev Ponomarev and others. This is to the thesis of LR about the "traditional senselessness of the circulation of dissidents to the people." We went and won.

The victory of Demrossia in the 1990 elections predetermined the election of Yeltsin by the President of Russia. Without this, our first president would be the head of the Kuban Communists of Polozov. I don’t know if there would be communism in our country on this time, but that the funeral would have been delayed and before his death would have done things, it is very likely.

So it’s not “influence”, dear Leonid Alexandrovich and Alexander Yuryevich! In this decisive episode of domestic history, dissidents performed the main organizational, political and black work to eliminate communism in a single country.

As for the “moral premises”, they themselves do not work in themselves. During the 1990 elections, metabolic points stood throughout the country, where it was possible to convert moral (and other symbolic) capital into political. In the nineties, these exchangers were slowly closed. And in the zero they demolished everything to the single one, which, perhaps, was the main prerequisite for the collapse of modernization.

In their endless attempts to prove the insignificance of the influence of dissidents of the LR makes at least two substitutions. Firstly, the concept of “dissident” sharply narrows before the concept of “human rights activist”. Thus, Solzhenitsyn with Zinoviev (obvious dissidents, but not human rights activists), and dissenting with party bits such as Lena Karpinsky or Yegor Yakovlev, who were oppressed and fired precisely for beliefs, are “overboard”.

The second substitution: reducing the sphere of politics only to the direct government of the state, the occupation of state dollars. And accordingly, the narrowing and emasculation of the concept of influence.

Radzikhovsky writes: "Dissent put their 5 kopecks in the piggy bank of history." Dissa is a “disagreed”, dissenting, whose religious or political views are significantly different from the dominant. The most famous dissidents in world history: Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Luther, Bruno, Mahatma Gandhi. In Russian: Chaadaev, Tolstoy, Sakharov.

"Five Coptocks", say? Well, well.

The problem of reducing the influence of dissidents is, it really exists. This is not a Russian, but a world problem. This is part of the problem of reducing the influence of the intelligentsia, intellectuals, people of culture on society. This is a global process, one of the reasons for which is the change of cultural paradigm around the world. In place of the literary-centric model of culture, first came film (which is “the most important of all the arts”), and then the telecocentric model. The culture of the rulers of the thoughts-writers, poets, thinkers with whom the kings were considered, and the peoples did not listen to them, then at least listened-the factory-conveyor cultures of the film and television: “Factories of the dreams” and “factories of stars” came. Today, Stalin would hardly have dropped his "I have no other writers for you." Other TV stars? Yes, in a week we will find and turn on! Instead of the influence of Pushkin and Tolstoy, the influence of Ksenia Sobchak and Tina Kandelaki. The TV plays a decrease. The smart, complex thought of TV does not contain and discards, leaving the slogan and joke.

So this is not a purely Russian problem.

As for Russia, at the end of his article, Radzikhovsky makes his traditional conclusion that most Russians do not need freedom, and "dissidents have nothing to catch outside their circle." This author has been writing this article for more than a year and the conclusion in each part of this novel with a continuation of the same thing: “Russia was blown away”, “steam came out”, “the wheel fell”. The ideology of the “Party of Pravda” and other ideas of the author, for the substantiation of which he sometimes have to make serious efforts to distort reality, are based on this. Radzikhovsky is far from lonely in these moods. He reflects them because he works as a mirror of the Russian intelligentsia.

On the same days, three more bright representatives of this social group, led by Professor Yu.N. Afanasyev is written similar: "The historically established type of Russian culture, Russianness as an ineffective way to think, make decisions and act, leaves the historical scene." And the conclusion: the current Russia cannot be preserved. It is useless to call a protest to be forward ... Time is missed. In general, “Russia missed every chance of modernization”, “there is no social force ... there is no modernization in Russia, and its appearance is not expected.” In short, “Russia is not transformed and not reformed” (“You can’t go forward” // “New Gazeta”, No. 115, 10/16/2009).

