Monday: review of the Russian press (13.03.

Monday - Monday: review of the Russian press (13.03. - 20.03.2000)
Andrei Madison

Publication date: March 21, 2000

Since some, not very long time ago, OJSC "Pogarskaya Cigarette and Cigar Factory" (in the Tambov region) has mastered the production of fifth-class cigarettes called "PRIMA nostalgia" - two types. On a pack of one type, V.I. Lenin is depicted against the backdrop of the Pravda logo, on a pack of another, I.V. Stalin is depicted against the backdrop of his own, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, order entitled “Not a step back!”

It is clear that violating the order of the Commander-in-Chief is an undertaking by execution. Nevertheless, I am forced to go for it. Why should the next few lines be taken as a suicide note? And not otherwise.

So, firstly, in the materials published on the pages of newspapers over the past week, I did not find anything that would serve as a joy for the eye and food for the mind. And therefore, he decided to ostracize them indiscriminately: to sum it up, everything is already clear to everyone, but something needs to be said?

Secondly, before making a responsible (on this again, everyone agrees) choice, it is useful to slow down, think, look around - and so on. So that, as experts in the genre say, in a hurry you don’t make a mistake, for which you will later... - again, etc.

And finally, thirdly, as a time period worth looking back at, I chose one of the moments directly preceding the last presidential election campaign - offhand, from memory, too many problems of that time have migrated to today. Turning to the original source only confirmed the initial assumptions.

The primary source in this case is the text of one of my programs, which I regularly broadcast when I was in Estonia on the local state radio. This one was called, not without a challenge, “Windows of GROWTH”, it was devoted to reviewing, again, the Russian press, and I felt my role in it, in the absence of the Russian press in the Estonian sale, almost as missionary - a typical overvaluation of the word for our people. Which, without work, of course, is always not “like that.”

In short, I still have the texts of those programs. And here is one of them, the date of its airing will not be difficult to guess (the year, just in case, is 1995). Just as it will not be difficult to see in it almost all the signs of the current political moment. Whether this is good or bad, taking into account the fact that more than four years have passed since then, judge for yourself.

Russian Russianness with praisers and detractors

On December 4, 1931, the wonderful Russian poet, prose writer, critic, translator, composer and homosexual Mikhail Kuzmin wrote in his diary: “Here at home. Yurkun is happy. I have worms. It’s cold, but not very cold. I didn’t go anywhere and wrote little. Organized ! I shaved without an appetite. The posters are uninteresting. There is terrible darkness in all the kitchens, and staircases, and on the streets. I called Anna Dmitrievna. In the twentieth room, because of our quarantine, they are also not very friendly. I didn’t get into the Philharmonic. I didn’t even write letters, but it’s a joy and the peace continues. In the evening we visited Glafira Viktorovna. Olga Nikolaevna wants to brag about my successes, which, really, didn’t happen.”

So, without any fuss, a man described his life in the era of industrialization, collectivization, trials of industrial parties and Socialist-Revolutionary Mensheviks, widespread self-criticism and dizziness from success. The child must have a personal life - and here you go: no Dneprogesov, Magnitogorsk, right and left deviations, continuous “the illness has passed”, “didn’t go anywhere”, “then I ran for some wine” or “I continue to feel better, although it’s slushy.” and in my mouth there is a taste of either gum or malafia, some kind of sulfur from smoking too much.”

Offhand, it is very similar to the feeling evoked by the speeches of Russian political leaders - some Yeltsin, Grachev, Chernomyrdin or Shumeika. However, like most of those who are eager to replace them. Using Polish material, the disgust they inspire was clearly expressed by the elderly science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem: “No one inspires confidence in me... Some are better off going to the stage. Our entire political class, from left to right, is a complete swamp.”

This state of the political elite is nothing more than an ugly reflection of the identity crisis that the Russian nation is currently experiencing (and, it seems, almost all of the Slavs are following it). In any case, a century and a half ago, dreams of pan-Slavic unity under the leadership of Russia would now look like just nonsense.

