Stop the thief!

Either you curse the 1990s or you will be cursed.
So, hurry to the damning winners. Don’t be afraid to get lost in the crowd - in cramped conditions, but not in any way.
With rare exceptions (Prokhanov, for example), these are people who rose up in those very 1990s. Double benefit: firstly, they know firsthand what they curse. “What I curse is what I have” (and vice versa). Secondly, they are always on horseback, eternal winners and never defeated!

Fathers and midwives
Indeed, when people who privatized giant enterprises in the 1990s, who were ministers, deputies in those years, or, at worst, leading TV propagandists (Karaulov, Pushkov, Leontyev, etc.), today carry out a “mandatory program of curses” , then you involuntarily watch with bated breath this “flight of the tongue under the circus big top” - it won’t stop, no? But, fortunately, they have reliable insurance. Everything is fine. A successful landing to the applause of the public is guaranteed.

Here, for example, is the bureau of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party.
Who were they in the damned 90s? The only one whose career did not work out then was the head of the educational and methodological center of the Baltic Technical University, Boris Gryzlov. But for the rest, it seems like a sin to complain so much. I will only list the positions. President of Tatarstan; Mayor of Moscow; Minister of Emergency Situations; Vice-Governor of the Saratov Region; General Director of CJSC Russian Fish Company; First Deputy, then Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation; Chairman of the Budget Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation; Deputy of the State Duma, General Director of CJSC Sovtransavto-Minvody; Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation; General Director of JSC Kolymaenergo; General Director of CJSC Tourist Complexes Izmailovo; Governor of the Khabarovsk Territory; Governor of the Kemerovo region; Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation - Chairman of the Committee on Nationalities.

I would venture to suggest that some of these gentlemen took part in privatization (“I privatize and pay”). And certainly none of them have NEVER been noticed in dissident statements. Of course, they were “offended for the state” - but anger burned them exclusively from within. It is quite understandable that today, when in the conditions of freedom of speech there was an opportunity to tell the truth, simply streams of red-hot lava poured out of their mouths about the physical suffering of the people and the mental suffering of their own.

An alibi in the minds of the people for them, the eternally ruling and possessing nomenklatura (and its linguistic servants), is provided by the “whipping boys in pink pants” who carried out privatization and committed other crimes against Russia. Crimes that are strictly judged by the prosecutors of the 1990s - they are innocent buyers of stolen goods.

And here, by the way, are the “boys” - the leaders of the “half-dissolved” Union of Right Forces, members of the presidium of the Federal Political Council of the Union of Right Forces (they will be replaced on December 17). In the 1990s they were: vice-president of the Perm financial and industrial group; Deputy Chairman of the Sverdlovsk Regional Duma; Advisor to the First Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation; another adviser to the First Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation; Head of a department of the Government of the Russian Federation. Let's also add the informal leader of the party, Nemtsov (not a member of the Presidium of the Political Council) - the first deputy prime minister of the Russian government.

How can you distinguish the members of the United Russia leadership from the leaders of the Union of Right Forces? Perhaps the first ones occupied slightly more important positions in the 90s...
This is if we talk about party leadership.

If we take the ordinary functionaries of “United Russia” and the Union of Right Forces, then it is very easy to understand who benefited more from the fruits of the reforms of the 1990s, who should now be considered “heirs of Gaidar”, and who – “knights deprived of their inheritance.” At the same time, the “inheritance tax” is paid by the latter instead of the former! And the funny thing is that they actually pay this political tax into their pockets first!

However, you shouldn’t feel poor about them either.
“Boys 1992” also made far from the weakest catch in their “pink pants.” On average, the former ministers of Gaidar’s short government are “settled in life” no worse (though certainly not better) than other Russian senior officials. True, many of them, the most successful “in life”, moved away from active politics (Fedorov, Shokhin, Vavilov, etc.) and are not associated with that government. During the 90s, people who were left to take the rap were either those who were personally relatively not rich (according to the average high nomenklatura standards), like Nemtsov, or those who did not play a prominent role at all in those years (Belykh). For lovers of statistics: one of the “rich right-wingers,” Gozman, has income for 2006, according to official information from the Central Election Commission, a little more than 460 million rubles, about 19 million dollars (of which he forgot to indicate 448 million rubles, they were revealed by an audit). A “decent” amount is apparently average for the leaders of RAO UES (except, of course, Chubais and two or three more). I would venture to suggest that the “strong statists” have an order of magnitude more income, especially property.

