Right in content, but not in form

From the editorial office. The scandal around the "anti -Soviet barbecue", and, consequently, around a rather sharp text against veterans and the Soviet Union, Alexander Podrabinka, is more and more. Although the name of the suburbanese became a symbol of "journalistic freedom" and "civil resistance", not everyone approves what he wrote, although these same people do not approve of the campaign that "disagreements" began against the suburban. With questions on this subject, the RG turned to the political scientist Viktor Militarev.

* * *

I admit that I know Alexander Podrabinka superficially. Our acquaintance took place about 35 ago, and since then I have practically never seen it. But even then it seemed to me that he, like the most part of the dissidents, is nervous and mentally unbalanced. At the same time, I am absolutely sure that he is absolutely decent. This is evidenced at least by the fact that the suburban, unlike many dissidents, was not seen in cooperation with the domestic special services or with the special services foreign, or was involved in dirty financial fraud. And although he is a person in a certain sense, absolutely honest, this does not mean that all his actions are adequate.

He fought for a long time for the rights of political prisoners, for the rights of people who were sent to psychiatric hospitals as a punishment for political beliefs. His book, in which he informed society the truth about psychiatric repressions, is honest. For this book in Soviet times, he was brutally avenged. Apparently, the severity of this struggle against the system predetermined some mental instability of the suburban.

As for the current history with an article by the suburban man about the barbecue “anti -Soviet”, the first thing I would like to say: I support the position of the sub -Rabber on the merits, but I do not support the form in which this position was clothed. I think the situation in which the barbecue with the name “anti -Soviet” closed all sorts of boundaries. At one time, the Sovetskaya Sovetskaya Hotel was really jokingly and unofficially called the “anti -Soviet”. It is quite natural that in our time there was an entrepreneur who remembered this joke and decided to beat her in marketing interests. The situation is absolutely intolerable when a cafe with such an innocent name closes some squabble old people as a result. I myself am a man of the left-wing social democratic, some of the communist views, but I am not a Soviet person, I am not a lover of the Soviet Union and Soviet officialdom. Nevertheless, despite the fact that I recognize the right of the Communists of the Soviet spill to a political protest, I am categorically outraged by their attempt to resort to a political polemic to an administrative resource.

In addition, I consider vicious practice when representatives of the Soviet subculture begin to interpret as a religious minority, in respect of which a kind of political correctness is practiced, which consists in the need to respect their beliefs. Under the Soviet regime, the carriers of these beliefs to their opponents did not use such practices, but exactly the opposite.

But this does not mean at all that I support the text of the subscription, in which he is so impolite to speak about veterans of the Great Patriotic War. But, if Alexander does not mean all veterans of the Great Patriotic War, but only those political opponents who have made the ban on the name “anti -Soviet”, then I do not see anything bad in his statement, because, in the end, he writes about the elderly who are part of the leadership of the official veteran organization. And the fact that he does not pay attention to their age, I think quite excusable, because for almost 60 years of Alexander Podrabink’s life, not these people, but those like they managed to make him a lot of bad. These old informers, sexots, personnel officers and other old rubbish with eyes like machine guns also cause dislike and squeamishness even now, although at the moment they are absolutely insignificant and do not have any power .

But if these words are understood as a generally, then the Snowbrus’s message is turning to itself, that veterans in our country are not at all respected. This, I must note, is not true. Of course, such veterans who opposed the barbecue “anti -Soviet”, most likely, are not worthy of respect, but I am completely sure that the Great Patriotic War is a heroic feat of our people, therefore, from my point of view, any careless conversations about the Great Patriotic War are unacceptable, and all veterans deserve respect. And in this sense, even in relation to those vile old men, we need to say: I respect you as veterans, but I consider your boorish Soviet races absolutely unacceptable, and an attempt to break out of our hands using an administrative resource, nibbler. Thus, you can summarize: the pathos of the statements of Alexander Podrabink is fair, but the form is at least careless, and at the maximum - offensive for veterans of the Great Patriotic War and, therefore, for most of us.

As for the activities of the public movement "ours", it seems to me it is counterproductive and stupid. I understand the irritation that our “ours” to the books of Vladimir Sorokin. They are really quite offensive in style, and in this sense the campaign against Sorokin was clear to me. But, they did not burn the books, but gave back the return sarcasm, so to speak, symbolically lowering them into a symbolic toilet. Perhaps this was a political action of not the best taste, but, definitely, it could be considered postmodern in style.

In the persecution of “ours”, Nobody is observed nothing like this. I repeat once again, I do not justify Alexander Podrabinek and his criticisms of veterans, but they can still find an excuse related to the circumstances of the personal biography of the one who made these remarks. Pearl is an old dissident, political prisoner, and as an old political fighter, he has the right to "break". He was crushing that all this aggressive Soviet bastard, which prevented him from living then, indestructible like cockroaches, raises his head again and declares his rights. Again, we are not talking about all citizens of the Soviet Union, but about active ideological fighters. And in this sense, I would say carefully that even if you count the statement of the suburban, this is not a greater trick than the previous actions of his opponents. Because in our country in our time to prohibit the comic name for the cafe “anti-Soviet” only because some supporters of Soviet power do not like it-this is more than wrong. Therefore, if I were in the place of the leaders of the public movement "ours", I would not be engaged in stupid things.

As for the critical remarks of Podrabinka about the Soviet Union, I do not share them. I see in the Soviet Union and in communist ideology a lot of good and reasonable, which, however, is not at all balanced with the nasty things and vileness that the leaders of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party made. Nevertheless, it is Alexander Podrabinek, a person who was a lot of Soviet power, has the right to sharpness and some inadequacy, especially since, as I said, he is a nervous person.

I am most upset by the level to which this petty scandal was inflated. And I would like to emphasize this thought especially. The matter is not at all in the movement of “ours”, which are one hundred percent support the current Russian government. There would be no noise and hysteria if the controversy was conducted at the level of the leaders of the "ours" and the sub -Rabinsk. But the current hysteria is supported by the fact that network Stalinists take the opportunity to declare themselves. And this seems to me the most disappointing.

Recorded by Alexander Pavlov