Hopeless point ru. Radzikhovsky, side view. Only tougher, more brutal. The verdict is final. There is no appeal. An analogue of the solution of the Paris Academy of Sciences, which in 1775 decided not to consider the projects of the eternal engine.

It is interesting when Yuri Nikolaevich Afanasyev, being the co -chair of the MDG, stood at the forefront of the modernization breakthrough, he knew that everything was useless that “Russia was not reformed and not transformed”? Or in 20 years, "a historically formed type of Russian culture has changed, Russianness as an ineffective way to think, make decisions"? Or was he mistaken then, and today I realized something new? What exactly the historian Afanasyev understood over the past 20 years about the "Russianness"? The same questions to Radzikhovsky, who at that time scribbled like a machine gunner of 5 articles a day, scattering them according to the editorial office as shells to help a modernization breakthrough.

I am convinced that in 1985, neither historian Afanasyev nor the social psychologist Radzikhovsky saw in our Soviet society neither social forces nor the chances of such a modernization that they themselves will get involved in 3-4 years. Why do they refuse the country in a chance today? What new have they learned in 20 years? What are counter -reforms in Russia after short -made reforms? This is undoubtedly a sensation for educated people. The news is that in the yard right now the peak of counter -reforms? This is given to us all in sensations. As well as the fact that before the New Year the modernization impulse is likely not to happen. And then? And here you can already begin to make mistakes. And in terms, and in the vector, and in factors.

Here is Alexander Ryklin, for example, writes that the gaze and worse does the power of the situation in the territory subordinate to it, the better. The dirtier, for example, the elections, the better for the opposition. Which should bury this system, and then, having burst into the top, "jump on top and proceed to the construction of another system." I suspect, moreover, I am sure that two people wrote this article. It was like that. Ryklin-publicist wrote half the article and went to smoke. At this time, quite by chance, the keyboard was another person, Ryklin-politician, one of the leaders of the OGF, who is not even a namesake Ryklin, a publicist, as they say. And this Ryklin-politician finished the article with such an ending, where "the worse, the better", "bury-nursing-pronounced."

Ryklin-publicist and analyst could not write like that, and if he wrote, he made a gross methodological error. The mirror of the one that Litvinovich made, who, playing black, suddenly grabbed a white pawn and began to walk with her, trying to spend in Fersi. Ryklin, who is a politician, has a full right and, moreover, is obliged to consider and act as if his structure (no matter, OGF or “solidarity”) is the main figure of Russian politics, which is one in a state of “burying-jumping and building”. Because otherwise politics cannot be engaged at all. The criterion in politics is not truth, but a victory. And to win the success of “your figure”, you need to at least believe. Ryklin-politician, who believes that “the worse, the better”, is undoubtedly right, because the worse and gage behaves, the less living space it leaves for the maneuver to modern “dissidents with party bits” and the higher the capitalization of a radical opposition. Including “weight”, for example, the OGF, “solidarity”, “other Russia” is growing. Does this increase the chances of the victory described in the terms “bury-jump-up”? Will the radical opposition cost on their own if the “Trojan horse” died inside the system?

For publicist and analytics, the criterion is still the truth. And then we must admit that the OGF and “solidarity”, like the whole opposition (as well as all the power, along with all parties in power and the Kremlin towers) are figures whose forces the party does not win. There is no children's mat. Such parties are not won even by half of the figures. One radical opposition “bury-jumping from above-to-take to the construction of a new” cannot. How could neither pure dissidents, nor dissidents with partyboards, nor tired of the framework of the charter and state property of nomenclatures. They did not have any single supervision of modernization. Each of these figures played its game. Based on their inner logic and interests or ideals.

But behind the large chessboard was someone else. Paranoids call him a world backstage. Believers - God. Agnostics intelligently notice that they have forgotten to imagine each other with this player. In any case, the game continues. Including in Russia. And its result is unknown, which gives hope. Unlike attempts to invent an eternal engine.