Dogs from the city outskirts

From the editorial office. In recent days, the theme of the Russian opposition has not been the forefront. This is coherent both with new political actions and with a fairly tough reaction of the authorities - a number of prominent opposition figures fell under the arrest. The writer Zakhar Prilepin, the author of the novel Sankya, dedicated to the everyday life of the opposioner-revolutionary, talked about the Russian opposition, its condition and prospects with the “Russian magazine”.

* * *

Russian Journal: There is an opinion that in 2010 there was a broken system and non -systemic opposition. Do you think that it can become a new opposition to the current government?

Zakhar Prilepin: I am not familiar with similar opinions. I know only one thing: the opposition was not unsystematic, so it remained. Once this opposition was associated with the shares of the now banned National-Bolshevik Party, today it is associated with the activities of another Russia. There are still quite aggressive liberals. The rest of the opposition can not be called the opposition by definition, because it cannot be a “systemic opposition”.
You see, everything that is built into the system is no longer the opposition, but is part of the system. Imagine that in the car two wheels are normal, two are a system opposition. So it cannot be, all four wheels work in one way or another for the system. And the fact that the authorities, completely not delving into the meaning of this phrase, “systemic opposition”, pronounces it, and the opposition itself, in the person of Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky or Mironov, also pronounces it, this turns into a complete, simply glaring absurdity. They don’t even understand what they say!
I do not know about any breakdown of the opposition. In my opinion, as everything was 10 years ago, so since then everything remains. Some characters appear on which I want to lay hopes and want them to transfer to a real opposition from the system opposition. It seemed that Sergey Glazyev could become such, that Dmitry Rogozin could be such. But, as it turns out, the transition from the system opposition to the real opposition is extremely complicated, and often simply impossible.

RSH: For the last action on the Triumphal Square, as I understand it, much fewer people came than it came a year ago ... Here is a symptom of the opposition crisis ...

ZP: All this varies within the limits of such numbers, which I do not want to talk about. Well, 3 thousand people came, then a thousand came, then one and a half came, which, in principle, the difference ... For me, there is no difference between three thousand and a thousand. The difference is lemons or Anpilov, who, in the 94th or in the 92nd, led a column of 150 thousand people. In general, you see, the opposition is not measured in numbers, it is measured by a feeling of air, atmosphere. And in the atmosphere there is a feeling that there are much more dissatisfied, the level of aggression is much higher. People simply do not rationally understand why they should go out, but if something once breaks into them, then so much will come out that it will not seem enough.

RG: In 2010, a wave of social riots swept throughout Europe, something similar happened in Russia on December 11. Do you think there is any feature of the protest performances of Russian youth?

ZP: Since I live not in Europe, but in Russia, I am infected not by European conspiracyology, but by Russian conspiracyology. And because of this, it sometimes seems to me that in Europe the mass expression of the will of citizens is a little more spontaneous than in our country, where certain political figures loom beyond the most mass events. In addition, in Europe, the component of civil society and civil solidarity is much more significant, which in Russia is at the minimum level. The Russians are more disconnected than Europeans, and until the problem concerns each of us personally, we, as a rule, are not going to joint shares. Manezhnaya Square was an exception.

RG: And which state policy in the situation of the right youth rebellion is more effective?

ZP: If you stand on the point of view of the state, then the most effective policy would be as follows: to buy part of the right, to intimidate some part of the fan movement. In other words, with all kinds of forces to level the activity of the youth that reached the Manezhnaya Square. But, realizing such measures, the authorities will engage in endless prolongation of the decisions of certain completely obvious and pressing issues, and hence the extension of these decisions. But the future of the country depends on the resolution of these issues.
One of the most important of these issues is the national issue. What a sin to hide the federal super-traders sent to the Caucasian republics, which disappear in an unknown direction, provided to representatives of many diasporas, the opportunity to lead enormous taxes inophanted funds to their countries, all this causes dissatisfaction with the most part of the country's population and this population requires the authorities to do at least something. But in order to solve these problems, it is necessary to in some completely total way to modify the structure of power as such. Russia is on the face when the revolution is from above, the revolution is anti -bureaucratic, is simply necessary. That would be just the necessary decision. But this will not happen.
Football fans entered the Manezhnaya Square. And it is important to understand why they went out. They fight precisely against bureaucracy. After all, the bureaucracy of sports clubs, the bureaucracy of the sports sphere, it, in fact, is no different from the bureaucracy of bureaucratic and political. It, one way or another, is always aimed at maintaining its position, but not at the resolution of problems on which the very existence of society depends.

RG: Why does modern youth choose scandalous, shocking methods of struggle? Is this due to the fact that the state left young people without their care?

ZP: I do not think that the authorities forgot about youth and youth political movements. The situation is inverse. For example, a meeting of Vladislav Yuryevich Surkov with representatives of several youth organizations was recently organized. At this meeting, the First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation recommended that activists of these youth movements train brains and muscles, since their assistance will be required in the near future. This is a clear signal to the fact that soon youth organizations will receive additional funding. So, we are waiting for the inevitable return to the political life of these white -white, pink -friendly slanderers.
As for youth, which, for objective or subjective reasons, does not fit into such political projects, there was no special business before anyone. And this part of the youth, its main part, lives, of course, either in complete prostration, or in a feeling of lack of soil under the feet. And the Manezhnaya Square is the most vivid evidence. It would seem who can be more loyal to power than near -football and football youth. After all, it was for her that the authorities achieved the holding of the World Cup in the country. But it turned out that this was not enough. In the understanding of this youth, the authorities do not behave “in Patsani”, she “throws” her, she does not protect her, releasing the murderers of football fans. This youth is not bought for spectacles. This is how he sang “Chayf”, “Dogs from the City Outskirts”, for which the concepts of honor are above all.

RG: The state now has no effective tools for the influence of these “dogs from the city outskirts”?

ZP: In communication with these groups, there can be only one effective tool: the state should combine practice and rhetoric into a single whole. And in modern Russia, these things are most distant from each other. From the TV, every day there are glory that Russia is getting out of the knees, but the fact that adolescents see every day around themselves completely contradicts what they hear. But these teenagers are active, they are ready to act, but they need to offer a large, real thing. This could be a new BAM, a new Baikonur, even a new white -minor.

RG: And the last question: from your point of view, what is the main problem that the “zero” transmit “tenth”?

ZP: The main legacy of the “zero” is the maximum simplification and reduction to the semi -amous form of any intellectual and cultural meanings. As a result, it turned out that in Russia there is no public agreement between power and mass, there is no between the authorities and the intellectuals. Instead, there are one or another simulacu in the form of either personal rather meaningless meetings, or some kind of large, well-detached action. There is no dialogue between the people and the power, there is no more dialogue between intellectuals and power. The very concept of the intelligentsia was completely sophisticated, because the intelligentsia in modern Russia is not as such. Modern Russia focuses either on people who have a million dollars, or does not focus on anyone. This is the inheritance with which we go in the "tenths" years.

Conversed Ksenia Kolkunova