But, in the end, the point is not who got rich PERSONALLY from the labors of the righteous. The point is who (which party) pursued which POLICY.

The liberation of prices (i.e., inflation and “liquidation of deposits”) and privatization (i.e., the creation of billions of dollars) are two of the people’s most “favorite” achievements of the 1990s. And there is no need that Gaidar’s “capitalist ministers” themselves did not become dollar billionaires (with rare exceptions like Aven). These decisions still remain on their POLITICAL conscience (and to their credit, they do not renounce this) - although they carried chestnuts not so much for themselves, but for completely different silent people and companies. But this injustice is also fair. After all, this respectable silent crowd, and not the “Chicago kibalchish”, are the ANONYMOUS FATHERS of Russian capital and capitalism.

Russian capitalism was conceived by Russia, by Russian history from the late Soviet nomenklatura - economic-party-KGB, there was no one else.

It was then that the genotype of the socio-economic system of private-bureaucratic raw material latifundia, which one way or another exists today, was laid.

It was then that the fundamental need for a “superstructure/vertical” adequate to this capital was programmed – and not at all in 1999-2000. (Of course, we are not talking about a “conspiracy of the nomenklatura.” That is, there were probably enough stupid “conspiracies” and “plans” - but they were worthless, they all failed as pitifully as the idiotic State Emergency Committee... No. It’s not in calculated “state plans for the transformation of property”, but in the OBJECTIVE BALANCE of social forces and interests.)

But in how this genotype was REALIZED, of course, the role of “boys” - “obstetricians in pink pants”, who directly attended the birth, is great.

Next. It was possible to carry out nomenklatura privatization and SEIZE state property only in conditions of chaos and democratic mudslinging. It was a period of revolution, “sturm and stress”, “take as much as you can carry.”

But then the problem arises - HOLDING. Here revolutionaries (with rare exceptions) become, of course, conservatives. Here - FREEZE, here you need to take the solid bureaucratic path of “counter-revolution”. And, in the end, does it matter what Father Frost’s name is and whether he is a colonel or a lieutenant colonel? The iron liberals of 1992-1993 (including myself, say) all called on Pinochet... (Why in other places - from the Czech Republic to Ukraine - “freezing” was not needed is a separate interesting question.)

“Everything unclear has become clear. Many people with rope mustaches and royal beards... suddenly fell to the side, and a white-eyed ham snout with wheaten eyebrows and deep corporal folds on his cheeks came to the fore, destroying everyone and everything.”

Here it is - the universal law of the “pendulum of the Russian revolution”, ending with the phenomenon of Bureaucracy. This is how Ilf and Petrov brilliantly described the end of “Bolshevik romance.” The democratic romance ended in exactly the same way.

Everything should be as it should be; you can’t get out of your historical rut.

Revolution – Thermidor – Bonapartism. The old bicycle chain of History is unwinding. In our case, the chain is yellow-rusty, parodic, like our entire mediocre secondary history of poor students. This is the second time we are trying to pass the exam for a certificate of historical maturity - and again we are stalling. Well, somehow, with antics and banter, they repeated the paragraph “transition to pseudo-Bonapartism.” And they got stuck and started slipping in a circle.

But it’s time to trudge further up the mountain of History, to begin chiseling the next paragraph – “the transition to bourgeois democracy of the late 19th – early 20th centuries.” You still have to learn - where can you go! But no. The inability (unwillingness) to learn is solemnly declared “sovereignty.” And we curse the evil American teacher out loud. “Sovereign” - like all second-year students...

However, returning to our topic, the annoying criticism of “those liberals” is quite fair - this is just a form of RECOGNITION of their HISTORICAL ROLE. Their role in the adoption of the birth of Russian capitalism-2. By the way, the ASSESSMENT of their activities (“positive” or “negative”) in 10 years may change to the opposite. After all, history is written by the winners - and the winners change, they are shuffled by History itself. So it probably seems funnier to her - to juggle with the mirrors in which she is reflected.

