In the opposition

About the crisis of the KS

November 27, 2012 Mikhail Berg

Although Russia is almost a quarter of a century by the feudal-oligarchic country (and its capitalism is false and nomenclature), but our criticism of bourgeois is still considered indecent. Like a sign of social envy. And she is like this, with a rotten proletarian tint. That is, scolding the oligarchs is a sweet thing, but it is somehow not very good to scold the naive or well-fed bourgeois.

I recall one story told to me by Dmitry A. Podov, who met with our common acquaintance: he rolled to a meeting on the Black Puzat Mers, but behaved as if he had arrived on a hare on a tram. That is, he said everything correctly, like a poor radical artist with a poor radical artist, scolded the Putin regime, corrupt officials, they have already completely gone crazy , and in general there was as if their pepper. And at the same time, the vip-Parson he knocked carelessly, the names of his acquaintances. And Dmitry Sanych all wanted to tell him that he was already his only chic machine (not to the best of the chic) ​​there , with them , with vipas, and not with us, but he considered it impolite.

So it’s kind of embarrassing to say that the conflict that has erupted in the Constitutional Court is a conflict, first of all, is social. What is completely normal to criticize the Putin regime not only on the left, but also on the right, but you just need to share different social and political positions and not to try to harness a working horse and a reverent bourgeois in the name of Sobchak. So to speak, collective Sobchak. That is, it is possible to harness, but to a certain point, which, alas, will surely come. And then it turns out that Lani and the horse are not on the way. The doe, by the way, is no worse than the horse (but no better), it is just different, and the quality of its protest has a completely different social nature .

By the way, although I live now in the city of Boston, I voted for the KS, including for the same personified Sobchak, because I thought and believe that the revolution, which seems to me inevitable, will still be a bourgeois revolution. As they say, bourgeois-democratic. Because everything that is happening so far in Russia is a struggle between feudalism and capitalism that has been protected on the age. And here is any bast in the line. Or almost any.

It’s not that I liked capitalism, not that I liked bourgeoisness, but in Russia, so far one can only dream of a socially oriented capitalism as a faithful communist about a bright future. And all these dreams - about an independent court, about an honest election, about a responsible and uncorrmposed parliament - these are bourgeois dreams. Which does not mean that the transition from the nomenclature post -Soviet feudalism is incomprehensible yet to what capitalism it may not be revolutionary. Only this may be that the reforms of feudalism cannot be turned into capitalism. Just Putin’s power was only engaged in the fact that on the pockmarks the Soviet face of feudalism imposed a bourgeois-democratic makeup. But the unbiased observer sees that the makeup always two out of the face, since he is trying to not only embellish the face, but change them totally. Which never turns out.

Now again about the conflict in the Constitutional Court. Yes, we repeat, to combat Putin's feudalism, they are needed by those and these, and left, and right, and reformers, and revolutionaries. Another thing is that the conflict between revolutionaries and adaptants has a very specific socio-conformist shade, and it is simply impossible to forget about it for a minute. And do not hesitate to accurately emphasize him. People who have made a fortune in Yeltsin-Putin Russia are different from those who did not do this. How the rich differ about the poor. And we must understand that people who have a state, first of all, do not want to put their condition under the jeopardy or even reduction. They do not want to lose either a state or their social status, and if the air smells fried, they will no doubt abandon the alliance with those who are going to arrange a social fire. This does not mean that they do not want honest ships and elections for the homeland, this means that their own bourgeois shirt is almost always closer to the body. That is, they understand that their today's social status with the feudal post -Soviet soul and therefore would like to get rid of this dice, but they are not going to question either their symbolic or their social capital.

This means that it is necessary and you can cooperate with them, but exactly until the moment as the horse and trembling doe are able to move in one direction. Alas, the point here is not only in intentions, but also in the relief of the road. And this relief today is largely set by power. The government makes the road more and more impassable and bumpy. She is interested in frightening her opponents, personifying supporters of the bourgeois revolution with terrorists and extremists, as much as possible to among themselves those who want to destroy Putin's feudalism. That is, not only left and right, but also revolutionaries and gradual reformists. And most importantly - to separate the Constitutional Court from the audience that has chosen it or who sympathizes with him.

Alas (although why - alas?), The CS was originally conceived as a compromise body. Of course, I sympathize with the revolutionaries more, but it is emotional, not rational. The main one last year was the unexpectedly awakened citizenship of a part of Russian society. And only this citizenship, the requirement (quite bourgeois) honesty in everything is what you need to stay to the end. Perhaps the reformists-Pyatsenovtsy and are right in that the half-watering people are closer to them, to cautious adaptors, to bourgeois conformists than to bourgeois revolutionaries. The Russian people are shy and careful in their social aspirations. He is used to feudalism, because feudalism will proclaim the habit, including the usual paternalism, and does not really pour into capitalism with his freedom and loneliness from power. Alas, Russia did not know anything besides feudalism, even its socialism was feudal.

In any case, the closest to the truth, perhaps Maxim Blanc : we expect from the CS not so much the struggle of opinions (although the desire for distinctness can never be superfluous), but the sane intellectual work - work on potential reforms, concepts of goal -setting, bills, corrections to them, which our future constitutional assembly , the prototype of which the current CS is. Putin's feudalism is doomed only historically , when his century ends, no one knows. He can survive Putin, he can once again survive his supporters and opponents. This means that it is valuable not to artistic pose, but black work - work to expand and deepen the protest, to comprehend what Russia has only to be: life in the circumstances of bourgeois freedoms . This is also far from sugar.

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Valery Sharifulin