In the opposition

Like an anti -Soviet to the opposition

May 13, 2013 Alexander Podrabinek

The opposition will destroy vulgarity. Not a split, not betrayal, not lack of money, not the repression of the authorities. It is vulgarity and the hypocrisy and cynicism fastened to it. In principle, ordinary human qualities, the only question is in what concentration they are represented. I regret to note that this bad infusion is stronger.

I’ll make a reservation right away: the opposition is those who want to see the country of democratic and legal, who represent the ideals of freedom, democracy and human rights despised by the authorities. The opposition is not the competitors of Putin for power who dream of turning the country into a national empire or plunging it into socialist blood pressure. The opposition is those who want to withdraw the country from the Putin road, and not aggravate its suffering along this path. My appeal is to this opposition, and not to that of its red-brown imitation that wants to overthrow Putin in order to do what he himself has not yet dared.

Plaster is destructive, regardless of to whom it belongs. Perhaps that is why the authorities most often prefer to remain silent. He understands that they will not believe the said, and they will laugh.

The opposition cannot be silent. She has nothing but a word. It is important to appreciate it. Most of the public opposition speaks at rallies. Almost every speaker considers it his duty in a businesslike way to thank all those present for having come. As if they came to him and for thanks! Almost everyone considers it necessary to scan something life-affirming, even if the people do not pick up or assent of pity for the speaker. Some speakers are chanted in the microphone, completely not noticing that the protesters are silent. It’s even embarrassed for such speakers, but they don’t care. Other presenters suddenly, with no one between the speeches of the speakers, suddenly offer: “And let's scank”-as in kindergarten, when there is nothing to say, and the children need to be occupied with something!

The revolutionary manner of performances - with amazing fists made by hoarse and abrasion of decibels, looked inexpressibly on democratic rallies. Why scream, dear? Before you is not a herd of rams, but in the vast majority of intellectuals, responding to the meaning of what has been said, and not to the strength of the voice. What bad Soviet films did you learn these manners? Who told you that in front of you is a crowd that needs to be lit and captivated by a fiery appeal? Wake up! This is appropriate on the "Russian marches" and the Red Maevki, where masked people come to merge in collective ecstasy class or national hatred.

And these endless "no or yes?" And attempts to manipulate a crowd? Like a children's matinee! I watched the gathered: he answers these chants at best one out of five. The rest are silent. They are tormented and silent. And I also suffered from them with awkwardness and shame for the vulgar mass-storage media who declared themselves the leaders of the opposition.

The importance with which some oppositionists inflate cheeks look vulgar. They emphasize their significance by the creation of individual zones at rallies. On the last, May 6 in Bolotnaya, there were already three of them. The largest is for the people. About separating the rally participants from passers -by and curious, took care of the consent of the organizers of the OMON campaign. Further, the fence was allocated for the press, where it was possible to pass only on journalistic cards. Even further - a zone fenced off by the pitch for speakers and organizers. There is also a tribune. Around her, the opposition star and their closest companions were hanging around her in the unattainable greatness of her. Why is it all? From whom are we fenced off? The opposition has not yet become power, but already creates for itself certain conditions of existence. And what will happen when it becomes power?

But the vulgarity of the form is still half a bastard. Real misfortune is the vulgarization of the goals for which most participants come to protest rallies. And this is very clearly visible in the selection of speakers. Plaster is when deputies of the State Duma who darkened their mandates in falsified elections call on a protest rally to honest elections from the rostrum. Remember, they shouted to them earlier: “Hand over the mandate”? Now they don't shout. Want to know why? Those people who shouted stopped going to democratic rallies, where they are held by suckers.

Plaster is when the KGB Colonel Gennady Gudkov, who took part in the repressions against dissidents in Soviet times, now from the stand of the protest rally is ranting about democracy and human rights. Who does this patented Chekist want to deceive? And most importantly - who can? Those whom he cannot deceive and who does not have the strength to listen to the Gudkovskaya vulgarity will not come to rallies anymore. So the opposition loses its supporters.

Plaster is when the ardent fan of Lenin Sergey Udaltsov at democratic rallies tells how, protesting against the salvation of Kosovo Albanians from the Serbian genocide, he threw shit to the American embassy in Moscow and scored it to the sixth floor. What should normal people who have come to a democratic rally think about it? Either this crazy communist fled to the microphone, or we wandered the wrong rally. Many of them will no longer come after that. And so the opposition loses its supporters.

