In the opposition

Not so simple

June 15, 2010 Leonid Radzikhovsky

I read Viktor Shenderovich Viktorov.

Actually, everything that he could about this, said and wrote on Echo.

But for the "hedgehog" and personally for Victor I will try to share my doubts again.

What is not a dispute with Victor: freedom is better than lack of freedom, and the law is better than lawlessness. Total: it is good that the rallies were allowed de facto (if it really was allowed).

And people are not good.

And well done Limonov, who came up with a successful “chip” with the 31st.

What is the dispute with Victor.

He is an optimist (although he probably believes that a realist).

I am a pessimist (although I am also inclined to consider myself a realist).

Victor, apparently, believes that the universal mechanism of election and political competition and freedom of speech will give “good” results in Russia.

“Good” means that there will be more people in power who are trusting in people like Victor and I (I think that this circle coincides in many ways). That as a result of free elections, the trend for an alliance with the West in foreign policy will be strengthened. To strengthen the ownership independent of the bureaucracy. To fight Nazism, militarism and other charms within the country. Roughly speaking: Shevchenko will be smaller, and Shenderovich will be larger.

I don't think so at all.

I think that the results of honest elections-with equal access to the media and an accurate counting of votes-would show a) a great success of the Stalinist Communists, b) a great success of the nationalists-from Limonov and where is cooler, if only this audience is able to unite at least for a moment, c) the deafening defeat of the EP, d) the emergence of a new batch of bureaucracy, under the new brand, with a more powerful national-populist Krenom, e) a very weak clearance for liberal-western women.

Total: the general shift of the country towards nationalism, social demagogy in the expansion of freedom of speech. Such a product does not inspire me for such a price.

Honest elections need “by -laws” - namely: the mechanism of soft management of society from the elites. Then the outcome of the elections is unknown, but safe. Then the president is chosen by the son of the president-but this is not Azerbaijan, the ex-president is elected by the Senator from New York, and now, according to all surveys, the governor of California will be elected Brown, the son of a former governor, and the governor of Ny-York Kuomo, the son of the ex-governor of New York. And in Chicago, family members plow like slaves on mayor galers with small breaks since 1955. And all the elections are honest, transparent.

Soft power ... voluntarily and on a competitive basis. Of course, they choose, and not “children”, but in any case, only people living “according to concepts” - according to the system of basic values. Aliens do not go here.

When there is no soft power, they can choose strangers - Duvalier, Hitler, Lukashenko, etc. Here: either OMON (TV-amon) or “Walk of a row!”.

What to do? Forget the tactics and be comforted by the fact that the elections are “honest”?

And since there is a mechanism, then “sooner or later” will he take us to the narrow path of bourgeois progress? No. I'm not such an idealist.

Then what? “Get out” and praise power as less evil?

No. Not because, saying “yes”, I am afraid to be over -over -the -rusty “hedgehogs” - I have long been subjected, and nothing, I live as I can ...
No, I really do not think that the eternal “God” is useful - simply because the problems only accumulate, but “slow, but in the right direction of the movement,” alas, it is not visible - except for timid attempts to “reboot” from the United States. You can see another: endless circle in a circle of boredom and bribes.

So: “suitable” is stupid, only accumulate problems.
It is stupid to break to “honest elections”: their results would only aggravate the country's problems, would pushed it towards National Populism. And the answer: nothing, they learn from mistakes, it is necessary to drain dirty water several times, while clean, it also does not inspire. I’m afraid that our “left-right Stalinists” are not the same audience that will easily allow him to “learn from mistakes”.

And since “having reached the power” of FIGs from two from her.

So what is the answer?

DON'T KNOW. Unlike Victor, who knows. In essence, if the “liberation of the word” lasts, we can move to the “dilemma-96”. Namely: which is better-victory (using fraud) of a stealing bureaucracy or victory without frauds of national communists who will tomorrow become a stealing bureaucracy.

Many, based on the experience of the following 14 years, they say: yes, we were mistaken! It was necessary to honestly miss Zyuganov than to climb into the bad infinity of lies and the need to protect it with a new lie.

Well, I don’t know.

In any case, it seems to me that if political itching is so irresistible, then a person of “democratic views” (to whom the demos is not inclined to listen to at all) should play his game - without allies in the form of Limonov, without bosses from the Kremlin. Is the game quite hopeless? Well, yes ... But if you really want to - "do what you should, and be what will happen."