Sergey Romashko. 90s? 80s? 70s?

90s? 80s? 70s?
On the ongoing nature of history

Sergey Romashko

Publication date: March 30, 2004

Two discussions that flared up unexpectedly in the Russian Journal and also (no, not quite, but we will talk about this later) unexpectedly died out, suddenly stuck together.

The first discussion is about the nineties. Both its very beginning and some reluctance to delve into it seem to be no coincidence. Looking back at the past decade is not very pleasing, and you want to either look away or come up with a simple explanation that will immediately make you feel better.

In the Beatles' film "Help!" (just in case: thoroughly playful and parodic) a certain British scientist, suffering from a constant lack of funding, explains each time the failure: “If only I had green wires, like the Americans.” Approximately the same approach was proposed in the 90s: if privatization had been carried out not this way, but this way, then instead of bad pigeons, we would have turkeys sitting on fences. I would like to be an epic hero, choosing at a crossroads where to go (however, upon closer examination it turns out that the hero’s choice is rather conditional). In history there is even less free choice. Actually, Pavlovsky wrote about this in response to Naishul, rightly pointing out the “involuntary choice” that had to be made. But I would just like to add one note to this involuntary nature.

Pavlovsky outlined the widest range of the historical situation that determined the events of the 90s in Russia (and related to Russia). And this circle really exists - in general, it would be nice to remember more often that we are only part of that huge rolling coma, which is elegantly called “world history.” And in this coma, everything was stuck together: snow, mud, and some ski poles from last year that no one needed anymore. But at the same time, any “now” in a certain way grows out of “yesterday” and “the day before yesterday.” So the 90s grew out of the 80s, despite all the dramatic changes at their turn. Because the political and other leaders of the 90s did not come to us on a flying saucer, but here, next to us, and grew up. Now we can say that children of the 90s appeared, but then there were simply no other people, they all came out of previous decades. And not only could they not help but bring with them many habits of the previous time, but the very methods of building a new one also largely stemmed from their previous way of life and way of thinking.

It is not customary to write about this. Because, on the one hand, it violates the mythology of building a new Russia, and on the other hand, it could expose to everyone the ugliness of the simple methods by which much was done. But we need to overcome the barrier and calmly understand the past, because without this much cannot be understood. It’s impossible to understand how a consumer society gradually developed in the Soviet Union - crooked, wretched, but it did happen. How it began to devour the system, because, in fact, at a certain moment it ceased to satisfy not only the broad masses, but also those who had access to various kinds of distributors; how the elite (excuse the expression) wanted more, and they began to think about how to get more while maintaining their positions. About what the so-called “planned economy” was, in which no plans were carried out and no one was going to carry them out from the beginning, but a complex game system was built, in which the last Soviet corps of directors was formed, which became one of the factors in the 90s the transformations that took place. About how market and quasi-market concepts and actions penetrated society in sometimes completely “transformed” (using Marxist terminology) form, and then many decided that this was the market. And much more.

In general, the history of Russia in the twentieth century is a large unknown quantity. Without going back to more distant times, what was, say, Soviet society at the turn of the 50s and 60s? We are talking, of course, not about the “New World” or anything like that, but about an integral characteristic of the social movement of that time (which will also include the magazine with all its components). Where are serious studies on this subject, without ideological cliches on both sides? No interest. It’s easier to explain, or rather to justify that “the wires were wrong,” and run on, but with the same filthy tricks as before.

And now about the second discussion , which seems to be of a completely different kind. About the life and death of S.S. Averintsev. But in fact, it's about the same thing. Without touching now on the scientific component itself (the conversation is completely separate and also difficult), we can say that Averintsev, who entered the public consciousness, is also a phenomenon of the 70s and 80s. And therefore, his disappearance from the country in the 90s was not a painful event, and for him, it seems, moving outside his homeland, in which there was clearly no suitable place for him, was very opportune. The sessions of intellectual ritual, to which people came regardless of the stated topic (it could, in principle, be anything), were a welcome psychotherapy for the restrained and humiliated Soviet intelligentsia. However, like any shamanistic actions, they gave rise to liberating tenderness, but not real liberation, because they did not in any way clarify the confused - and on both sides - relations between the intelligentsia and the authorities, who cannot do without each other, and do not want to give these relations a normal one. sober form, each time sliding into the dirty ditch of pathology, where there is always some kind of sadomasochism and stupid complexes.

Of course, it is not customary to discuss the deceased, but the conversation did not start by chance, because the point, ultimately, is not only and not so much in Averintsev, but in ourselves. He, as one of the most remarkable phenomena of his time, remains to us as another sign, as a reminder of what happened and what we should think hard about. Much in history in general and in our history in particular does not happen by chance. And even the most striking breaks in the historical movement are not complete breaks, unless the entire society is destroyed, and a desert remains in its place - or new people come who do not want to know anything about the old ones. In all other cases, the past, present and future are intertwined, and we must strive to understand exactly how. Then you won’t have to bashfully look away from the recent past and get ready to start a new life again on Monday.