Memorial vs Monument

According to Ekho Moskvy, there were about 100-150 people gathered. Not much, but organizers hope this is just the beginning of the protest campaign. The rally began collecting signatures against the restoration of the monument. The Union of Right Forces, which initiated this action, hopes to collect a million protest votes, thereby hoping to influence the mayor and force him to abandon his intentions.

Let us recall that on September 13, Luzhkov quite unexpectedly announced that he supported the idea of ​​​​restoring the monument on the grounds that: 1. It does not matter what kind of person Dzerzhinsky was, but what is important is that Vuchetich’s sculpture has great artistic merit; 2. In fact, Dzerzhinsky was an outstanding fighter against homelessness and an organizer of railway transport, and in general did a lot of good in his life.

The mayor especially insists on separating flies and cutlets, that is, he insists that the artistic merits of the monument (by the way, recognized by art historians) should not be confused with the negative associations that the personality of the depicted evokes. From this he concludes that from a purely urban planning point of view, nothing prevents the return of Vuchetich’s work from exile to its former location.

Similar reasoning might be appropriate if we were talking about erecting a statue of Emperor Nero in the center of Rome - matters of the past and, in fact, little affect the interests of living generations. But in today's Russia, which is only ten years separated from the system that Dzerzhinsky is the personification of, such words sound blasphemous.

The participants of the action also spoke about this. In conclusion, they stated that a mass rally would be organized on September 27 on Lubyanka Square, which would possibly develop into a continuous protest action, culminating in another rally on October 30, the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Political Repression.

On the same day, September 16, the International Historical-Educational Human Rights and Charitable Society "Memorial" issued a statement in which it confirmed the immutability of its position expressed back in 1998, when the State Duma adopted a resolution on the restoration of the monument (which Luzhkov, by the way, is against , then objected vehemently). Unfortunately, if the State Duma’s resolutions regarding monumental propaganda in Moscow were of a recommendatory nature, then the words of the mayor himself in Moscow carry much more weight...

So, the theses of the objections of historians and human rights activists are as follows:

"1. Dzerzhinsky's main business has always been the fight not against criminal crime, but against political opponents (real and imaginary) of Soviet power. It was he who was the founder of the system of political investigation and political reprisal in Soviet Russia. ... The proposal to restore the monument to Dzerzhinsky is demonstrative disregard for the memory of millions of victims of political repression.

2. It was in the era of Dzerzhinsky and with his direct participation that the idea of ​​law was opposed to the ideas of “revolutionary legality” and the idea of ​​“political expediency” of repression. ... Dzerzhinsky’s activities were aimed not at strengthening the Law, but at fighting it. The restoration of the monument to Dzerzhinsky is a demonstrative disrespect for the idea of ​​law.

3. ... Felix Dzerzhinsky was an energetic supporter of “emergency” as one of the main methods of fighting crime. Therefore, the reference to the fight against crime as an argument in favor of restoring the monument on Lubyanka Square cannot be perceived differently than a call for the same “emergency”.

4. In eliminating homelessness, is there really a significant contribution from F.E. Dzerzhinsky? and this aspect of his activity can probably be attributed to him. But we must not forget that the emergence of homelessness? This is the result, first of all, of economic devastation and civil war, which was led precisely by the policies of Dzerzhinsky and his party comrades. ...

5. We understand perfectly well that the monument is nothing more than a symbol. The spontaneous dismantling of the Dzerzhinsky monument by Muscovites on August 22, 1991 was also a symbol of the victory of democracy over the communist putschists. The restoration of this monument will also become a symbol - a symbol of the renunciation of democracy and freedom, a symbol of a return to lawlessness."

The statement ends with an appeal to “all responsible political and social forces in the country” to support opponents of the restoration of the monument. Human rights activists even appeal to Yu. Luzhkov personally, calling on him to come to his senses, evaluate “what irreparable split in society the implementation of his proposal will lead to, and abandon it.”

On October 30, 2001, at a rally in the same Lubyanka, the co-chairman of the Moscow Association of Persons Victims of Political Repression, Valeria Dunaeva, announced Memorial’s intention to create an alley in memory of the Gulag victims on Lubyanka Square, consisting of tombstones, under which capsules with soil brought from the cemeteries of Stalin's camps from all over Russia. Could it have occurred to anyone that in this very place, in less than a year, another rally would be urgently held so that the Solovetsky Stone - a symbol of memory of the suffering of millions of victims of repression - would not again, as before 1991, end up in the politically correct next to the figure of “Iron Felix” himself?

Perhaps, in terms of the degree of absurdity and cynicism, this far surpasses the story of the Soviet anthem, to the melody of which words about God are now sung...

Analysts are scratching their heads over what could have prompted Yuri Luzhkov to make such a scandalous statement. "Polit.Ru" cites the opinions of the head of "Memorial" Arseny Roginsky and Moscow City Duma deputy Evgeny Bunimovich. The latter notes: “This initiative is a little strange, and the motives are not obvious. It is absolutely clear that the restoration of the monument is not a matter of monumental and decorative art, which the mayor refers to. The question is purely ideological.” Attempts by the mayor of Moscow to flirt in this way with the left electorate, the pro-Chekist lobby, or even directly with the entourage of the president, who himself comes from the department founded by Dzerzhinsky, seem very risky indeed, given the powerful protest that such a symbolic action can cause in society.

However, we'll see if it does. One cannot but agree with A. Roginsky, who says: “Now is such a bizarre era when, on the one hand, the past seems to be impossible to return, and no one is going to return it, but, on the other hand, the Soviet myth". Luzhkov is not the only one affected by this bloom. However, whatever motivates the mayor, his initiative will serve as a touchstone to determine whether the democratic sentiments and historical memory that ten years ago gave such a powerful impetus to the country's development along the path of reforms are still alive in society.

As for the restoration of the monument itself, the mayor will have to make considerable efforts to overcome the resistance of the Moscow City Duma Commission on Monumental Art, whose powers have recently been expanded. Previously, the Commission had already twice rejected proposals from various sources to return Dzerzhinsky to the Lubyanka, citing the fact that such actions could cause unwanted tension in society. The tension is already evident. In addition, at least partial success of the campaign to collect signatures against the monument will give strength to opponents of this decision.

There is no unity among party and parliamentary figures on this issue. No one opinion - neither supporters of restoration nor its opponents - can be called dominant, and the voices of those commenting sound uncertain. The thing is that the federal government is holding a pause for now. Most likely, she probes the waters, assesses how certain forces will manifest themselves in a situation where a fundamental choice needs to be made. By supporting one side or another, the president will actually give the most important symbolic signal by which we will all judge the direction in which the Russian political system will develop in the near future.