The reforming ministers called themselves “kamikazes.” They were flirting, of course. Everyone made jokes - “kamikaze-from-obesity.” But in fact, politically they really found themselves in the role of those same kamikazes - the generational curse of the 1990s lies with them and does not go away. They themselves did not believe that they were kamikazes. That’s why they so easily, even impudently, decided to return to public politics (and, in fact, they never left it). But it turned out that this is impossible. And it’s true - kamikazes, they burned down in 1992, although they themselves didn’t understand it!

And no matter how much they repeat, “It’s not my fault - it (the socio-economic collapse) came on its own,” they do not find sympathy from the voter, they only further irritate.

I think that the “heroes of the 1990s,” as usual, believe in themselves and are quite sincerely angry about the “stupid people” who do not believe them. “Yes, we are midwives, yes, we, our hands, inflicted “birth trauma” on society. But if it weren’t for the injury, the birth wouldn’t have happened! How can you not see this! “When you could lift your snout up, you would see that these acorns are growing on me!”

But there is an objection to this: yes, you delivered the baby - that’s right. Childbirth was inevitable - for sure. But you took them unsuccessfully and, in addition to the obligatory “birth trauma,” you also caused completely unnecessary birth trauma!

And to an objection - a counter-objection. “Oh, so?! How should I have taken it - tell me! Oh, keep quiet?!” And - further in the circle of this meaningful discussion.

But arguing with a voter is the last thing in the political market. The client is always right - he has more rights. (However, ER has much more.)

I would note three circumstances in connection with today’s denial of the “damned 1990s”.

First. The real line between “damned chaos” and “restoring order” does not lie in Problem 2000. This line is false. On New Year's Eve, December 31, 1999, nothing happened - there was no computer failure, no change in the ruling team, no changes in laws, etc.

The real political and legal milestone is October 1993.

1991–1993. Freedom, dual power, and the result is the path to civil war. October 1993 – suppression of anarchy, salvation from real collapse and war, “cold peace”, new presidential Constitution. Autocracy limited by Yeltsin’s biography and illnesses. Since then this Constitution has been implemented. In 1993, the inevitability of falsification of the 1996 presidential elections was laid down. Well, in 2000, the System simply took another step in its self-development - it replaced the jacket with a uniform... It’s not even like that - it’s just that an officer’s figure was drawn under the same jacket.

Everything is more complicated in the economy. But even there the main milestone does not lie in the year 2000.

There are three boundaries.

1992 – it all begins.

1999 – the preliminary stage, the “preparatory stage” was successfully completed. Everything has already been divided, all the institutions have already been created, the default has been passed and the path to real restorative growth has been opened. Which started in 1999 and continues to this day.

Perhaps in 2004-2005 a new stage began to emerge - “velvet re-privatization”, but it is too early to judge this.

Second. The nomenklatura and the people condemn the 90s for different things.

The people are for “loss of deposits”, “collapse of the USSR”, “predatory privatization”.

The nomenklatura also tries very hard to shout “Stop the thief,” but they are not very good at it.

Oh, privatization is “predatory”? Well, give it back, right? Oh, you don’t want to... And why?

It's the same with the USSR. Without all this “Asian rump” how much easier the bosses can breathe! It’s a pity for Turkmenistan’s gas and Baku’s oil, but, in general, their 140,000,000 mouths are more than enough, and when you think about the same amount, it’s scary. No, the Union fell off the pipe, and how much easier the pipe became!

As for the “loss of deposits”, it’s like saying... “Someone loses, someone finds.” In general, no matter how hard you try, it’s difficult for the capitalists from the FSB to squeeze out a salty tear on the occasion of the “loss of labor contributions.” Not everyone can get used to the “old lady image”. Of course, Karaulov cries every week from his castle near Moscow about “bread prices,” but that’s Karaulov! Great theater expert...

But there is also something in the “damned 1990s” that can really cause some nomenklatura irritation. These are the “oligarchs”. All these “Gusinsky-Khodorkovskys”, who unknown what they imagined about themselves back then, forgot WHO the real master is!