And what could look more and unnatural than Soviet flags and portraits of Stalin on opposition processions? Are the opposition leaders and the organizers of the protest actions seriously believe that the people completely broke the memory of the Council of State and they are ready to return to it, if only Putin would not be? Or are the leaders of protests so much want to show their political tolerance that they do not care how many people squeamishly turn away from the opposition and will no longer come to protest promotions? Maybe with such tolerance a place in another house?

It is clear that our opposition, like any other, is to a certain extent stuffed with government Cossacks. It does not happen without it. But isn't it too? Isn't it time to dwell on the path of degradation until the opposition has finally sank in public opinion and has been dissolved in a state of complete ideological uncertainty and the lack of positive goals?

The number of participants in the protest campaign remains one of the main criteria for its success. Or not success. This is partly true. Seven participants in the demonstration in August 1968 on Red Square in Moscow are surprisingly many; Five hundred rally participants in Bolotnaya on May 5, 2013 - this is humiliatingly small. But where are the rest? According to many sociological surveys over many years, a stable democratic electorate in Russia is approximately 30-40 percent; In Moscow, probably more. Meanwhile, at the peak of protests, no more than one percent of the population went out at the peak of protests. Why?

Opposition analysts most often blame bad weather, the country season, general fatigue, fear of repression or universal indifference. There were no serious sociological studies on this subject. If they were carried out, I believe, many would indicate the cause of their passivity the unattractiveness of the opposition, the lack of her own person and political recognition, the lack of a common constructive program. Indeed, what can be the general program for liberals, red and nationalists, except to throw Putin? Throw it off, of course, it’s good, but for most people this is not enough. At least for active opposition behavior.

The opposition does not prefer not to reflect on these issues. Otherwise, it turns out that she herself is to blame for the creation of her not too popular image. However, intuitively, she understands everything and tries to dilute the team of political leaders of cultural figures, journalists and stars of show business. Attract sympathy and supporters. In part, this manages to see with what enthusiasm the rally audience of writers and artists meets. With much more than politicians!

However, even such “heavy artillery” as Shenderovich, Akunin or Akhedzhakov, do not save the situation. They cannot neutralize the vulgarity and wretchedness of such oppositionists as Bondarik or Konstantinov. Worse, political tastelessness is infectious and dangerous for normal people as normal people accept the established rules of the game.

One of these rules is to ignore public opinion if it does not coincide with an opposition vision of the situation. More precisely, with a vision of the situation, the leaders of the opposition. The consciousness of the high resistance mission assigned to itself slightly blurns the brains and gives rise to an arrogant attitude towards a person from the street. Even people like Viktor Shenderovich and Leo Rubinstein succumbed to this opposition arrogance of arrogance.

Shenderovich writes that among people who are skeptical of the protest movement, intonation is now very popular, which is reduced "to the sad-memorable conclusion that we are all here in one world of mazan-power, opposition." This, in his opinion, allows them to "stay in peace with them in the middle of all this."

Rubinstein ironically describes people's doubts about the protest rallies: “Every time on the eve of the planned street walking, in a stroke and in private conversations, voices are strongly attached, sometimes quite inflated, rhetorically asking:“ Why? After all, this will not help. See? We go and go, and “they” spit on it or, worse, only strengthen the speed of their repressive machine. ” The author does not explain why these reasoning are incorrect, but immediately proceeds to a funny description of the reasons, by which people sit at home. “I will never agree to be in the same crowd with D., who refused to publish my beautiful story, with P., who staged a mediocre performance, with H., who has not given me money debt for two years, with R., which rather rudely refused me reciprocity ...” and so on in the same spirit. Funny, of course. All hyperbole looks funny.
However, why not take it seriously? Why not try to understand people who claim that power and opposition is “Mazana in one world”? Why not admit that this is not a miserable excuse of those who are “in the world with them in the middle of all”, but a verified or even suffered position? In short, why not push their opposition arrogance aside and try to hear those who are not satisfied not only with power, but also to the opposition? Why not enter into a discussion instead of ironicizing those who do not agree with you? If you, of course, do not have the task of limiting protests by the participation of one percent of the population.

I can immediately name a dozen reasons why people of democratic beliefs and sincere liberals do not come to protest rallies.

The opposition is unconvincing. She does not have her own face, her clear, positive and non -contradictory program.

