Spoiled and praised

The entire anti-Soviet project since the 60s and, to a large extent, the current anti-Russian campaign rely on the inherent in the inherent feeling of dislike for the bureaucrat (official). The feeling is quite understandable, although normally controlled by the mind.

It was excited, apparently, on the wave of a liberal-democratic anti-imperial movement in the nineteenth century, and then strengthened by Marxism. More than once, such, for example, the sayings of Marx about the state: "A centralized state machine, which, with its ubiquitous and multi -sized military, bureaucratic and judicial authorities, entangles (wrappers), like a boa constrictor, living civil society."

In the acute phase of the crisis of the monarchy, peasants also passed into the camp of critics. The verdict of the peasants of the Yuryevets district of the Kostroma province (June 1906) appreciates the bureaucracy: "This well -fed, a part of society, fed at his madness, digs a hole itself, which it will soon fall into. It, this insatiable bureaucracy, as a drowning man, wants to be saved, grabbing a straw, despite its faithful death."

The next large wave is perestroika. The goal of dispersion was set - everything and everything. One of the main motives was hatred of state apparatus workers, officials ("bureaucracy"). It was not denied, of course, that in any state there is a bureaucracy, but by default it was believed that our officials were worse than the Western.

The last wave is the struggle against Putin's "police state". In his almost last interview, the architect of perestroika A.N. Yakovlev pointed out the enemy: “I am worried about our bureaucracy. It is greedy, lazy and deceitful, does not want to know anything except serving his own interests. It, like an insatiable crocodile, swallows any laws, it hates human freedom ... I am sure that we will have a turn to totalitarianism, then the locomotive will be the locomotive The bureaucracy, the bloomed, greedy, impudent, incompetent, illiterate gathering of hami who hate people ”(“ Independent Gazeta ”, 04/19/2005).

"Liberals" sing in unison. E. Yasin: “The events around Yukos are a step towards the victory of the bureaucracy over the business ... This is a step from a controlled democracy to the police state” (Moscow News, 11/18/2003). L. Batkin calls for battle against the "Empire of Evil": "Of course, we are talking about a" velvet "or" orange "revolution ... The regime of Russian bureaucracy, who has matured under Yeltsin, has much more frankly and embraced under Putin, since 2004 entered a new phase historically" (New Gazeta, 2005, # 24).

So, the conversation about officials as a sociocultural type is relevant. There is probably special literature about him, but the public was not found (not counting the ideological). Therefore, for the first case, it is permissible to speak out at the level of ordinary knowledge, based on general ideas. At this level, I see the matter like this.

As the type of Russian bureaucracy is generated by Peter's reforms, with a break in continuity. As the Petrovsky officer did not grow out of the Sagittarius, the official did not grow out of the clerk. Therefore, it is enough to consider the evolution of the official from the 18th century. When designing it was taken, rather, a Prussian model of an official, and not liberal English. This is the type of service service and bureaucrat, but not elitist, but contained in a black body, with a low salary.

As an educated class, bureaucracy in Russia was formed along with the intelligentsia and perceived its important cultural features. The main one is the splitting of the worldview. The Russian official and the intellectual are figures of a traditional society that experiences the stress of modernization. The values ​​of Protestant ethics were imposed by the charter and education of the official - the idea of ​​a person as an atom (individual), which should be treated impartially, in accordance with his rights defined by the law. At the same time, it should be honest and ascetic.

The real traditional culture forced him to “enter into a position” of a person, that is, to relate to him “in conscience” (in the modern language - “according to concepts”), and not based on the soulless instruction (law). If so, then to yourself, sinful, one must be treated "in good conscience", and people do not offend people with a refusal of their grateful offering. As the supplier told the bureaucrat in Kafka’s parable: "I take you not to think that you missed something." But the bureaucrat of Kafka is soulless: takes, but does not sympathize with the petitioner and does not at all retreat from the instructions. And the Russian bureaucrat will help if possible to give a bribe to the petitioner or at least regret it.

In Soviet times, officials were gathered into the "Order of the Swordsmen" and turned into a caste ("nomenclature"). This was a brilliant invention, which for a whole historical period gave the USSR an effective bureaucracy at a low level of corruption. Then, the “institutionalization of charisma” predicted by the theory of Weber occurred by the theory of Weber, and the red commanders who became officials gave way to their children. Those already had not a caste order, but estate. Not swordsmen, but new bar. In the 60-80s, two cultural shifts occurred. It was worthily to realize the privileges only in the structures of consumption societies ("like behind the hill"). Modernization (as a spiritual vector) gave way to westernization. Their population became a burden, and social racism was included in the worldview core of the nomenclature.

In the 90s, that nomenclature basically moved to business, and a lot of people from the Soviet “Spiritual bottom”, a social base of reform, were recruited into the bureaucracy. Civilized social-Darwinism has become simple rudeness (more humane, but unbearable), corruption as a "tool of progress" has become a dull theft.

And at the same time, our state apparatus - officials - remains the only organized force that is able to resist the pressure of even more destructive forces. Neither the market nor the multi -partyism can provide this protection. If it weren’t for the millions of our officials, the paralyzed country would have cooled down and worms would have gnawed it to the bones.

Yes, our state apparatus is mutilated, disheveled by a series of purges and reforms, embittered by slander and mockery, confused with ideological nonsense and tied with corruption. We all suffer from the bureaucratic machine brought into such a state, we are all filled with it with an evil feeling. But if we allow her to finish her, we are the end! It is necessary to save it, and then cure it. Indeed, through all the dirt that has embraced on our state apparatus, the instinct and conscience of the state man shine through and breaks through - it is necessary to help him get stronger. This is what the renegles of Russia are afraid.