In the Kremlin

The preposition for madness

July 20, 2015 Dmitry Oreshkin

If the preposition becomes a matter of ideology, it means that ideologists have a bark of a bastard. In the Soviet, vigilant Andrei Illarionov easily calculated in the statements of V.V. Putin at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum are signs of a new stage of the Ukrainian war: “Putin has never changed the fashionable Kremlin linguistic format - the grammatical form“ in Ukraine ”.” Well, since “on” - the war is definitely not to pass. There is nothing to cover.

Paranoids are distinguished by the ability to find (or invent) the most amazing confirmation of their hyper -significant ideas. Each microscopic bast on the street will be selected, shake off, inserted into the line and then they will admire for a long time: this is how insightful I am.

Stalin was especially distinguished by this. Clutching the expression “something like a tribute”, he has exhausted thousands of words, proving from all sides that it was truly Marxist, and Bukharin doubted in this formula is a goat and a pest. With the same manic persistence, in another place on four pages, he explores the relationship of two hyper -valuable concepts: continuing and depersonalities. Western epigones and plagiarists, as they are accepted, only half a century later dare to understand the entire depth of the problem, through the animated series “Simpsons”, introducing into public opinion an ideological response in the form of scratching and tickling.

How did you not hear about this key issue of the socialist economy?! Can't be. This is a little away from the topic, but the excerpts from the ingenious article of Stalin 1931 “The New Atmosphere - New Tasks of Economic Construction” should be brought. The enduring theoretical significance of this work is given by the fact that it is published against the backdrop of the unfolding holodomor, when in the country the account of the dead peasants is already hundreds of thousands. So listen carefully.

“... We still have a number of enterprises ... where, instead of responsibility for work, complete irresponsibility reigns and an ostring. What is anonymous? The depersonant is the absence of any responsibility for the entrusted work ... You know what the depersonal of railway transport led to ... We destroyed the depersonal of the depersonal of railway transport ... with the current grandiose scale ... Istright is a scourge of industry ... How could we take root in us a depoline at a number of enterprises? She came to the enterprises as an illegal companion of continuity. It would be wrong to say that the continuing necessarily entails an impollen in production. With the proper organization of labor ... continuously leads to ... eradication of the depoline. This is the case, for example, in railway transport, where there is now a continuous continuation, but where there is no more depersonal. Is it possible to say that at industry enterprises we have the same favorable picture with the continuity? Unfortunately, this cannot be said ... We switched to the continuity too hastily ... This led to the fact that the continuousness ... turned into a pendant. As a result, we have at a number of enterprises a paper, verbal continuous and not paper, a real depersonal ... From this it follows that some of our comrades hurried in some places with the introduction of continuity and, hurrying, perverted the continuity, turning it into a pendant.

... Since when did the Bolsheviks be afraid of the truth? Is it not true that in a number of enterprises, the continuity turned into an ostrown, that the continuing is perverted thus to the last degree? The question is, who needs such a continuity? ... Some comrades think that the depoller can be destroyed by spells, broadcasting speeches. I know ... A number of business executives who, in their struggle with the depoline, are limited to acting at meetings with curses at the address of the depersonant, apparently believing that after such speeches the depersonal should disappear ... No, comrades, the depersonal herself will never disappear. It can and should destroy it only by ourselves, for we are in power and we are responsible with you for everything, including the depersonant ....

For ... destroying the depersonant, there are two exits. Or change the conditions of the continuity so that the continuity does not turn into an ostring, according to the model of how it was done in relation to railway transport. Or ... discard the paper continuity, switch temporarily to 6-day interpretation ... and prepare the conditions for the fact that, if necessary, then return to the real, not paper continuity, return ... to the continuity, but without a pendant.

There are no other outputs. ”

Do you understand, or again? It is a pity, of course, that it was not possible to listen to the head of the transport workshop with a report on overcoming the depersonant in the conditions of continuity. But in fact, there is another way out. Simple as a turnip: to return the enterprises to private property and let the owners decide for themselves whether they need this continuity, coupled with the depoller or not.

