Translated material
The tramp of fools
If the country is stalling, conservatism leads to revolution
In the word "victory" I hear the warlike clatter of fools. Fazil Iskander As always before the elections, the class struggle intensifies in the country. But because politics is stifled and classes are not organized, the conflict thickens in ideology. Country...
In the word "victory" I hear the warlike clatter of fools. Fazil Iskander
As always before elections, the class struggle intensifies in the country. But because politics is stifled and classes are not organized, the conflict thickens in ideology. The country is torn apart by a cold civil war in the realm of ideas. The main ideological conflict is between modernizers and conservatives.
There are two frontiers: INSOR reports (“Russia in the 21st Century”, “Finding the Future”) and the director's conservative “manifesto” without flashing lights. There are still trenches between the positions, but they are all on one side or another of the front line. There is a split even in the rhetoric of the “tandem” (whatever is inside): either forward, or another ten years of calm decay.
Relying on the inertia of the 2000s is a dangerous delusion, more often a fraud. It seems that, as my friend puts it, such projects are written by the Manilovs and Chichikovs under the guidance of the boxes and the dogs. History simply won't let us chew the snot of "stabilization" for another ten years. If not a breakthrough, then a collapse. In the economy: the exhaustion and inefficiency of oil money (sooner or later, but sooner than many people think). In technology: devices and gadgets will become obsolete, then they will break, there will be nothing to buy new ones, the country will begin to fall into savagery, and the digitized people will be outraged. In the intellectual sphere: the remnants of brains will flow there so as not to soften here from lack of demand and shame for power. In politics: trying to hold the collapse will be reactionary. And a rebellion, meaningful, but again merciless: revolutions have a return and love to devour their children.
A country where people fear and hate each other is doomed. What remains is a cold national reconciliation before the transition of the conflict into a hot phase. Let's start with ideology. This is not all, but a lot. If people do not even pronounce the right words, things will not be all the more. So I keep thinking: how is it that the “leader” of a wildly civilized country, rushing into the 21st century, cannot squeeze out the word “freedom” even through force?
Is such reconciliation possible? At least a truce? Theoretically, yes. The science of negotiation processes teaches that if the parties are at an impasse, they must stop and start from scratch in no man's land. The discussion on the principle of "killing a fight is not a hindrance" needs a change of subject: people's projects separate - negatives unite. If it is impossible to agree on what we want, we must talk about what no one wants. The maxims of world religions are systems of prohibitions; because they are global.
To begin with: in the modern, civilized world, no one wants violence - physical, political, intellectual, spiritual. More precisely, no one wants violence against themselves. Previously, you could rape others until the end of your days and die happy, not believing that your grave would be spit. But now time has shrunk: retribution overtakes in life. Fallen "leaders" are treated like rapists in the zone. Some end up badly.
If you are not ready to be lowered tomorrow, it is better not to rape others today. There is no need to shut up the mouths with censorship, money, courts, use the position for personal interests and for self-promotion, force the economy with unequally spaced friends, and the population and the airwaves with pictures of courageous entertainment and generosity at someone else's expense. Sooner or later they will be disqualified for unsportsmanlike behavior, and it is always from weakness. All this panic activism is out of fear. Historians know that terror inspires terror in the terrorized, but feeds it on the terror of the terrorizers themselves. The electorate smells this fear, like a dog - by the smell of secretions. All that is missing is for someone beautiful and hot from the side to bark: “Face!” Former admirers, disappointed or simply tired of the irreplaceability of an idol, are terrible people.
The modern world does not recognize lawlessness. It is not customary to manage democracy, let alone ideologically stutter about it. Sovereign governance is absurd and heresy. The use of the state for private political interests, the feeding of power to some parties and the persecution of others is a constitutional crime. Applications for the Front cannot be accepted on the Prime Minister's website. This site was made with the money of all taxpayers, and not just GDP, EP and front-line soldiers. This is a trifle, the rest is much worse. Up to the open bribery of the electorate on air at the expense of the federal budget on an especially large scale.
