In society

Memory and monuments

April 3, 2009 Alexander Podrabinek

The demolition of the monument to Lenin in St. Petersburg excited society. To argue about the historical role of this person in our time is already somehow stupid. And there is no one with. It is impossible to seriously treat the reasoning of Gennady Zyuganov and his red associates - they have long been below the intellectual level of the average Russian. In the days of total Soviet censorship, the role of Lenin could still be speculated; Then even the plays of Mikhail Shatrov were perceived as revelations. At least those who were inaccessible to Samizdat.

Today, the historical assessment of Lenin as the destroyer of Russia and the founder of Soviet totalitarianism is unambiguous. Only those who are not interested in the genuine events of Russian history, and those who need the image of “Great Lenin” need for propaganda and political purposes, do not agree with this assessment. There are no reproaches to them - they create their little gesheft, collecting garbage on Russian historical expanses, from which they hope to blind a new poisoned candy for Russia. Let's hope that they will suppress it before they seduce any significant part of Russian society with their product.

It's now about something else - about our attitude to history, to monuments and to our future. Having discarded the extreme positions - communist and anti -communist - we turn to the one that the vast majority of society occupies. This position is called: if it is beautiful - tolerance, if correctly - indifference.

They say: “This is a monument of history, but you can’t rewrite it. Let him remain a monument of what was. ”

Yes, the history of Russia, like any country, is rich in heroes and traitors, despots and rebels. There were brilliant creators and great destroyers in it. The question about the monuments consists of only one thing - whose memory do we want to perpetuate? Whose names do we want to save in grateful memory of the descendants? Creators or destroyers? We want to remind our descendants of people who make up the glory of Russia or its shame and humiliation?

Especially tolerant personalities say that bastards are also part of our history, and monuments should remind us of sad times. Perhaps this is another view of the purpose of the monuments, a different cultural orientation. Here the monument serves as a pedagogical manual, a negative example and a means of neurotization of the population. The traditional position is that the monument is a sign of gratitude to the descendants to the best people of the past.

Of course, any orientation has the right to exist, and you can argue whose concept is better. But something few who speak convinced and firmly: "Let the monuments to the villains stand next to the monuments to the heroes."

Then they say: “Someone will always be dissatisfied with some monument. Well, to demolish everything? ”

This is true. There has never been a consensus about anything in society, no, there will be no and should not be. What can look more wretched and implausible than a single opinion? The problem, however, is that the streets and squares of our cities are a public space, a single and equal to all. Everyone should be comfortable in their city. Therefore, when deciding on the installation of a monument of a controversial historical personality, two reliable mechanisms must be used.

The first is time. The time for which personal pain and birth insults, political conflicts and direct consequences of the stormy activity of the historical character are fading away. The time that cures wounds and allows you to look at the historical past calmly, impartially and without fears to receive an accusation of bias.

The second mechanism does not necessarily lead to complete public agreement, but acceptable in a democratic society - a referendum. In a local referendum, residents can decide who needs to erect a monument, and to whom - to demolish. At least the majority will live in a comfortable urban environment.

When the monuments are erected by the highest will - whether it is the emperor or general secretary - they risk being demolished in broad daylight an indignant crowd or to be undermined at night by a charge of TNT. And this has its own truth and justice. How she was when the monuments to Felix Dzerzhinsky were demolished in Moscow, Saddam Hussein in Baghdad or the Soviet soldier in Tallinn.

When there are no other arguments, they say: "This is artistic value."

If this is only the case, then there will always be a museum, ready to replenish his exposition with a new exhibit. This is done in many countries.

And finally, they exhort: “We will not sow civilian strife. Let these monuments stand, is there no more important things than concern for symbols? ”

It would seem true - are there really no more important things than the fight against monuments and the choice of symbols? And every pragmatist, a man of business, will answer that there is. Of course, there is - GDP growth, the fight against inflation and corruption, economics, healthcare, defense, lawmaking, culture, science, education, friendship of peoples and much more. But all this, from beginning to end, sets in a certain way, in the main direction, determined by the scale of social values ​​and priorities. As tonality at the beginning of the score determines the nature of the entire musical work, so the symbols of our present determine the nature of our future. Therefore, do not underestimate the meanings of symbols - although they do not have material value and monetary expression, they show us the vector of our development.

It is no coincidence that a war of symbols is so aggravated in times of turmoil and historical fractures. It is no coincidence that those who sees the future of the country in the previous orders cling to old symbols; And for new symbols, those who sees the future of the country are different from its past.

A symbol is only a sign, but the sign is important, indicative. The Russian tricolor, adopted under Yeltsin, was a symbol of a democratic future and aspirations for it. The Stalinist anthem, taken under Putin, has become a symbol of a return to the authoritarian Soviet order. Of course, these are symbols selected under politics, and not vice versa. But the denial of the symbols of communism, which today's Russian power is adopted, becomes part of the political confrontation to the current authoritarian regime. The authorities and those anti -communists who undermined bronze Lenin in St. Petersburg understand this very well.

It would be normal to resolve the issue of monuments to Lenin in St. Petersburg at the Finland Station or in Moscow on Oktyabrskaya Square on city referenda. And so that during the year, there were discussions in the press in the press, on television in the cities, before the referendum; So that all points of view are expressed. Defenders of the dark pages of our past will defend the monument to Lenin, referring to the fact that Soviet power is part of our history. And the fact that in Moscow are monuments to Telman, Vorovsky, Krupskaya - not to demolish them in fact? Their opponents will pay attention to the complete absence of monuments in Germany to Hitler, Goering, Goebbels or Rosenberg, although Nazism is also part of German history. And maybe in disputes it will clear that there is such a national repentance, and why Germany after Nazism has become a democracy, and Russia after communism writhes in choosing a path, sliding into the power of authoritarianism. Why in Germany were Nuremberg and denazification, and in Russia they could not conduct a trial of communism. The referendum would put an end to these disputes.

But authoritarian power does not hold referenda. This power chooses such a policy and symbols that are useful only for it. Therefore, in many public issues, including the choice of symbols and the preservation of monuments, the company has to make decisions independently, even if it contradicts the laws.

Photos from the site http://kprf.ru and http://zaks.ru