But who then will Comrade Stalin lead? Who to clarify the difficult dialectics of concepts? He with his advanced detachment clearly risks remaining out of work. Therefore, the natural (and only) way out lies outside his logic, which walks in circles in the well of paranoia and persistently searches for who else to trample for the fact that the economy is slipping. Not a text, but a diagnosis - no Bekhterev is needed. The people are drowning with hunger, and the leader is confused by a powerful mind in the continuousness with anonymous and with party straightforwardness puts them in front of a quiet country as a key issue.

There is an interesting nuance in the quote, which you will not immediately notice: Comrade Stalin says either to enterprises or “in enterprises”. Or (in other works) “in production”, then “in production”. Thank God, none of the vigilant heads had yet seen here the "fashionable Kremlin linguistic format."

Another thing is with Ukraine. Oh, here, on a poor excuse, they pounded simply an incredible political, ideological, international and even personal load! “In Ukraine”, it turns out, only imperialists, Putinoids, stranglers of freedoms and other, frankly, scoundrels say. A decent person of progressive views is obliged to say "in Ukraine." For this, the right to use the formula “in the Donbass” was given to him in consolation.

In Soviet times, comrades with heated linguistic and political instinct demanded that they do not ask in lines “who is the last”. For there are no latter in the USSR. There are, at worst, extreme. Typically, the question of the causes of the queues of fighters for equality did not occupy the question of the causes of the queues. They did not see him from their well.

How human is! And how not in a love.

What dull nerd in general occurred to that in Russian the pretext of “on” sounds worse than “B”? Only a creature completely deprived of hearing and imagination can decide that living on Arbat, on Tverskaya or on a falcon is shameless and humiliating, and in Biryulev-Tovarnoye or in the collective farm Krasnoye Porkovo is incredibly prestigiously prestigiously.

It's not about what you understand? Who stuck to these linguists that the expression “in Rus'” is worse or more offensive than the expression “in Russia”? Or vice versa, why was the Griboedovskoye “was exiled to Kamchatka, returned to Aleut ...” sounds noble than the modern norm “on Kamchatka”? Yes, nothing. Language, like the Holy Spirit, blows where he wants. And certainly not the fighters for equality to him by the pointers. It was "reigning in Moscow", it became "go to the vmoskva, accelerate longing." So what?

We must carefully get crazy with vigilance to name the formula “in Ukraine”, firstly, fashionable and, secondly, the Kremlin. Since the word "Ukraine" has settled in the Russian language, it has always been accompanied by the pretext of "on." Perhaps, with rare exceptions in the early stages, when the language norm has not yet been established and one could say, as Comrade. Stalin: either “at the enterprise”, then “in the enterprise”.

What is offensive to this for the enterprise itself? What does the Kremlin and Putin have to do with it, if our grandfathers and grandmas spoke so from the entire area of ​​the Russian language, including part of Ukraine itself? What kind of God is forgiven, fashion, if this is the most conservative norm, and the innovation (in my opinion, very artificial) is just the formula “in Ukraine”?

A large scientist who, in linguistics, who knows a lot, imagines that the Russian pretext “on” implies the periphery. In the Far East, in the north wild, in all kinds of islands there, peninsulas ... on the outskirts, in short. Therefore, they say, “in Ukraine” sounds dismissive. Mom is dear, what a vulgar and boring nonsense! Will you suit you on Red Square in the sense of peripherality?

Gentlemen Ukrainians! There are no questions to Andrei Illarionov - since he denied (and still denies) the economic crisis of 2009 with indestructible stubbornness at the peak of Yegor Gaidar or six months ago confidently predicted Putin’s new Ukrainian expansion “two weeks later”. The man firmly settled in his well and feels remarkably there. But you are free and mentally healthy people. It’s quite on my mind. Do you really feel that persistent attempts to make Moscow not to say the same to be used to it, and as you (according to a rather strange logic) seem correct, there is a complex of the "younger brother" turned inside out?

No, let him publicly admit that I am now completely adult! And let him give a certificate with the seal: not “on” but “c”! Help, what a trouble. Why, why an adult who does not need adolescence, such a stupid certificate? What is the difference to him, how does the former older brother dignify him? Call the pot, do not put it in the oven ... or, closer to the current situation, do not climb with vacation paratroopers and tanks for someone else's fence. What kind of children's grievances against a innocent pretext?