The rallies allowed by the authorities are meaningless. There were no successful peaceful revolutions with the permission of the authorities.

Rallies with the participation of yesterday's Chekists and the currently acting stupids of the state apparatus look and unnatural.

Participation in Red and Brown rallies makes us assume that the opposition has no democratic goals.

Most speakers cannot say anything smart; They are mediocre and depicted street leaders.

The speakers treat the public as unreasonable children, suitable only to respond to primitive screamers.

The opposition bridges the road with radical political forces, which in the case of coming to power will be even worse than Putin.

Oppositionists neglect the democratic procedures and transparency of their activities, which is related by the authorities.

The opposition was mired in squabbles and financial dishonesty. She has a miserable look and she does not care about her reputation.

One gets the impression that the opposition is concerned only to the change of power, and not by democratic changes in the country.

I would agree with some of these arguments, argued with others. However, none of them deserves to dismiss him like stupidity or an empty excuse that does not deserve. If, of course, I remind you again, the opposition does not have the Kremlin task to limit the number of protests by one percent.

Behind each of these arguments are people, the same 30-40 percent who choose democracy, but for some reason do not follow the opposition. Those same, I note, on which the democratic future of Russia depends. Maybe the opposition should look at themselves with their eyes?

I will give a few examples. My brother Cyril, a former political prisoner, who spent two more difficult terms in Soviet camps and covered prisons, came to a rally on December 24, 2011 on Sakharov Avenue and asked one of the organizers of the action of Sergei Parkhomenko to give him a word. Parkhomenko refused. But they had never had nothing to do with the opposition Ksenia Sobchak and Alexei Kudrin, they broadcast the performance of the former Soviet propagandist Vladimir Pozner along the monitors, and one of the presenters read out the appeal of Mikhail Gorbachev. The former political prisoner was something to say to the rally, for he sees life in such an angle that they never saw and will never see either a prosperous journalist Sergei Parkhomenko, or even more Kudrin or Sobchak. The rally participants had something to hear from a person who really knows life and hardened in confrontations with the authorities. Instead, the public was presented with a meaningless glamor, Soviet scumbags and just expelled from the government of the Putin minister. This is the vulgar selection of an opposition, focused not on civilian resistance to the regime, but on a beautiful picture for television. Of course, neither my brother nor the circle of his friends to this opposition will be more and close. And they will probably do the right thing. And believe me, dear Leo Rubinstein and Viktor Shenderovich, they will not come not because they want to “stay with them in peace”, not because they found a reason to cough from cowardly from civil protest, but because they are neducted vulgarity and hypocrisy - both in power and in the opposition.

One of my old acquaintances, active participant in the democratic transformations of the 80-90s, on the same reproach for civil passivity with a bitter laugh replies: “Do you want me to come joyfully on the same rake for the second time? Have you forgotten everything? Then, under the same flag of the unity of the fight against the CPSU and for the abolition of the leading role of the party, God knows who knows who. And in fact, dexterous party apparatus, Soviet and Komsomol nomenclature, who hastily abandoned the CPSU, headed this struggle. Then we were thrown away, and here we have what we have. You have exactly the same in your opposition today. If you are lucky, then tomorrow you, so different, will become power. And everything will be repeated first - the best will be thrown out, and the bastards that you are now cherished will suck to the feeder and will rule with an iron hand! I have only one life, so that I would waste her to repeat the old mistakes. ”

I know that this person is not lying or cunning. He defended the White House in 1991 and built barricades on Tverskaya in 1993. He has nothing to fear and have no one to make excuses. He is just disgusting. Especially when he was offered as the leader of the opposition to Ilya Konstantinov, who in 1993 was literally on the other side of the barricades.

Of course, all these people can be brushed away from pure -up and Rigorists. You can write off the accounts that a considerable number of people who moved away from the opposition, feeling in it superfluous. You can arrog the arrogantly over those to whom the vulgarization of democratic ideals and cynical politics do not allow you to join the protests. You can not take into account those who today go to rallies “because it is necessary”, from a sense of duty, clutching the nose, so as not to feel the stench spread by a slight, but noisy and shameless red-brown minority.

But who will the opposition remain with then? With Udaltsov and Thor? With the Gudkov and Konstantinovs? With one percentage of support? With the prospects, at best, to dump Putin and replace it with something very similar to him? Who needs it and how much can it be repeated?

Photo by hedgehog