Natural confirmation of this is the same Stanislav Lem, who is far from the least intelligent person. After what he said in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine, he can no longer be counted among the friends of the Russian people. Here are the samples. First: “The worst thing (!) is Belarus’s desire to get closer to Russia again. And we were so happy that, except for Kaliningrad, we no longer have a common border with the Russians.” Second: “Moscow must understand that its isolation is a consequence of its own behavior. An experiment could be conducted: calmly tear off the mask of a great power from it. I wonder what would happen. My prediction: nothing but curses.” It is clear that you cannot prove anything to a person like Lem with curses.

Due to the fact that patriotism has become the bargaining slogan of almost all parties and movements, now everyone is writing about it. Even the Obshchaya Gazeta, where the thoroughly Orthodox Yakov Krotov asks the question: “Why do we live in Russia, and not in Rus'?” - “after all, “in Rus'” it’s more free to live, “in Rus'” is like “in the field,” “in freedom,” and “in Russia” is like “in prison,” “in a slum.”

Krotov is against the false, vile word Russian (not to mention Russian-speaking ), he is for the bright, free word Russian . He believes that changing words will lead to changes in the moral state of society. Instructive examples in this case, which is very common, are borrowed from the civilized peoples of the West.

And on this, while agreeing on other things, the ideologists and authors of the newspaper “Zavtra” will disagree with Krotov. For them, the word “Russian” does not exist in principle. And the word “Russian” is understood mainly by contradiction. Take, for example, the headline “Yeltsin and Nazarbayev are enemies of the Russians.” It is followed by the text: “After Yeltsin, whose time is rotting away in hospital wards, the Russians will begin to restore their state, unite the people and space. Northern and northeastern Kazakhstan are the original Russian lands. And if the Kazakhs, having drunk the poetic caramels of Olzhas Suleimenov, swallowed uncooked Beshbarmak Nazarbayev, will want to be left alone with great China, the Russians will draw the border along Ustyurt, Turan and Balkhash and will watch how the names of Kazakh villages disappear from topographic maps, and Nazarbayev’s nephews learn to write hieroglyphs on the floor of their yurts . "

This, of course, is the unforgettable Alexander Prokhanov in all the splendor of his expressive, and at the same time imperial, aura. As if to him, although in fact not to him at all, Lev Anninsky answers on the pages of the same “Zavtra”: “What is now denoted by the word “Russian” and has a distinct national, ethnic and even tribal flavor, was not thought of that way before.” Russian" - historically - is "state", "sovereign". And the ethnic definitions were "Great Russians", "Slavs", in some cases - "Muscovites" . And then - directly counter to Prokhanov:

“No one will prevent a normal person from being Russian or being “imperial” - if the will of history turns out to be so.

There is no need to confuse the roles. If we are building a national Russian state, we have nothing to do either in Chechnya, or in Tataria, or in Karelia. Otherwise they will answer us in the same “national” language (as recently on TV - a militant from Grozny): “Chechnya will not live under the Russian boot.”

The lyricists of Prokhanov and Anninsky, however, are also indirectly trying to reconcile the physicist Elena Antonova, citing from Dahl’s “Dictionary” an excellent, in her opinion, definition of “Russian” and “Russianness”. Like this:

- know, understand, speak Russian;

- think in Russian (as they would say now - have a Russian mentality);

- perceive Russian moral values ​​and culture as our own.

“That’s it! ” Antonova concludes joyfully. “ And not a word about purity of origin, not a word of denial or superiority over other peoples . ”

The sweet woman apparently believes that Yuri Skokov, to whom she is actually addressing, will be guided in his political intrigues by some kind of dictionary. He has a different task - using Alexander Lebed as a battering ram, to enter into power, but no longer as a stepson, as happened to him before, but as the rightful owner.

The retired general is subjected to appropriate treatment. Previously, for example, he dissociated himself from any questions about God; now he acts as a consistent fighter against the dominance of foreign sects in Orthodox Rus'. Previously, he stated that the Congress of Russian Communities would not oppose the interests of Russians and, for example, Bashkirs. Now he confidently speaks about the priority of the “titular nation”. And this is a natural renegade. Simply because there is no other way.