The stubborn desire to impose his freshly thoughtful linguistic norm to a neighbor is too reminiscent of the compensatory aggression of the notorious provincial consciousness, which the metropolitan arrogance imagines everywhere, attempts to insult and humiliate. So other ladies go to the subway, spreading their elbows - for they are sure that everyone only thinks how to hold on to their charms. By golly, you are not looking there. Honestly, Putin's Russia in front of Ukraine has a set of much heavier provinces, obvious to all the white light.

“In the Urals” or “on the Volga” - is this periphery? “In Tuva”, “in Yakutia”, “in Khakassia” is much more peripheral. Why? Yes, the devil knows him. I just wanted the tongue so - he did not ask us. And do not teach him to teach his mind, he will be older and smarter than us. Yes, with peninsulas, islands and mountains, Russian speech usually serves the preposition “on” - like red wine for meat. But, firstly, it is not necessary at all. And secondly, what does the prestige of the people, territories or dishes have to do with it?

“On the Kola Peninsula”, “on Mangyshlak”, but “in the Crimea”, which is also a peninsula. To the Crimea, what, respect? By the way, why not "in the Crimea"? Are there any secret machinations of imperial consciousness here? Well, check it soon!

Cuba-island-state; Iceland or Ireland too. For some reason, the language decided that “in Cuba”, but “in Iceland”. He, old, is more visible. Yes, and Cuba, it seems, is not in a claim. "In Malta", but "in Sicily." What gloomy bore risk saying that for the Russians Malt is more inferior? And in the case of Sardinia, in general, a disaster: you can do this and Syak. How scary to live!

It is clear that I really want to catch something like that, so that everyone immediately guesses that you are not here. Emphasize the specialty. Yes, for the sake of God - with all genuine respect for sovereign Ukraine. Only to the mice why? Thirst, by the way and inappropriately, emphasize the specialty and causes some doubt in it.

Moreover. According to the natural laws of the development of the Kiev Russian language, it gradually accumulates the differences from the “Moscow Russian”. This is normal: this is how American English differs from the British - with the difference that in the USA there was no smart Illarionov, in order to open the revanchist planes of Great Britain on the basis of these differences. If the Ukrainian version of the Russian language considers it right to say “Nedonbass”, “in Ukraine”, “from Gorlovka” and “for all of Odessa” - to health. The sovereign right of the language branch. Or, if you like, state ideology (since she has nothing more to do). Moscow is not at all a decree here - and, it seems, is not even trying. (If he tries, he will be rightly sent to all the well -known address: both “on” and “B.”) There is a exact opposite process: the Russian Russians are “in Moscow” according to the norms established in progressive and European Kyiv. This is already some form of compensatory ideological dictatorship - or does it seem to me only?

Can we not obey? It is possible, according to the sins by our heavy and famous Moscow laziness, we continue, clinging, clinging to the sovereign Ukraine the pretext that you are used to - regardless of sympathy/antipathies to Putin V.V.? Well, please! You see, here we have (in Moscow), one character (from St. Petersburg) also likes to raise the question of separatism - in relation to flies and cutlets. You can treat him as you like, but it would be strange in a sign of fundamental disagreement with his policy to demand that flies be present in the cutlets.

Let me another secret reasoning, purely between us. For a democrat (and indeed for a normal person), it is natural to respect someone else's freedom and other people's linguistic preferences. But why certainly to the detriment of your? If the ideologists of Ukrainian identity paused and played Twix, then they would probably have guessed that the formation of two versions of the Russian language (including with different pretexts) is more likely to benefit them than to the harm. To impose on Moscow Ukrainian speech neoplasms counter -productive within the framework of their chosen course. Isn't it? You are free to use the great and powerful Russian language in your own way, and we are in our own way. Go bad?

Otherwise, pure paranoia water comes out. At first, a certain ideological scheme is invented extremely far from normal human life: for example, about the lack of “latter” in the USSR. Or about the fact that the productivity of socialized socialist labor will certainly be higher than the capitalist. Then, with the stubbornness of the sleeping woodpecker, this scheme is pushed into the head of millions of people - so many begin to seriously believe. And finally, a complete apotheosis: based on fiction, which has already become a kind of axiom for the inhabitants of the well, fateful judgments are made. Since the “extreme” does not want to say, it means that the enemy of the working people. Russophobe and a bespectacled man from an unfinished intelligentsia. Since it does not observe the obvious advantages of socialism, it means a traitor to the homeland. Since Putin uses the Kremlin formula “in Ukraine”, it means not to pass the new stage of the war.

