Returning to class analysis

The Russian public was hungry for discussions. Moreover, according to those that would be not just expert skirmishes, but reflected the real conflict of power interests . In the second term of the Putin rule, when the process of consolidation of power took place, serious discussions somehow calmed down. Separate “loyalists” were discussed with separate “disagreed”, and inside both one and another camp the almost no impaired unity reigned. Even the first year of the Medvedev rule did not present the company with a single serious intra -volatile split: fearing the complications of relations between members of the ruling tandem, the imperious apparatus and the “expertistry” supporting it showed even greater unity in public.

Everything changed a little in 2009, when Russia and the whole world found the economic crisis by surprise. At first, it turned out that different groups of experts, one way or another tied to the Kremlin, the White House and the Old Square, unequally understand the word " modernization ". Some consider it an analogue of “mobilization”, others - “liberalization”. Thirds generally believe that the crisis crossed the relevance of each of these concepts-losings.

Then, an argument arose almost spontaneously about the political system : those whom Olga Krystanovskaya called the sociologist “pessimists” insisted that our system was not prepared for the crisis, and those whom it described as “optimists” continued to rely on its reliability and sustainability. From this dispute , a polemic was somehow separated by itself about the “renegotiation of a public agreement” between the authorities and the population .

Meanwhile, Mart approached the outcome of the End, the same March with whom many “pessimists” associated their most gloomy “hopes” - to a wave of unemployment, a huge economic decline, social shocks. It turned out that not without giant costs, but it was possible to retreat from the abyss.

Some lull in the financial markets became the reason for a new dispute at the top: did it manage to pass the most acute phase of the crisis or is it only waiting for us at the end of 2009 , when the real sector will have to give the loans taken? The dispute between the representatives of the two parties - as the observers began to be called, the "long crisis" and the "short crisis" - immediately spilled into a seal. Journalists began to express some embarrassment about the fact that different figures of the state, without saying a word, express something directly opposite about the same subject.

It would be wrong to see in this dispute exclusively hardware conflict. Having abandoned the Marxist methodology, domestic analysts ceased to see in certain disputes, if not in the literal sense, a social background. Obviously, in the government, as well as in the ruling party (“party of the whole people”) and presidential structures, there are representatives of different social groups . Some of them are vital in the large -scale expenses of the state - including the salvation of the financial sector, others believe, including for completely liberal reasons, that state assistance in a crisis is harmful and unpromising.

With liberalism , in general, a harden is obtained, this word itself today requires clarification and overwork. Some liberals believe that in order to preserve a certain wide economic class, independent of the state, state support is needed. Other liberals, skeptical of the fact of such support, arbitrarily or rather involuntarily play into the hands of those who seek to besiege the political ambitions of a business class. This curious aspect of the current polemic (along with others) reveals a new intellectual investigation by Kirill Benediktov, who meticulously removes the layer by a layer in his analysis of the statements of our dispatals, as well as their specific actions and decisions.

Four years ago, on the APN website, I happened together with the philosopher Andrei Ashkerov to begin a discussion about "expertocracy" . It was then about the fact that expert claims to non -angled knowledge are ghostly, moreover, they hide the desire of bureaucracy to freedom from all political obligations. Today, the crisis of “expertistry” is evident, in a situation of global economic uncertainty it is almost impossible, expressing certain forecasts and recommendations, to remain “on the fight”. Therefore, today there is no more important task for the intellectual than the description of this “fight” with its projecting on the increasingly diverging interests of various classes and groups that make up our society.