The inevitability of nationalism as a national idea

The fact that there is no other way and cannot even be is discussed by Viktor Sagarev in the article “What do homeless people and nouveau riche have in common” published by the Segodnya newspaper. Its subtitle “Once again about the national pride of the Great Russians” clearly refers to the famous work of Lenin, with which it has polemical relations, although without declaring them.

So, this is what Sagarev says, omitting all the hints and tips. “Russia ,” he says, “ at the end of the century remains the same archaic imperial structure (as at the beginning of the century - A.M.) , but the ideological vacuum is no longer filled by Marxism, but by the national idea. To be honest, it’s not clear what else can it be filled with?

It is also difficult to imagine that Russia, as a geopolitical entity governed in a democratic manner, will retain its integrity without gaining some new moral and ideological unity. She will simply have to find new or old principles for this unity, or abandon democracy. Since there is no new consolidating ideology in Russia and no new consolidating ideology is foreseen, we can only be content with the tried and tested one - the national one . "

In addition, “the instinctive search for identity is associated not only with political changes. An equally, if not more important stimulus is the social stratification that has occurred in just four or five years.

Ethnic (or national?) identity is the only thing left in common between a homeless person who has not had time to get used to his humiliation and a newly minted nouveau riche. They have no common values ​​at all, they barely understand each other’s language, they are... interpreted differently by the disinterested Russian law, but they have the same right to be called new Russians. Both of these characters are dispossessed because they no longer feel the heavy shadow of a seemingly absolutely stable superpower behind them and are looking for some new support . "

As for the role of the West in this intricate process, Sagarev presents it in a not entirely predictable form. So, “The West, as it turns out, already sees in the Russians a theme for the implementation of countless complexes, ecstasy, the product of which was not only the conveyor belt, but also socialism. Now, having suffered from the scarlet fever of totalitarianism and world leadership, he has become much closer to leading a direct route to world domination, a borderless global superpower of the Third World . "

If we leave the West alone for now and return to nationalism - and certainly rabid nationalism, then it is not at all excluded that at some stage it will be for the benefit of Russia. True, its current leaders are too rotten to play the role of beneficent villains. Although it is possible, again, that the right corporal is already somewhere on the way.

After all, if we remember that Russia is constantly being held up as an example of how Germany or Japan supposedly got out of the post-war devastation, then we have to admit: in such cases they only say “B”, as if forgetting about “A”. “A” lies in the nationalism, militarism, bloody aggression, defeat that preceded “B” and only then in sobering up during the intensive labor process.

This scheme, of course, is cynical, but it corresponds to reality. Including modern ones. An example of this is the Belarusian President Lukashenko, parodying Yeltsin, who in an interview with the German newspaper Handelsblatt first declared the solidarity of certain stages in the history of Belarus and Germany, and then stated that it was under Hitler that the formation of the German order reached its highest point and that as president he dreams precisely of in this order.

If we leave aside anti-fascist emotions, which by now are expressed either in hysteria or in nonsense, then it is understandable why Stanislav Lem shudders when such Belarus strives for reunification with Russia.

But he himself, without hesitation, declares that he would most willingly vote, if such a thing were possible, for Józef Pilsudski, who, by the way, in the Soviet “Encyclopedic Dictionary” is called “the fascist dictator of Poland.” And during which a large piece of present-day Belarus was Polish territory. No matter how clever Lem may be, such statements give off the smell of irrationalism, on which fascism can only grow and sprout.

And we should not forget that it was intellectuals, like Rosenberg, who planted the seeds and fertilized the field in which it grew. The “possessed corporals” only embodied their ideas into soil and blood, something that intellectuals, by definition, are not capable of.

Now in Russia, the development of the composition of a similar soup set is also not carried out by bugs and bugs. The latest, for me personally, example of this is the cult writer among postmodernists Vladimir Sorokin. His latest work is the play "Honeymoon", dedicated to Russian-German sadomasochism. This is in general. And in particular, “this is a love story between two young people: he is a German, the son of an SS Oberführer, she is a Jewish emigrant from Moscow, whose mother is an NKVD investigator . ” The play was staged in Germany by director Frank Castorf, who recently scandalized the public with his statement that it was time to detaboo the aesthetics of fascism.

