"Apple" as an era

The Yabloko trajectory in miniature repeats the evolution of the state apparatus. Mr. Big, with whose name all achievements or failures are associated, leaves, leaves the successor, and the audience wonders: is he seriously or Ponaroshka? And now what will happen to the shop - will this, new, will pull? Or will the former still steer from behind the scenes? And how will they get along?

The coincidence is not accidental, because it reflects the deep fracture in the Russian political culture. The word "culture" here is understood not as a call to hark into the urn, but as the norms of practical behavior adequate to the surrounding society.

For example, the culture of one -man. Is it normal that the “democrat” Luzhkov runs Moscow longer than Brezhnev of the USSR? And Straev, Shaimiev, Rakhimov, Tuleyev, Rossel? - The list everyone will continue. Theoretically, it seems not very. Somehow undemocratic. But what does a despicable practice tell us?

Is an intellectual habit of considering the norm not how it actually is, but how it “should have been if everything were right” is not the same element of the soviet culture? Based on the observed empiricism, where it is “normal”. And I like it or not like - this is another matter. For the practice of collective farm construction, there was a normal hungry death of peasants. It was normal to propagate this as a deviation from the correct general line. Excesses on the ground.

The norm of crazy soviet consciousness.

Little or antipathetic to you Yavlinsky is the tenth business. The first and most important - he finally leaves. After one single -handedly represented the party almost as long and stubbornly as Luzhkov Moscow. Like Zhirnovsky LDPR. Like Zyuganov of the Communist Party. We said the “apple” - meant Yavlinsky; We said Yavlinsky - we meant an “apple” ...

Democrats, Communists, National Patriots-and the culture of leadership is the same. Bright software goals are different, but the technique of party construction (and, therefore, deep ideas about the norms of political leadership) is the same.

How else? No. In our environment! Otherwise, they will eat, sorry, with giblets.

***

It was normal because it is natural.

And now the little clock becomes abnormal. It’s awkward somehow. It seems indecent to sit further. Laugh! Tea, not Lukashenko ...

So the little clinic is a change in the sociocultural paradigm. For Lukashenko or Karimov, there is simply no such problem. And for most of their subjects. They have no laughing. And not to decency.

Of course, departure is carried out through an urgently invented institution of succession. And again-how else? Everything that is acquired by overwhelming labor (in the case of Yavlinsky, I believe, only about political capital), so to leave for redistribution and breakdown? Throw everything, let go of your beard and go through Rus'?

No, impossible. But, on the other hand, it is even more impossible to expel from the party of fractions and schismatics even more by the good Soviet recipe, to blame them for two -dealing, of working for foreign intelligence, to clear and rally the ranks - and further, to new great achievements! No, not rolling.

So - the successor. As an inevitable laying between past and future style. A remarkable saying by the new Leader of Yabloko regarding the Leningrad Anti -Party Group: it is impossible, they say, to allow the party to be “sheltered” by its individual representatives. Well, of course: what else can individual representatives of the intra -party opposition do, except not to “shift”. And also jamming around foreign embassies. Ah, how close to my soviet heart.

But at the same time, to honestly exterminate the opposition as a class, due to the inevitable exacerbation of the class struggle as it approaches the ideals of democracy, also does not work. Again, uncomfortable ...

The intermediate phase of development, in short.

But until recently it was very convenient. Remember: first, Boldyrev broke off (more precisely, it was cut off) from a triune fruit. Then Lukin. “L” fell, “B” was gone, “I” remained on the pipe. And today, then, it was time for him. The letter "m" came.

Really full apple? I would not want to. But you can't do without a deep crisis.

In addition to the problem of unity of command as a projection of Russian cultural monism (one, the only king, one power is a party, one is one, one is a faith - an ideology ...) the second problem associated with the same sociocultural transition - just ideology.

In the sense of intransigence.

***

The time of uncompromising parties of the ideological type is leaving. The time comes for the parties of technological, sharpened to solve specific managerial problems. Actually, we always had them, only they were called not parties, but in groups of influence. Which sometimes took this or that party ideology for public cover, but more often did without it. At one time, the group ("party") Luzhkova enjoyed the ideological support of Yabloko, and even with the oligarch Gusinsky did not consider it shameful to be friends. And then he intensified and thought - why?