Fortunately, for all sane humanity, from Vladimir Putin, the imperialist, revenge and collector of Russian lands - something like from Andrei Illarionov Economic and political forecaster. That is, of course, they would not be against it - but the gut is thin. Only from the Illarionovsky or Piontkovsky well it seems that the former Chekist for years heeded the insidious plan for the accession of Crimea, pulled out resources and built incredibly complex multi -income. In fact, everything is simpler and more boring: he pulled the carriage of grandmas, a pawed darter with Yanukovych and decided that Ukraine (all, it doesn’t matter, with the pretext of “on” or “B”) already in the stall of the Eurasian and Customs Union.

However, he counted rudely. The only thing that remained, so as not to finally lose his face was to pull the Crimea to say goodbye. And yet, he pulled off. Purely situationally. Here, the sane humanity, contrary to expectations, woke up, lowered his pants from his comrade and poured nettles in the place that he used to think. Not too much, but noticeable. The way of thinking, of course, has changed: there was a reassessment of sovereign values, national code and spiritual bastards. The costs associated with military decisions (the chances of getting another flogging) were unacceptably high. And the expected profit is too low. The question arose on the agenda quite predictably the question of a neat drain of the shameful Novorossia along with its bandits, the transition to circular defense and isolation from the damned West.

As predicted, the process of the valiant military tightening of the Donbass is naturally (as soon as the question arose, who to pay for a broken dish) was replaced by the process of its subcover quitting. Let Ukraine pay for gas and electricity! No, now let Comrade Putin shake Most - Kyiv and there are not enough money for his own ...

Is it here?

In addition, in the future, the arrests of property on the accounts of the Yukos, the dental evidence in the case of the Malaysian Boeing and the Polonev games in London are clearly emerging. It’s not at all to the “new stage of the war” in Ukraine, which the vigilant Illarionov saw through the prism of his linguistic analysis. It’s just that some comrades from too long sitting in the well seems that there is no more terrible cat of the beast.

No, the war is not excluded and very likely, because Putin needs to create an occasion to restore the “iron curtain” - to hide from the Hague. But why is it necessary in Ukraine? Perhaps not at all at the European Theater. No “increment of the territory” and “restoration of the USSR” on the agenda has long been worth it: God forbid to cover the ass. The ideal option is to construct something very similar to the war in order to consolidate public opinion, revive the defense consciousness, explain economic failures and burn out sprouts of alternative policy. Но ни в коем случае не нарываться на серьезного противника: у параноиков инстинкт власти и самосохранения всегда на первом месте.

С чисто медицинской точки зрения интересно: какую еще пакость они в своем кремлевском колодце изобретут для России? Неужели действительно атомной бомбой по Воронежу? Путинская страна все сильнее напоминает Югославию времен Милошевича, когда теряющий власть миллиардер в попытке удержать державную кормушку, перекинулся от социализма к вульгарному национализму — и почти десять лет продолжал рулить процессом, стравливая осатаневшие от пропаганды «братские народы».

На этом фоне вдумчивые наблюдения над тем, как часто президент употребляет «модный кремлевский лингвистический формат «на Украине», и попытки строить на этой основе стратегические выводы смотрятся как бред сумасшедшего. Да, по сути, им и являются. Вместо того чтобы создавать на пустом месте дополнительные напряжения между соседними народами по поводу гиперзначимых «на» или «в», было бы куда разумнее продемонстрировать максимальную терпимость к маленьким слабостям и привычкам соседа — в качестве противодействия нагнетаемой сверху истерии.

Оборону, конечно, надо всемерно крепить: кто знает, что завтра в забубенную головушку вступит. Но вовсе не обязательно при этом срываться на визг. Опасаться и готовиться надо — бывает, что даже смирительная рубашка не выдерживает. А бояться — нет. Многовато чести, ей-богу.


Graphics of Mikhail Zlatkovsky