Non -free liberals

From time to time, intellectuals begin to talk about the intelligentsia. Sometimes “milestones” are obtained from this, and sometimes the recent pamphlet of Arina Kholina, who produced the indignant swaying of the intellectual masses.

We will not remember the "milestones" now, but it is worth restoring the history of the intelligentsia in the post -Soviet society. This now seems very appropriate and timely. Back in 1994, it was concluded that the lack of intelligentsia and society as a whole of values, goals, principles - all that is called "dreams of something more," can lead to the most sad consequences. To the loss of the cultural elite of introspection and self -identification skills, as well as the abilities for strategic goal -setting. And most importantly - to the emergence of an abyss between ethics and social practice.

Then it really seemed that all the trouble in Soviet intellectual and cultural surrogates. Modern authors, in particular, mentioned Arina Kholina, still write about them with rage. And you won’t argue - surrogates, yes.

However, political somersaults at the turn of the centuries were committed by the exposure of these surrogates, those with whom in the nineties the hopes of the emergence and rooting in the company of the right -liable system of values ​​were associated. It is enough to name the names of Maxim Sokolov, Modest Kolirova and Mikhail Leontyev, in order to understand what exactly I mean. Now their position is neither the left nor the right, nor liberal or conservative, nor fish or meat. They are guardians. What they will tell them will be guarded, and on the second roles.

The right -winged illusions that were associated with Putin - and they were, it was not necessary to deny this and be ashamed of this - ended in 2002, with a sorting action "walking together" against Vladimir Sorokin. With the dreams of the Russian economic miracle, the arrest of Khodorkovsky committed, about which it was clear from the very beginning that he had almost no chance to go out to freedom. There is no sense in quarrels with all neighbors, anti -Ukrainian and anti -Georgian campaigns - all this has become the background of the country's everyday life.

Well, where was the glorious Russian intelligentsia all these years? In its place. She, as always, was good. And she was waiting for the turn of the authorities to the bright and clean, sighed along the glorious perestroika years. These are those who are older. Those who are younger - the demand is small with them. And not in age differences business - historical traditions are alone for all.

And these traditions, if you look closely at the last fifty to sixty years of Russian history, do not include the habit of independent social activity. That a thaw, that restructuring is all actions on the command from above. The intelligentsia has always been in the mainstream, hesitated with the general line. Conformism remains conformism, regardless of whether the cult of personality is convinced or sovereign democracy is praised.

However, not in complicity in propaganda, trouble, but in acceptance of the principles of management of oneself. It is customary to talk about Skolkov with irony, and it deserves it. This is if you consider it as a really innovative project. But the current political structure of Russia is such that the most important criterion for evaluating any project is its compliance with the principles of country management.

So, Skolkovo is a managerial project. Those scientists who are allowed to be in solidarity with their colleagues, who recently protested against beggarly salaries and scholarships at the Russian Academy of Sciences. As those who are busy in not so small projects that have some power and not only power financing do not show it. And the matter is not at all in reptility, not in relations with the authorities, but in the complete absence of corporate solidarity.

This is fundamentally important. The very existence of the intelligentsia as a special tribe, on a par with the tribes of oligarchs, security forces, managers and simply a kind of human mass, is an obstacle to the formation of the Russian nation. And largely because there is practically no corporate solidarity inside these tribes. You can’t call the current non -oxide state corporate state - this is a higher level of development than what we observe.

And not at all out of the desire to appeal to the authorities, but by internal conviction in the special position of their tribe, sometimes the most wild ideas appear in the most liberal circles. There is no point in talking about Igor Jurgens about Russian savagery after Andrei Piontkovsky . But Jurgens has at least general reasoning. And specific proposals for quite liberal intellectuals are much more serious.

Here, for example, a worthy person is a vice -rector of the Higher School of Economics Lev Lyubimov. He buries the Russian village as a "source of social pollution." A scornful tone is already alarming in relation to tens of millions of fellow citizens. The conclusion is this: "You need to do one thing immediately - to seize children from the families of these" unemployed "and raise them in boarding schools (which, of course, need to be built) in order to form a civilized life in them ... that is, they must be extracted from this environment." Paul sweat of citizens forcibly relocated to the village, Professor Lyubimov offers the reverse process. By the way, they are already " extracted ". Not yet on a mass scale, but on the basis of social indicators. Not alcoholism and drug addiction are the reason, but a lack of living space.

All this is not even social darwinism, but social racism, which is passed down for liberalism.

And if you add to this more and more obvious attempts to create a new right pseudoliberal party under the authorities and for some reason “Russian Breakthrough” for some reason, we can conclude that the liberal niche in Russia is free. The intelligentsia did not grit to liberalism. Exactly so, because liberalism requires intellectual and moral efforts, abilities and needs for reflection and a fairly inner honesty - all that the Russian intelligentsia has not been observed from the moment of its origin.

It should now be about a different model of liberalism , which can be called social liberalism. On the political union of liberals with sane left forces. And the right-capacity niche completely departs to the Kremlin political technologists, who will encourage and engage in something else into it.

But the right and left, social and individual, liberal and not very - all this requires from the intelligentsia (cultural and intellectual elite, the educated part of society, enlightened citizens - call as you like) the transition to another quality, gaining subjectivity and independence. From the fact that this was not in history, it does not follow that this is in principle impossible.