Written and unwritten programs

Gennady Zyuganov

Participants in the program: Tatiana Kutkovets - sociologist, director of research at the Institute of Sociological Analysis, and Otto Latsis - economist, columnist for the newspaper "Novye Izvestia"

Anatoly Strelyany:

Let's discuss the worldview and political behavior of Gennady Andreevich Zyuganov - the first person in the "For Victory" bloc, the leader of the largest of the Russian communist parties - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. A conversation about his worldview is not only appropriate, but simply necessary to begin with the basic question of philosophy, as Lenin posed it: what is Zyuganov’s relationship with matter and spirit, what, in his opinion, is primary, does he truly believe in God or is he “flirting with God”, again speaking in Lenin’s language? “History teaches,” Zyuganov proclaims, for example, “that before God and the law everyone will answer for everything they have done.” This is from his “Twelve Answers to Comrades” - answers to questions that he boils down to one: “How to elect 300 patriotic statesmen to the Duma?” The question of Zyuganov’s religiosity, of Zyuganov’s God, is also interesting for another reason. Zyuganov's verbal war against Yeltsin, against the Russian government is a war of destruction. “Traitors”, “occupiers”, “genocide” are common words in his mouth. Zyuganov’s speeches and statements are reminiscent of Lenin’s speeches and statements between February and October of the Seventeenth, with such words, with such a tone, they are preparing armed uprisings, a civil war, these are the words, tone, manners of warlike, bitter, uncontrollable atheists - and at the same time, Zyuganov and his party declare that they are going to act only by peaceful means. By peaceful means - these are the words of a believer, a religious person.

Tatyana Kutkovets, sociologist, research director at the Institute of Sociological Analysis, says:

Tatiana Kutkovets:

We don’t know whether Zyuganov actually believes in God or not, and that’s not the point; the fact that in his rhetoric he uses appeals to Orthodox traditions, which the October Revolution, as we know, cut off, is in deep contradiction with the demonstration of devotion to the ideals of this very revolution. How does this contradiction overlap with the traditionally interpreted stateism, when communist leaders, including Stalin, can be put on a par with the majority of Russian tsars. Hence, Tsar Peter and Stalin are on the same page. The essence of this statist position lies, firstly, in the fact that the state stands above society as a force independent of it, and secondly, this interpretation of statism is fundamentally anti-Western. The point is that the majority of Russian rulers, no matter what they were called - tsars or general secretaries, used the achievements, primarily technological, of Western civilization to preserve and strengthen the customary relationship between the state and society. Zyuganov in this sense is the heir to this tradition, or at least tries to look like one. Playing this role is not easy because the social situation no longer accepts the communist rhetoric of Soviet times. Therefore, he has to combine the incompatible: commitment to traditional statism with democratic procedures. He, unlike Tyulkin or Anpilov - his political competitors, cannot afford to call for a struggle for power at any cost, using all available methods, because his social base, his voters, for the most part, no longer consist of convinced communists. They represent Soviet ordinary people whose ideal is Brezhnev's times. As chairman of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Zyuganov has long been inconsistent with the image of a Soviet-era communist. That is why in his 1996 election program he writes: “Our goal is freedom and justice. If state power ensures this, then free people in a free country will do everything else themselves without teaching or prodding. The essence of my strategy is to give maximum scope to the creative energy, initiative and entrepreneurship of all citizens. The state is not a benefactor sending down manna from heaven on its subjects. The state is a guarantor of free labor. millions who arrange life according to their own understanding, but it is obliged to make sure that no one can prevent people from working freely, owning the fruits of their labor and independently deciding their destiny.” These are wonderful and very precise words, you can subscribe to almost every one of them, but they, as we know, belong to Gennady Andreevich Zyuganov. In other words, he appears to the public as a communist without communist convictions, or, in Bolshevik language, a “classical renegade revisionist.”

