About the benefits of upright walking in the modern world

In order to avoid the harm caused by various slopes, that is, deviations of various kinds - “right deviation”, “left deviation”, I will immediately proclaim: today we all - the left, the right, and the centrists - have one enemy - deceitful, power hiding behind state and patriotic slogans. Don't walk on slopes, my friends!

Lately, there has been a lot of talk among the opposition that the presidential candidate from the opposition bloc must certainly be a leftist. This is explained by the electoral characteristics of Russia: they say, Russia is a left-wing country, in political science, and even in a broader context.

Let me note right away that no one can accuse me of any negative, biased or snobbish attitude towards the left. While still the secretary of the Political Council of the Union of Right Forces for electoral work in 2004-2005, I openly spoke about the need to unite with the left in defending general democratic values, about the ideological synthesis of the “right-left opposition,” causing hysteria among my power-oriented colleagues.

I am ready to support anyone, including the left-wing single opposition presidential candidate. Although, for the sake of a friendly discussion, I will allow myself to doubt that this is the best option.

When my colleagues talk about the “leftist candidate,” their eyes light up with the memory of G.A.’s 40 percent result. Zyuganov in the 1996 presidential elections - then the victory of the opposition seemed quite real. Many are still confident that Zyuganov actually won and only falsifications stole his victory. This is hardly true. It’s just that 1996 showed huge electoral gaps: from almost 70% in the second round for Yeltsin in Moscow and St. Petersburg to 70% for Zyuganov in rural areas of the “red belt”. And falsifications for Yeltsin in the republics of the North Caucasus, Tatarstan and Bashkiria were largely balanced by falsifications for Zyuganov in the “red belt”. But, be that as it may, 40% is very decent. The only question is: does this have anything to do with today’s situation?

I dare say no. The electoral base is currently much more differentiated. And the leftist idea itself appears today in a dozen shades and tones. Thus, the village now votes for “United Russia”. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation gains its results, as a rule, at the expense of regional centers and small towns.

Tricky question: what idea did the village vote for then, in 1996? For which Zyuganov? In what capacity? As a leftist, a supporter of increased taxes on the rich and social benefits for the poor? Or as a “Soviet patriot” who expressed nostalgia for a lost power? Or, in the words of Eduard Limonov, as a bearer of “Russian adat”, an ancient paternalistic and servile principle? If the latter is true, then there is nothing strange here. A paternalist in the context of reforms can declare the reformer a “tsar-antichrist” like Peter the Great or Yeltsin. But as soon as the person on the throne roughly corresponds to tradition, the paternalist will remove all claims and remember that power comes from God.

No one will deny that Yeltsin’s anti-rating consolidated the electorate around Zyuganov, and the anti-rating of the father of Russian communists rallied the president’s supporters. Let us also remember that Zyuganov and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation expressed then and are now expressing a certain strange ideology, from which the European left, be it a moderate socialist or a Red Trotskyist, would be dumbfounded! G.A. Zyuganov in one of his books called it “the ideology of state patriotism.” In Zyuganov’s ideology, the most important place is occupied by respect for the power structures of the state - the army, special services, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Zyuganovites never tire of voting in parliament to expand their powers, and are always ready to support the abolition of deferments from the army. The search for an external enemy (Western countries usually act in this capacity, as if we have no problems with either the Islamic world or China) and calls for national unity are also very characteristic of this “left” party.

This, by the way, explains the outflow of voters from Zyuganov - the regime, armed with TV channels, also poses as a “patriot-statist.” There is one more circumstance between Zyuganov and the authorities. If the “true leftists” often call Mr. Zyuganov a “businessman from politics,” then we can safely say about the current government that this is the government of “politicians from business.”

It is also important to note that the feudal regime established in Russia, with its eclectic propaganda, devalues ​​the ideological attack on it. Putin, according to his left-wing lawyers, is “the most left-wing politician in Russia,” robbing rich oil workers and distributing money to the poor for national projects. He also increases social benefits - however, for some reason it is not commensurate with the growth in hydrocarbon budget revenues. And - in full accordance with the aspirations of many leftists - he generally seeks to absorb most of the business into state corporations. In a strange way, however, contrary to leftist theories, the gap between the poor and the rich does not decrease, but increases. Perhaps this is due to the fact, I dare say, that in a strange way the so-called state corporations nationalize only losses and privatize profits? The “brothers in ministry” who lead these pseudo-state corporations have integrated into Europe in an excellent manner, leaving the flock to lament about insurmountable contradictions with the West.

So what kind of opposition candidate is needed? Which boots are preferable: those worn out by walking on a slope to the right or to the left?

The opposition today needs synthesis. Synthesis and union. A synthesis of all the best that is represented in the Russian intellectual layer. It is already intuitively recognized by many people of different views as leaving freedom for maneuver to the future government of people's trust.

I will try to formulate some of its important elements. The first and most important, of course, is compliance with democratic norms and competition policy. In order to have the opportunity to choose, it is necessary, first of all, for the elections to simply take place.

But there are also socio-economic elements.

The left can be sure that the government of people's trust formed by the future opposition president will withdraw the Stabilization Fund from foreign banks and spend it on significant infrastructure projects in the areas of social capital, primarily healthcare and communications. It is possible to use money from the stabilization fund for benefits for the poor. The left can be confident that enterprises privatized (including during the Putin period) in violation of the law will pay compensation to the treasury.

The right can be confident that private property will be reliably protected from government racketeering and robbery. That the established new rules of the game will be agreed upon in parliamentary procedures and established for a long time. That the famous game of “the Tsar’s fool,” when only the Tsar knows which suit is trump at the moment, will be stopped. The power oligarchy will find its place in prisons. Power will be separated from property. State corporations (Gazprom, Rosneft, etc.) will either work according to budget estimates, or will be divided and demonopolized.

Patriots can be sure that illegal migration to Russia will be stopped. A visa regime will be introduced with the countries of Central Asia. Russia will stop uncontrollably becoming covered with “colors of tarnish.” Order will be restored in the Caucasus. And it will be a fair, not a gangster order. We will stop sponsoring any foreign countries - we are not too rich for this yet. We will guard Russian state interests. The army will prioritize receiving modern weapons rather than selling them abroad.

This small list is quite realistic. And they should limit themselves. We will continue right-left discussions in the post-Putin, democratically elected parliament. In the meantime, walk together and fight together.