Monday: review of the Russian press (27.03

Monday - Monday: review of the Russian press (27.03 - 03.04.2000)
Andrey Madison

Publication date: April 4, 2000

The state is the procession of God in the world.
G.V.Hegel

Basilisks and democrats

Eight, hmm, and a half years ago, in one of my then-radio broadcasts, which immediately followed the August “putsch” (isn’t it time to come up with a word more commensurate with the event?), I arrogantly declared that I did not believe in the triumph of democracy in Russia . And exactly a week later he corrected himself, saying that it was very easy for me to believe in triumph. And that I don’t believe in something else: in the cause of democracy. Let me self-quote what follows:

“The image of a Russian democratic leader appears to me as a kind of basilisk. Let me remind you that a basilisk is a creature with the head of a rooster, the body of a toad, the tail of a snake and a crown on its head. So the indispensable components of a modern Russian democrat are the party-nomenklatura past, the Orthodox present, the progressive phraseology and, at the same time, restoration of dilapidated autocratic paraphernalia."

Then, in 1991, I asked myself questions about the picture:

“What is sincere here? And more precisely: is such a question appropriate here at all? And isn’t everything that is happening a simple application of postmodernism to politics? After all, we have already read about all this (“went through”), and it is no coincidence that the coup-post-coup events have repeatedly try it on either by February or by October one thousand nine hundred and seventeen.”

As further verbal measurements showed, I liked the comparison and stuck. And when, four years later, memorial effigies to these events began to be erected in the democrat, including under the caps “Lost Victory” and “August Hangover”, “Moscow News”, which was hungover along with all its “drinking buddies”, finally put out a swaggering forelock from under its cap :

“No matter how you evaluate August 1991 in the history of Russia in the twentieth century, these events are comparable only to October of the seventeenth, although they are opposite to it in spirit, meaning and the nature of the social base.”

Of course, this is a mixture of partial truth and direct untruth. Because the main divide between those and these events did not pass along the lines of spirit and meaning. The fundamental difference was that the revolution of the 17th was prepared and carried out in the union of theory with an organization armed with this theory as a program; the confrontation with the autocracy was conscious and uncompromising, which is why the fight against it was life and death, respectively, and the victory turned out to be bloody, but real.

With a small, admittedly, correction, the projection of which to the present day nevertheless seems both significant and relevant. This, in my opinion, is perhaps the main characterological feature of the current moment.

In the Wake of Prohanoff

So, Vladimir Putin (minus the inauguration) became the President of the Russian Federation without any circumstances facilitating his title.

The everyday nature of this transition from one state to another was emphasized both by Putin himself and in response by Russia: it did not make any special gestures about this. Either the elections were held “in working order,” or immediately “the country froze in anticipation.” Either the people “once again demonstrated their wisdom.”

True, the lived experience of questioning brought me back to another cliché: when I asked the kioskman how he was selling his book of conversations with Putin , he replied that there was only one left, and ten had already been sold, and explained: “Nobody knows anything about him.” knows!"

Among journalists, the game of know-nothing is no longer in vogue.

And the editors of the newspaper “Zavtra” ( # 13 ) apparently figured out who the current President of the Russian Federation is best: under the words “Putin is the President of the Russian Federation,” a fragment of Bosch’s “Hell” is placed on the entire page , where some then the beak-headed fiend (again the basilisk theme!) melancholy swallows a man, from whose anus a flock of birds flies out.

Unlike the memorable Philip II, I am not a fan of the horror stories of the glorious Dutchman. Therefore, the double allegory of “breakfasts” did not make any impression on me.

Prokhanov's traditional editorial, having been moved by Bosch, migrated to the second page, but did not lose any of its combativeness or savory imagery:

“Do you know the recipe for winning elections? Take a spoonful of RDX, mix it with the beard of a Wahhabi, pour in the blood of riot police and the tears of an officer’s widow... Slowly boil in Tatyana Dyachenko’s kitchen to the music of Kirkorov... And then through the transparent jelly of the cooled aspic you will see fish eyes its president."