Once again: capitalism was conceived by the nomenklatura FOR ITSELF. Nomenclatura capitalism is “a lady from MY rib.” And suddenly some hustlers, freeloaders, who were not standing nearby, with very vile names and faces, roll up like a ball, and without a turn they intercept someone else’s, state (nomenklatura) thing...

Ay, well done!

But never mind, historical justice is slowly triumphing: nomenklatura to nomenklatura. The noisy and insolent heroes of the Revolution are slowly being pushed out of the door by the modest heroes of the Counter-Revolution.

The frustrated squeaking and anger of some and the rumbling aggression of others is quite understandable.

This is, as the vulgar materialist V.I. would say. Ulyanov, the naked CLASS truth of the 2000s, what is presented by various “balalaikins” as “the death of democracy” or “the triumph of statehood - Russia (nomenklatura) is rising from its knees.” It's simple - a changing of the guard at the trough. “Why did the Aborigines eat Cook? ...I wanted to eat - and they ate Cook!”

(This view, of course, is very crude - for example, freedom is a completely self-sufficient essence, and reducing everything to “trough-passions” is completely wrong. But a detailed analysis of these issues is a separate topic.)

Yes, here the nomenklatura’s anger is more or less real (although it is greatly exaggerated - after all, even in the 1990s the nomenklatura did not grieve at all, and the same liberal oligarchs are still not strangers to it, neighbors on the estate, or even sons-in-law... ). But, in any case, here the ruling nomenklatura wants to “merge with the people.” It almost turns out that the people, absolutely equidistant from officials and oligarchs, nevertheless hate to tolerate the latter “outsiders”, but still regard the former as “natives.” And as for the “oligarchs,” naturally, the “phonetic irritation” against Jewish surnames is especially strong - because. Of course, there are absolutely no other differences between “non-Russian oligarchs” and “Russian oligarchs”.

But “oligarchic names” are dynamite! According to polls, people still firmly believe that the “oligarchs” are Abramovich (he has practically no business in Russia), prisoner Khodorkovsky and the emigrant-martyrs Berezovsky and Gusinsky. That’s right: in order to be a “people’s oligarch,” you don’t need either business or power. Required: alien phonetics and long “presence in the box.”

There is only one question: how long can these extinct stars shine in the souls of the people? Well, with skillful direction, TV telescopes will last for another couple of years...

And the current Masters, with impeccable Aryan surnames and impeccable nomenklatura faces, smartly do not anger pensioners and do not interfere in news programs. They appear in financial and glamor magazines - but here readers do not experience acute attacks of class appendicitis; rather, on the contrary, they consider the “new oligarchs” to be idols, role models.

Third. And most importantly.

Why are they even attached to these 90s? Why won’t they let “the dead bury their dead”, won’t they hand them over to the “gnawing criticism of mice” historians?

Why does swearing at the “liberals of the 1990s” constitute the second axis of our two-dimensional political space (the first axis is boring swearing at the “West”)?
"Liberals"! Oh God! The state is against liberals! Ay, Elephant, know how strong he is, that he runs after the pug!..

It is clear, by the way, that both axes of this political space are almost unchanged old Soviet ideological rubbish (“the machinations of world imperialism” and “its accomplices”).

Many countries are critical of their history.

It is quite understandable when this is done after the revolution (this is how Tsarist Russia was judged in the USSR). The revolution justifies itself, asserts itself, denying the “damned past.”

But something else happens - sometimes they look critically at their own “current” system - but after many years (as in the USA they condemn the genocide of Indians, or slavery of blacks, or McCarthyism).

But for the ruling elite to deny THEMSELVES, their real origin, the method of their initial accumulation, their system - you rarely encounter such a perversion.

Here we have a case of splitting public consciousness, social schizophrenia. The current authorities primarily hates his birth, ashamed him, is afraid of him, denies him. A typical case for the psychology of counter -revolutionaries. This system was born as a result of the Orange Revolution of 1991-the most hated "holiday with tears in his eyes." The masses on the street, a crowd of “jubilant democratic cattle” around the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB, dropped iron Felix-is there anything more disgusting and terrible for the authorities? Of course not. This is their nightmare.

But if this wasn’t-they themselves would remain poor Soviet nomenclatures, with their lousy dachas ...