Sorokin himself interprets his work this way: “I wanted to follow the mutation of the psyche of children whose parents were active participants in totalitarian regimes. <...> This is, in principle, a large and interesting topic. The relationship between the two peoples reminds me of old lovers who periodically love each other , then they fight, then love again. The Germans, of course, played the role of sadists against the backdrop of Russian masochism . "

And further: “Fascism and Russian communism interest me not as phenomena of mass psychosis, but precisely as cultural phenomena. As a certain era of collectivism that gave birth to great art . ”

And one more thing: “Ezra Pound did not write worse after he was imbued with fascist ideas. Meyerhold and Eisenstein felt an incredible rise at that time and were flourishing . ”

And finally: “Totalitarianism is such a strange flower that blooms very rarely. I am attracted by the idea of ​​​​going beyond human nature, the utopian idea of ​​​​changing it . ” This is despite the fact that, according to Sorokin, he is deeply indifferent to the structure of the world and especially Russia, and he would prefer to admire the revolution from the outside than to participate in it.

A kind of exquisite necrophilia. Enjoying the smell of corpses. Voyeurism - but not into the crack, but from the crack. And admiring not the sexual act, but the act of murder. Is it worth remembering that, according to Erich Fromm, Hitler was a complete necrophiliac?

Is it worth shitting in ballot boxes?

In order for nationalism to prevail in Russia and truly inspire the people to feats of self-denial and denial of everyone else, it must become self-sufficient. In the meantime, he is being pulled over by two opposing ideologies - Christianity and pre-Christian paganism.

The first is supported by the current authorities, the second is not. However, regardless of such support, both must be rejected. Only then will there be a release of energy necessary so that you can forget about the instinct of self-preservation. Moreover, nationalists should free themselves from Christianity as an international ideology first of all. With paganism, or rather, the original Slavic worldview, they can wait. An intuitive sampling from it may be useful to them. However, are they capable of it? And are they able to get out of the swamp, from where for now only the gurgling of their ambitions is clearly heard?

The fact that today’s nationalists, for the most part, are not able to comply with their own programs and doctrines is evidenced by the fact that such an inveterate Russophobe as Alexander Yanov dares to teach them the basics of Russian national behavior: “They usually talk about collectivism, communalism, artelism, inherent in the Russian people. What kind of communalism there is! Everyone blows his own trumpet, demonstrating the most extreme, rabid individualism . " And this, perhaps, will be pure Russophobic truth.

The loss of the spirit of collectivism and artelism occurred for a clear reason. Because the last of the eras when it was cultivated was declared a “soviet”, they decided to burn it out and the consciousness of people, as one bureaucrat used to say, “with a hot broom”, accordingly, was thrown into the trash heap and “their” stupid soviet code with this idiotic “ man is friend, comrade and brother to man."

Leningrader (as he attests to himself) Nikolai Shchegolev writes about this with sincere simplicity - and quite, by the way, from the Russian national position - in the article “Yeltsin is not a friend of Sobchak.” Here it is, the required paragraph:

“The word “comrade” has been declared shameful. Pushkin can say, “Comrade, believe, she will rise...”, the tsar appointed an official as a fellow minister, but we are not allowed. I defend this good, I would say, confidential, word due not only to my familiarity with him, but also adequate to our way of life, I don’t see a worthy replacement for him. You can see how Yeltsin (and the same Sobchak) puffs up and gets fat right before our eyes when they address him: “Mr...” But who are we for? "Gentlemen? And if gentlemen, then where are our slaves?"

The answer to this question may well be the following life story.

Entrance of a multi-storey building. There is an advertisement on the wall. "Comrades!" Crossed out. "Citizens!" Crossed out. "Russians!" Crossed out. "Gentlemen!" Not crossed out . And further: “We kindly ask you not to piss in the entrance!”

If you elevate the entrance to the scale of the country (which, even with a minimum of imagination, is not at all difficult), it will become clear what you definitely shouldn’t do in the presidential elections - you shouldn’t vote “against everyone.” This is quite equivalent to shitting in hallways. Because in both cases, responsibility for one’s actions is shifted to others. But, according to the Constitution, only adults can take part in elections, i.e. adults, i.e. people responsible for their actions.

So: isn’t it time for us to learn to take responsibility for our actions?