When Prokhanov was the singer of the empire in power, he was not able to write like that. The combination of imperialism and oppositionality is the key to his creative rise. Which means: Zyuganov’s victory is not needed by him (as a writer) just as Zyuganov himself (as a collective symbol of the opposition) does not need it.

The ideal model into which, I dare to suggest, Prokhanov would like to fit into is something like Comrade Gorky, as the leader of literature, with Comrade Stalin, as the leader of the nation (taking into account, of course, Gorky’s mistakes).

However, Zyuganov is not like Stalin (no matter how hard the lovers of horror stories from the opposite camp try to scare him), and Prokhanov has nothing to do with Gorky. Why is the evolution of people walking with him or listening to him, which matters (for Zavtra is an influential newspaper), will most likely be like this: for now, for lack of a better one, Zyuganov is still behind him, but - in parallel, the search (or nurturing) of a new incarnation imperialism. Since this will obviously not be the Dalai Lama, I have no intention of guessing who exactly will fill this currently empty vacancy (under acting Zyuganov).

Fear of waking up

The “Moscow News” that I already mentioned from five years ago contained the following passage:

“The social base of August 1991 is the flower of the people (no less! - A.M.), the intelligentsia with its, alas, primordially Russian, almost genetic Hamletism. Its victory was initially fraught with bitterness, resentment, disappointment, because one does not build castles in the air , and houses and roads are the function of fortinbras."

Five years later, and regarding other events, Kommersant (dated March 28, 2000) writes that “serious research into Putin’s electoral base will still be carried out. But we can already say that completely different people voted for the acting president - and pragmatists and romantics."

The difference between 1991 and 2000 (which is significant is in perception) is obvious. And if this is also the most active part of the electorate, and if Putin manages to establish normal interaction with it, then changes will be inevitable. If, on the contrary, these are “reactionary” romantics and opportunistic pragmatists, then the most that can be counted on is progress. In the mode of alternating either two steps forward - one step back, or one step forward - two back.

Most observers, however, agree that there will be no direct continuation (bad infinity) of Yeltsinism under Putin.

At the same time, many continue to remember Stalin on his occasion (and not only ill-wishers - just remember the program “Stalin is our everything” by Vitaly Tretyakov ). Trotsky once called Stalin “the most brilliant mediocrity of our party.” They also like to call Putin “gray” (with a hint of the theme of “blacks” and, of course, the Strugatskys again).

Regarding the analogies with Stalin, I want to remember a little something else. About what has been etched in my memory since the time of reading “Syntaxes”, “Continents”, “Vestniks of the RHD” and other so-called “forbidden literature” in the 70s and 80s. So, I mean that one of the numerous authors of countless articles there proclaimed the beginning of the real revolution in Russia not in the 17th year, but at the turn of the 20-30s, that is, the era of industrialization and collectivization, when the life of the peoples inhabiting USSR, and the socialist way of life was introduced.

Collectivization and industrialization, no matter how you look at them, were, in contrast to the obviously transitional NEP, definite decisions. Fear of Putin (last described by Boris Kagarlitsky - see Novaya Gazeta dated March 27, 2000) is, among other things, fear of the possibility of certain decisions.

In a recent publication by Solomon Volkov about the relationship between Zoshchenko and Shostakovich we read:

“Fear arises from simpler and more realistic circumstances: from fear of being deprived of food, from fear of death or terrible punishment. Zoshchenko said that a person experiencing fear of this kind can generally remain normal, and the disease is detected only in some oddities and quirks. Such Quirks help to understand the cause of illness better than dream analysis, because strange behavior is almost always infantile."

It would seem that the conclusion is clear: it’s time to play wake-up call. And wake up as adults in response to it.

Nevertheless, I will add. In the indexes to the recently published "Notebooks" of Andrei Platonov , as Literaturnaya Gazeta (dated March 29, 2000) well noted, there are much more references to people called "engineer Antonov", "tractor driver Balukhin", "steam locomotive driver Vasiliev" than names of many contemporary writers of Platonov.

This is exactly what I mean by both awakening and growing up.