Here is a day of birth! He is unpleasant for those who then went out - they feel deceived, and hated by deceiving them, who defeated them and forever afraid of their nomenclature, "three fat people."

So the denial of the revolution-91 is the basis of the public psychology of the ruling elite. And not the “collapse of the USSR” became for them a “geopolitical catastrophe” - all these “chocks” and “Uryuki” would go to hell ... from the “our pipe”. But the crowd on the streets of Moscow - oh, yes. This is a disaster. Not the "greatest", but simply - the only one they really are afraid of.

So, the emotional hatred of the 1990s begins long before any “privatization” there is a purely class hatred of the nomenclature by August 1991. Moreover, the hatred of the revolution is absolutely not equal to the desire for "a return to pre -revolutionary times." What else - hold your pocket already! No - a revolution never, its fruits - always, for breakfast, lunch, dinner. And only then it begins not to “hatred” for the period of the 1990s, but an attempt to privatize a real popular aversion to this decade, attempts to wrap a disgust for the 90s to the benefit of oneself-the ruling, starting in the 1990s, elite.

Something similar, by the way, was under Yeltsin, when on TV (including restless TV!) It was considered a good tone to sob about “our terrible time”, to condemn the “family” or “Semibankirschire”. The famous caricature - Yeltsin writes on the fence “Yeltsin’s gang on trial!”. And the expression “Chubais was to blame for everything” was born then.

It is interesting that in ridicule and tradition of the 1990s, the main merit belongs to liberal publicists-they are simply more talented than “patriotic dundians”. And-for the sake of a red word, the father will not regret-liberal publicists in the 90s voluptuously trampled into the mud that “dolls”, about the disappearance of which they are so mourned today. “Yes, but we didn’t want that” ... but you never know what you wanted! The person suggests ... "Throwing pebbles into the water, look at the circles running away from them. Otherwise, this lesson will be an empty fun. ”

And if such a fiery and glorified publicist, like Minkin, who gave his whole brutal power to the poet, who gave a focused and obscene battle against Chubais-Gaidar, by a happy coincidence, not noticing anyone except them-neither the FSB, nor the Ministry of Internal Affairs, or other ministers, Neither the Moscow City Hall, etc., even knew for which he honestly fought in the “oligarchic wars”, most other liberal publicists worked simply out of love for art, for love for freedom.

It is said: freedom of speech heals wounds, which he herself inflicts. Probably ... In the 1990s, this maxim was somehow confirmed in Russia. The wounds of the “liberals” (or “pseudoliberals”-for the sake of God!) Passed it, but to heal them-or at least balance with blows to other camps-somehow it did not work. And the wounds turned out to be fatal.

So in the 1990s, the “mythology of the 1990s” formed, which, of course, the authorities do not think to refuse. On the contrary, this conquest of the 1990s is preserved and increased.

If there is already “liberal scapegoats” there is something to refuse such a gift!

The ruling elite, as she knows how, strengthens the “false wall” from the myths about the “oligarchs”, “liberals”, “lawlessness of the 1990s” with each other. And, sitting in a glass house, generously throws stones ... only into this glass wall.

Clever!

In a privatized economy, they curse the “predatory privatization” made by “separately taken by Chubais”.

Based on the 1993 Constitution - they tear their hair about the "execution of parliament."

Sitting on a stabunde - weeping about the "loss of deposits."

Having rebuilt - for the first time! - genuine oligarchy, i.e. Having created a class of business officials, they shout about the danger of an “oligarchic revenge”.

In the conditions of legal and corruption lawlessness, they are proud of deliverance from the "lawlessness of the 1990s."

Well - it’s very interesting whether this is enough for a long time.

We are present with an interesting socio-psychological experiment: the elite legitimes itself through its actual delegation!

Unique experience in history!

In fact: the PR legitimacy of the elite is that she “saved Russia”, overcoming the “nightmare of the 1990s”.

But the economic and political legitimacy of the same elite is that it has a property privatized in the 1990s and follows the authoritarian spirit of the 1993 constitution.

DIALECTICS…

But, gentlemen, the “liberal wall” between you and the people a) false, b) thin. Do not break it-pebbles! However, "gentlemen" hardly read "hedgehog" ...