Anatoly Strelyany:

Says Otto Latsis, economist, columnist for the newspaper "Novye Izvestia":

Otto Latsis:

I don’t think anyone knows what kind of worldview this math teacher and PhD actually has. According to his words, the result is such a mess in which everything can be found, and everything can be refuted. I think the most general characteristic is in two words: National Socialism. It seems so to me, but depending on the audience and the immediate political need, this can be corrected in any way. Of course, nothing remained of Lenin’s communist internationalism there. He demonstrates his commitment to Stalinism, but when it is necessary to put it in his bosom, he never renounces it, does not criticize, God forbid, but sometimes he can remain silent. Religiosity, of course, is purely speculative. This is a clear intention to simply try to forget, to force the Russian people to forget about those crimes against religion and the church that the Bolsheviks committed. He seems to be the heir to the Bolsheviks. Although in reality this is not the case. Yes, Zyuganov is supposedly in favor of democratic procedures, but this follows from his political choice. He is supported by Anpilov’s supporters, and in the fight for the electorate he must pronounce all the words so as not to give up his die-hard supporters to Anpilov and the “Stalin bloc for the USSR.” But in fact, he is not at all aimed at militant actions. He chose his strategy in December 1993. This is a strategy for peaceful coexistence with Yeltsin's regime. All the roots are there, he is deafly silent about it, and no matter how much they remind him, he never answers, because he wants everyone to forget it, and this is the main birthmark of his current ideology and politics - he made a choice. He could not have given Yeltsin the Constitution, not allowed Yeltsin to become president on the basis of the new Constitution with one decision: to call on his party for a boycott in December 1993. If the communist electorate, which then amounted to 6-7 percent, had not come to the elections and, accordingly, to the referendum on the Constitution, then the 54 percent who took part in the vote - minus six or seven - the referendum would not have taken place, Russia would not have received a new Constitution, and elections based on it would not have taken place. Zyuganov made a different decision - to go and vote against the Constitution. It was known in advance that in this case it would be accepted. Having thus granted Yeltsin the Constitution, he went to integrate himself into this government, and further strengthened this strategy and tactics when, in 1996, he did everything possible not to win the presidential election. His victory would, of course, be a disaster not only for Russia, but also for his party. There is not only a contradiction between his pseudo-communist essence and the foundations of the current state, but also a contradiction between what he pretends to be - as if he were a communist, and his actual policy, and it determines many masking elements of his ideology, which are not actually connected with its essence.

Anatoly Strelyany:

Before the last elections, Zyuganov was identified by the largest, so to speak, number of specialist votes as a Stalinist. In Stalinism there is a place - and a lot of place - for National Socialism. This is where Zyuganov has established himself in recent years. What does it mean: Zyuganov is a National Socialist? Tatyana Kutkovets says:

Tatiana Kutkovets:

I would like to remind you that even before 1985, in his first articles in Pravda, Gennady Andreevich practiced ideological research on the Russian question, thereby distancing himself from the official ideology of socialist internationalism. Even then, he was aligning himself with Stalin of the post-war period, who, in fact, simply did not have time to introduce the ideology of National Socialism, so, according to Zyuganov’s worldview, he could absolutely be called a National Socialist. In words, Zyuganov advocates a socialist system of the NEP type, but he prefers not to mention the word socialism out loud at all. What he produces is “shameful socialism.” The form of government is not discussed out loud either. Therefore, a presidential republic does not suit him, because in this option it is impossible to win elections, and a parliamentary republic is not suitable, since it is associated with the Western form of government, but Zyuganov also prefers not to mention the republic of Soviets. All this inarticulateness is compensated by many years of calls for the creation of a “government of people’s trust” or, what is the same thing, a “government of parliamentary majority”, but I can add that behind these calls there is nothing but the desire to gain power, in conditions where the communists cannot win presidential elections. When the word Nazi was first uttered, it evoked associations only with fascism and Hitler; in Germany, in fact, there was National Socialism. What does it mean? In the German version it is “Germany for Germans”, in the Russian version it is “Russia for Russians”. However, some kind of embeddedness in the system will never allow Zyuganov to say what Makashov says. Therefore, he simply tries to avoid the communist ideology of earlier times, which was based on the idea of ​​internationalism. The word internationalism is not pronounced point-blank, meanwhile, in all sorts of different ways, of a rather Jesuitical nature, it introduces into the consciousness that the Russian people are offended, that the Russian people are disadvantaged, that the Russian people cannot feel themselves masters on their land... And socialism, even if it is not pronounced openly, clearly and distinctly, as a certain form of structure of society, then this is only a tactical ploy, because he cannot imagine any other structure for the simple reason that he, and his colleagues and comrades-in-arms only know how to do the kind of socialism that we had, they don’t know how to do anything else. Psychologists know this phenomenon well: when in an extreme situation people want only what they know how to do, only what they can do, and when they cannot and do not know how to do something, but want to achieve their goal, then they camouflage their intentions with all sorts of convenient words that should influence voters in our case. This is political camouflage.