Mr. Platonov, the leader of the Moscow City Duma, began his career as a member of the CPSU, continued as a member of the ATP, now he is a respected member of United Russia. As the respected V.V. Posner, also a symbol of the current era - "such times" today. "

So what is the ideological difference between the “party” of Luzhkov, the “party” of Sechin, the “party” of Ivanov or, say, Shaimiev? Yes, approximately the same as between the "party" of Obama, the "party" Hillary Clinton and both of them with the "party" of McCain. Do they discuss the philosophy of civil freedoms and democratic values ​​with each other? No, purely technological questions: the dollar exchange rate, inflation, taxes, war in Iraq (to withdraw troops or not).

In the same way, between ATP with Yabloko, real discrepancies have long become technological, and an attempt to give them ideological pathos clearly gives them an election hypocrisy. Was there a “honest” privatization or “dishonest”? Now, if it were not as it was, but as it should have been, then in our courteous Fatherland everything would be completely different!

I absolutely agree. If everything was done as it should, then everything would be done as it should. By the mind. Exactly in 500 days. Only that would be in another country. With other social rules.

Put a mental experiment. Suppose he won the presidential election G.A. Yavlinsky with his deserve all respect by democratic ideology. And all these really existing Patrushevs, Sechins, the Kvachkovs, Makashovs, the Zyuganovs and Prokhanov crowd in his wards with petitions: you, father, took the top, you have our bellies and voluntarily ...

The social norm, your mother, will not allow Yavlinsky to win. Honestly, she will do it or dishonestly - the question is as idle as about whether honest elections in the country are possible in principle with the current ideas of citizens and elites about social norms.

As stated in the Book of Strugatsky, if God is taken to clean the need, let him not think that he will have clean fingers.

Democratic movement in crisis. And that's right, because it’s normal. Russia is in the interval so as not to say in the crotch. And the Yabloko party with it.

Can Mitrokhin to glorify with old party bison, again, deserving all respect - such as Sheinis, Borshchov, Piontkovsky? And with young, aggressive and also subjectively very honest Yashin and Reznik? Can he combine the theoretical requirements of intra -party democracy with the practical requirements of everyday control over the organization? And agree with the Kremlin? And bargain from ATP?

S. Mitrokhin (as, by the way, and N. Belykh) is a new generation man, more pragmatic, less implacable, less pumped up by ideology. Maybe he will stick together. But at the same time, the former, for years, a cherished image of the party as the last knight on a white horse in an unsuccessful white tailcoat will inevitably collapse.

Will the voters forgive him this change? They also stick out the norm in their heads with a nail. Formed, including the irreconcilable Yavlinsky. Since God means that with clean fingers. Otherwise, we will not vote.

“Apple” is our mirror with you. We, no matter what we ourselves are thinking, are changing. We accumulate social experience, part with illusions. For many, it looks like disappointment precisely in the party (well, not in itself, so hotly and sincerely loved). But in fact, the sociocultural background is simply changing. Knights without fear and reproach-the attribute of the fairy tales of the 90s, when the mental feudal lords-aristocrats with their freedom looked like great progress against the backdrop of stupid mental slaveholders.

Today, the time of mental bourgeois and related political philistinism come. Great progress.

But it's a shame, primarily in the aesthetic sense. The aristocracy of the spirit is smaller, and in short decades we have skipped the path of social evolution, to which centuries have gone from the old European Europe. Reality changes faster than our priorities. People who seemed to be light in the window yesterday, many today cause pity, if not contempt and anger.

But this is not necessary. No need to be rude to your past. This is also too "normal" for our country. First, put it to heaven, and then throw the crowd from rolling into the pitchfork.

They did what they could. In those real conditions in which they existed. If today it seems to you that you could make better and smarter, then this is largely because you know more than they knew. You live in updated reality, with much wider horizons.

Pretty lead business - to use the advantage of a wide horizon in order to spread rot those who, as they knew how, expanded this horizon.

For you.

Oh, I'm afraid this is too reminiscent of a tombstone. But so it turned out, I, by golly, did not want to.