In the opposition

Results of "Last Autumn"

October 7, 2011 Denis Bilunov

About how and why the idea of ​​holding the "last autumn" arose, I already wrote in sufficient detail. It is possible, it is possible to add that the name came up with a rather curious way to us with Peter Verzilov at the same time, and this significant event, as usual, had a significant event in my kitchen. For some time I believed that most people would not like the option “Last Autumn” and used it just as a working version, but somewhat unexpectedly this slightly apocalyptic name was accepted by all with whom I tried to discuss it.

The Mendeleevo training center was a reserve alternative - and it had to be used, since other boarding houses refused us for reasons, so to speak, self -censorship. The main inconvenience of “Mendeleevo” is not the simplest road: either Leningrada, mired in eternal traffic jams, or a transplant in Zelenograd from an electric train to a bus. But with this drawback, as with the frankly “Soviet” infrastructure, I had to come to terms, since it was almost impossible to quickly find another option.

The formation of a software grid was gradually engaged in all the organizers, but Petya Verzilov was responsible for its final appearance. I was most interested in the presentations of the Electronic Democracy and Network Public Television projects, which, together with the discussion about the alternative political space, made up a large logically connected block of the program. The debates of Kasparov-Navalny-German were conceived as the climax of the “Last Autumn”, which, undoubtedly, should be recognized. The idea of ​​these debates and their success - of course, is not at all to “come to a single opinion” (which, obviously, is unrealistic), but in presenting the public open and acute political discussion of the maximum possible intellectual level, in the demonstration of “how it should be”.

In this place, taking this opportunity, I will insert my five cents about the subject of the debate. Closest to me Kasparov’s arguments, but his position in relation to opponents seems to me not fully consistent. His completely true, in fact, rejection of the “Kremlin calendar” should also mean that the choice of “tactics of December 4” does not have such acuteness at all, as many seem to many. If we adopt the “electronic democracy” of Volkov-Krasheninnikov, then our main concern should be the mass involvement of people in this project, the creation of a kind of alternative list of voters. What kind of action will be committed by Russian citizens on the so -called Duma elections, not too important-is much more important how many these citizens will come to "Democracy-2" later. In this sense, propaganda of any form of protest voting is useful to the extent that it mobilizes new like -minded people. On the contrary, the antagonistic criticism of opponents is harmful (especially in the style of “they work for Surkov”, etc.), since it fragments forces and creates the notorious sensation “could not agree again from potential supporters”.

Returning to the conversation about the forum’s software grid, I note that the variety of her palette, perhaps, was overlapping annoying inconsistencies in the schedule. Mark Feigin, who very seriously approached the preparation of his sections, made a great creative contribution to the program. Vera Kichanova and Kirill Goncharov did a huge job - each of them raised several topics at the “last autumn” at once. The "hedgehog" site of Alexander Ryklin gathered the star composition, which captured the attention of almost the entire public forum. A diverse practice of civil activism was represented in the sections of Sergei Davidis, Arkady Konikov, Mikhail Schneider and Sergey Udaltsov. However, to illustrate the latitude of the spectrum of “Last Autumn”, it would be enough to say that the program of the same day was presented by the presentation of the magazine “Questions of Nationalism” and the discussion of LGBT professional.

The main achievement of the forum, I believe, albeit chaotic, the atmosphere of emotional upsurge, the energy of people - so contrasting with the dead trees of the "e -Russian" congresses. This trend personifies this trend, of course, Evgenia Chirikova - the creator of the format and the "mistress" of the forum site.

The cultural context of the "Last Autumn" was specified by the name that appeals to the famous song of Yuri Shevchuk. An undoubted success for us was a clip recorded by Yuri Yulianovich specifically as a video improving on the Last Autumn. In the program of the forum itself, for me personally, the main cultural event was the show of theater.doc fragments of the play “Talk in the kitchen two hours before the arrest”. However, it was simply impossible to catch everywhere - I was forced to miss both film programs (from Sam Klebanov and Vadim Korovin) and almost did not hear the evening performances of the musicians.

Bright music programs compiled by Vasily Schumov and Anton Chernin, of course, decorated the “Last Autumn”, but it should be recognized that the installation of a large scene and professional concert sound made a large gap in the budget of the forum. These purposes took about 250,000 rubles, almost a third of all the money spent. Perhaps it would be more correct to limit the musical program one day, and the money saved in this way is spent on, for example, to rent an additional minibus and the installation of Wi-Fi coverage with the Internet for all participants. The resource of the allocated channel, which was provided by the Mendeleevo training center, was barely enough to organize online broadcasts and television with Chichvarkin. It was not possible to provide the entire forum by the Internet, for which many rightly criticized us.

Since the forum format is obviously in demand, I consider it advisable to publicly discuss both the prospects of such events in the future and the principles of their financing.

The structure of the costs of the “Last Autumn” is as follows: in addition to the already mentioned concert program, another third of the budget (270,000) went to pay for the residence and food of artists, technical personnel and volunteers who worked at the forum - protection, design, registration, creation and support of the site, etc. (in total-about 90 “Rooms/days”), the remaining third-to rent a hall, audiences and the allocated Internet channel (100,000), transport (60,000), T-shirts (60,000), posters and banners (60,000). It should be noted that the opposition specificity has both its advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, the entire organizational team worked on a volunteer basis (I would especially like to thank the sound engineers of Stepan and Glory, who brought equipment for the hall for free and have been with us for three days). On the other hand, we, to a certain extent, became hostages of the situation with the threat of a complete refusal to accept the forum by the training center (in turn, under noticeable administrative-blue pressure), and in these circumstances we were forced to agree to all financial conditions for the placement, nutrition and lease.

The support that the leaders of the "solidarity" Harry Kasparov and Boris Nemtsov provided compensated for most of the expenses. I had to close the rest for myself, although I am counting on the help of people who supported the idea of ​​holding a forum.

In the future, if the idea of ​​the forum remains a demanded, most logical scheme to the introduction of the minimum contribution of the participant (for example, 500 rubles), by analogy with numerous industry and thematic conferences. Theoretically, it can be combined with official sponsorship, but in practice it is difficult to imagine that someone risked from commercial reasons to finance the opposition forum of civilian activists. If we assume that the number of participants will be about 1000, then to cover the costs of the forum similar to the “last autumn”, it is necessary that the average contribution is 800 rubles. This figure looks relatively real, although, of course, the organization of such a business model requires more serious preparation than the one that was in the “last autumn”.

One way or another, in my opinion, the event took place. On the one hand, we are simply obliged to part with the Old Testament style of the party and “civilian congresses”, on the other hand, there should be physical (and not just virtual) points of synergy of civil activism and relevant culture. The step in this direction is taken.

Photos of the hedgehog / Olendskaya Maria