Such different letters

Frankly, I was asked to write about the letter of M. Khodorkovsky, but I was not going to do this. For various reasons, he was not going to, but first of all because this letter itself is very short and very understandable, it contains, in fact, only one thought, one thesis, you can agree or disagree with it, but there is almost nothing to discuss. But here, a week later, another letter appeared in the form of an article, I am talking about the text under the “aphoristic” name “cannot be allowed to turn into merchants”, published in Kommersant, signed by the head of the State Academy of Sciences of V. Cherkesov.

I am really convinced that Cherkesov wrote a letter, and in a much narrower sense of the word than Khodorkovsky, because in it he turns to one person - his chief V.V. Putin. You can guess for a long time why Circassians have no other opportunity to convey his thoughts to the boss and why, in these circumstances, he chose Kommersant, despite the fact that, let’s say, the family controls the whole media holding. I am not going to break my head over this, not my business, it is not interesting for me. I don’t know who wrote the text, which signed Cherkesov, no matter who he expected as a reader and why he was forced to give the opportunity to read his text to everyone - I judge precisely about the text. In this (and, perhaps, only in this sense) it is no different from Khodorkovsky, who, in this case, is simply the author of the text, nothing more. True, no less.

So, without three weeks for four years and having received new accusations Khodorkovsky, in a hurry to tell us that the basis of our position, our confrontation of the Putin regime should not be pragmatics, not rationality, not rationality, but morality, conscience. Because otherwise we will not differ qualitatively “from them” and in the future we will not bring to society that new component, without which it is doomed to reproduce the same problems for many centuries.

On the one hand, Khodorkovsky did not say anything new. Even M. Weber, economic and social progress explained to the reasons lying in the field of morality and ethics. On the other hand, it personally seems to me very timely his reminder, because, deciding the pragmatic, organizational, perhaps even engineering and technical-“dismantling of the regime”-a task, in no case should we forget about the main thing-about the goal and the restrictions that she imposes on funds.

It can be added that morality and even faith are not only in the Bible and, without delving into history, recall the Buddhist monks, who these days die in non -violent (on their part) confrontation between the Burmese variety of Chekism. You can recall B. Russell, many more and prove that morality, and even faith, are far from always based on religion. But these are all not those details that are now important. Khodorkovsky’s main idea is still extremely understandable, in my opinion, undeniable, is partly banal, but very timely and especially significant because if an obviously a stupid person who is in the conditions and circumstances in which the MBH is now is preoccupied with this, then at least it is worth paying attention to this and if you disagree, then think about it.

The text of Cherkesova is also one basic idea, which does not depend on details and side considerations and associations. Moreover, it is also very important for the author and he really wants to convey it to the addressee. Apparently, also because he feels himself and his close victims of unreasonable repression. Maybe even political. Almost like Khodorkovsky. This thought is also very simple: “To handle the members of the corporation, castes, just as with all the rest, is extremely dangerous for the entire corporation, caste. So you can lose power! "

In general, a person who has received a solid education-Langosuniversett, a legal farm-must know that merchants are also a caste, the same as warriors. And what he, Circassians, interprets, the more not the corporation - the corporation is not so closed, on the one hand, and heterogeneous, according to his description, on the other. But I understand why the most adequate term did not appear in the text-it causes too many associations that are undesirable for Circassian and his adhesive cartridge. After all, this term is the order. For example, swordsmen. In both senses - both in medieval and in Stalin. But if you rummage into history, then the original swordsmen from the Holy Earth was fused (for the information of Cherkesov: the cross and swordsmen then traded in Europe that they managed to take with themselves, including the shrines, and even the titles- the title of the King of Jerusalem was sold at least twice- so that the transformation of warriors of a certain variety into merchants, apparently, is natural, and it is natural) Stalin's swordsmen both during his lifetime, and then cleaned with all zeal many times. And this is absolutely in the logic vertical of power. And any chapter of this vertical.

In general, two letters once again showed a huge difference between the two approaches. One of them is a caste-corporate one, and his admirer, appealing to the leader, tries to defend group interests, frightening that loss of power. The other is liberal-free-loving, and his supporter, not mentioning in any way and, most likely, without thinking at this moment about his own problems and circumstances, turns to eternal values, conscience, and morality. Yes, of course, not all of us, oppositionists, are like Khodorkovsky.

We are all different. But how can all Chekists look like Cherkesov! Cherkesov was silent when Neckisty was subjected to repression. They are not members of the gang, that is, pah, corporation. But after all, he was silent about Trepashkin, and continues to be silent. But how many votes came in support of Cherkesov!

Even one of those who sometimes classify themselves to the opposition, K. Kabanov, also a former Chekist, tried to explain that for the country, they say, Cherkessov-Zolotov (chief of Putin’s security, the new edition of Korzhakov) is something better than Sechin-Patrushev-Ivanov (V.P.). Cherkessov himself denied Kabanov, explaining that all of them are one caste and their disputes and showdowns are a purely intra -corporate problem. You can’t even say about them “The plague for both of yours!”, Because they have one house. And the manager is one. They chose them for themselves.

Yu. Levitan

Everyone chooses by himself
Woman, religion, road,
To serve the devil or the prophet ,
Everyone chooses by themselves.

Everyone chooses for himself
The word for love and for prayer ,
Duel swap, battle sword,
Everyone chooses for himself.

Everyone chooses for himself
Shield and armor, staff and patches,
The measure of the final reckoning
Everyone chooses for himself.