The cult of "leadership" blurs the boundaries between position and capital, financial and political. One can firmly believe in command modernization and the delights of authoritarianism, but then one must openly amend the Constitution: from now on, sovereign power in Russia does not belong to the people, but to the unique and irreplaceable leaders who have fallen on the head of the nation. It will be interesting to read. Especially lawyers.
Talk about how things are not easy with democracy in the West is impudent speculation. There are problems, but go there with our manners and methods of promoting yourself to the supreme power, the result is obvious: today impeachment, tomorrow - court and prison.
Modernity is Freedom and Law. We are sorely lacking them, and this is the main challenge of modernization. One can argue about freedom and non-freedom to the point of stupefaction ... but only as long as we do not count the money. Nobody wants poverty, in the modern world things and money are made by brains, and brains run away from the lack of freedom in which they wither. The outlines of the decline are already visible. When gas is all driven from shale, and oil from sands, our reserves will depreciate at times. And the “energy power”, which survived the color of the nation abroad and squeezed out the rest, will go around the world, in which there are enough of them even without us.
Nobody wants cataclysms, especially in Russia, which history regularly shakes like a tsunami in Japan. But revolutions are made not so much by revolutionaries (hotheads will always be found), but by narrow-minded conservatives who are guilty of lagging behind. First, sluggish tsarism, then the gerontocracy of the CPSU ... Now another narcissistic stagnation. New world births also begin with the usual delay - and end in agony, aggravated by irregular labor pains.
Generally speaking, modernizing and healthy conservatism complement each other, warning, on the one hand, against dangerous lags leading to revolutions, and on the other, against changes whose speed is excessive for society. But in real life, everything is not as simple as it seems, but much simpler. What is the state of the country: what exactly does it lack at the moment - dynamics or, conversely, protection from the "overheating" of changes? And what do the guardians of modernization or stabilization want for themselves, what interests do they pursue in life?
Conservative pathos is justified when changes go off scale, but it is absurd and harmful if the country is bogged down in lagging behind the world, and the government is lagging behind the evolution of society. But then, in fact, what are you talking about: about foundations, values and succession - or about the banal conservation of that position in the system of power and property that you appropriated to yourself by shadow manipulations?
Russian conservatism is now not only holding back the country, it is dragging it back into the feudalism of relations, into the archaism of ideas and morality. Latently the country is already far in the past. All our digital modernity is imported, it will end at once with oil and gas revenues. And all this social "stability" is also imported, it was bought with oil money. The "airbag" is inflated from the same sources, and when it works, the result will surprise, although it will be natural: everyone is alive - but no one goes anywhere else.
In the post-industrial world, the new, changes and dynamics are special values, even in comparison with the modern era. The conservative beginning is recognized, but only as a defense against revolutionism, when the speed of change is nauseating. If, on the contrary, the country is stalling, even sliding back, the apology of conservatism eventually works for a revolution, undermining its own foundations: the time lost for evolutionary reform itself creates revolutionary situations.
There is often a poorly hidden interest in the ideology of conservatism. Behind respect for the past, they hide the usual guardianship - the ideology of conservation of the existing order. We are talking about “roots”, but in reality, the quickly established relations of influence, ownership and control are being concreted. And in the conservative utopia, its apologists always see themselves either on the throne or at its foot, but never in the crowd. Put them down there and there will be no trace of the conservative spirit. Such parties are the first to put together coups and revolutions.
When a country is at an impasse, the existing situation does not have to be consolidated, but radically changed. Today, in the fork in the road between the ideologies of modernization and conservatism, one has to choose the values of change, and deep, systemic and forced ones at that. Before talking about the specific content of strategies and tactics, we must at least acknowledge the very fact of this challenge, its sharpness and imperativeness, the depth of the fall if it is ignored. No one expects altruism and real concern for the country from our conservatives, but one can still call for the remnants of reason and the instinct of self-preservation. Otherwise, tomorrow there will be nothing to preserve in the country.