What is conservatism?

June 13, 2004 the theme of the next issue of the program "What to do?" was formulated as "Conservatism is the future of Russia". The program was attended by the representative of the DECR Vsevolod Chaplin, the scientific editor of the magazine "Expert" Alexander Privalov, the rector of the Literary Institute. Gorky Sergey Yesin, philosophers Boris Kapustin and Leonid Polyakov.

However, the discussion came down to the definition of conservatism ("What are we conserving?"). We will leave aside the somewhat dubious, in our opinion, opinion of Sergei Yesin that, first of all, it is necessary to preserve the idea of ​​​​a titular nation, because as long as it is strong, everyone else in this country will also be comfortable (compare with the statements of N. Kharitonov, the party " Rus" and other politicians during the elections).

According to Alexander Privalov, the essential features of a Western European conservative are, firstly, religiosity, and secondly, pre-rational (A. Privalov specifically emphasized this), reflex respect for private property, and small, not large. And respect for the law is a derivative of these traits.

Boris Kapustin believes that it is necessary to distinguish between conservatism and traditionalism. The latter, in his opinion, is not an offshoot of conservatism, but a separate - and negative - phenomenon. The new conservatism, according to B. Kapustin, is "a practice and an idea oriented towards the stabilization of the present" and towards the rejection of utopian experimentation.

This point of view was joined by Leonid Polyakov, who believes that conservatism is a unique phenomenon inherent exclusively in the Western world, "a mechanism for adapting innovations" , i. the ability of Western society to extract from any - even the most destructive - event not a negative, but a positive experience and then use it also in a positive way. Meanwhile, the Russian experience of mastering Western ideas comes down to the Petrine practice of imitation, rather than deep perception.

In addition, both B. Kapustin and L. Polyakov believe that "conservation" of Russia's historical experience cannot lead to anything good (is it worth "conserving" the experience, as a result of which in 1917 the state disappeared within three days? ), and the traditionalists’ desire for this is based on the idealization of Russian, and even Soviet, history.

All the participants in the discussion agreed that in modern Russian society there is a great demand for a "conservative project", but there is no clarity in its formation. On the one hand, because the Russian conservative project is formed as a response to the "challenges" of contemporary political life. Meanwhile, both liberal and socialist ideas, these "challenges" to conservatism, are so grotesque and inadequate to reality that the response to these challenges turns out to be grotesque and inadequate.

On the other hand, due to the fact that many perceive conservatism precisely as traditionalism, there is a huge danger not of implementing the "conservative project" in its Western European sense, but of restoring the most disastrous model for Russia - "Good Tsar - Evil Boyars - Suffering People", - which has led to catastrophic consequences.

All participants in the discussion agreed with the opinion that the responsibility for the formation of this project lies with the elite of Russian society (moreover, from the conversation it was clear that there was no unity in the definition of "elite" among the participants of the round table).

PS The position of Vsevolod Chaplin stood out somewhat, who proceeded from the traditional for Russia, in contrast to the West, the ideal of the unity of the Church and power and the messianic consciousness of the Russian people.

What to do? // Culture. 2004. June 13.