Anatoly Strelyany:

Nobody heard the words from Gennady Zyuganov: “Socialism with a human face.” The words “socialism” and “communism” have been dropped from the language of the largest of the Russian communist parties. It would seem: why doesn’t Zyuganov try to increase the ranks of his supporters with promises of “good”, “improved”, “correct”, “genuine” socialism, why not paint an attractive image of “socialism with a human face” every day, which is what Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, is still doing? Otto Latsis says:

Otto Latsis:

These words are “socialism with a human face,” which the Soviet democratic intelligentsia believed in at one time, and some may still believe in now; these are not words at all that Zyuganov’s electorate believes in. It would be reckless on his part to utter such words. He appeals to those voters who believe that these revisionists, as they were called then, who later turned out to be Gorbachevites, whom Zyuganov now declares traitors, that everything is evil from them. Even before, everything was evil from the Khrushchev thaw. Zyuganov is logical in his own way; he has some integrity in his ideology. He promises to return the former, I think that he himself realizes that it cannot be returned, but he must create the illusion among his voters that he can return, say, the socialism of the Brezhnev era, this can only be promised on the basis of the integral ideology of Stalinism - Brezhnev's stagnation. Otherwise it won't work. Everything began to collapse when criticism of Stalinism, criticism of stagnation, criticism of socialism with an inhuman face began. He does not understand, and turns to people who do not understand, do not want and cannot understand what is the cause and what is the effect, because it was not destroyed because there was criticism, but criticism began because this system has exhausted the possibilities of its existence. Therefore, Zyuganov must pretend that the whole point is that they started talking about this human face. These are the slogans of his ideological opponents. Even when we had a single, but not single, as it should be for every single party, but containing many other parties, a party, in this single party the words “socialism with a human face” - these were the words of his sworn enemies within that party, and, naturally, he cannot repeat them now.

Anatoly Strelyany:

It was Otto Latsis, an economist and columnist for the newspaper Novye Izvestia. The worldview and political behavior of Gennady Zyuganov are discussed. How to evaluate his role in modern Russian history (from a democratic point of view, of course)? What can be credited to him, even if involuntary? Tatyana Kutkovets says:

Tatiana Kutkovets:

Zyuganov's role is by no means ambiguous. On the one hand, he created and led a party, which is a fragment of the old Soviet system; with its very appearance, this party was an element of the collapse of the CPSU; if we take this phenomenon strictly, then the collapse of the USSR, of course, too. And as long as this party exists, it is impossible to talk about the democratic consolidation of the political class and society in our country. This is one side, on the other hand, he introduced into this party the virus of democracy that is corrupting it. The party itself will most likely not be able to cope with this either. It is enough to recall some of the pieces that have already broken away - the Agrarian Party, which left, Podberezkin with the “Spiritual Heritage”, who left its ranks, and the “personal-exotic capitalist” Semago, who also left it. That is, it is already infected with the virus of democracy, and in this sense, Zyuganov’s role cannot be ignored.

Anatoly Strelyany:

It was Tatyana Kutkovets, director of research at the Institute of Sociological Analysis, in the Radio Liberty program “Written and Unwritten Programs.” We discussed the worldview and political behavior of Gennady Zyuganov, a politician who again may turn out to be the leader of the largest faction in the Duma - the faction of communists and their allies. He doesn't say what he thinks, and what he thinks he doesn't say. This is the main thing. However, his supporters understand him very well. They approve of this gap between word and thought, reassurance and true intention. We can say that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, led by Zyuganov, is a legalized, openly operating, but essentially underground party.