In the opposition

Two big differences

November 4, 2010 Mikhail Berg

The discord in the ranks of Strategy-31 is no coincidence coincided with the first common victory of the movement. The permission by the authorities of the rally on the triumphant marked the border that really existed, but simply immediately became relevant. This border can be designated as the level of claims to the regime. It is fundamentally different among the supporters of Alekseeva and Limonov, just before there was no case to seriously detect this difference.

Although the opposition press either fundamentally refuses to understand the conflict, considering it an annoying accident , or sides the side of Alekseeva , which he insulted lemons with a sharp word, it makes sense to try to figure out the positions of the parties. Their differences in the most general form are represented by the word bourgeois , which has almost fallen from the modern Russian liberal dictionary (and indeed from the dictionary of Russian society). The point, of course, is not that some were satisfied with the consent of the protest of protest here and now (that is, in the place that the opposition chose, and at the time that it appointed for the protest, let the authorities cut the number of possible Protestants), while others did not agree with this restriction. It is not the fact that some went to an agreement with the authorities, while others believe that it is only possible to negotiate with a criminal regime about the final surrender.

The agreement of some and the maximalism of others rests at the most fundamental moment: what exactly does not suit the first and latter in the system existing in Russia? And if only it does not suit the fact that the authorities violate the own rules of the game, that is, does not fulfill the constitution, which itself has adopted for itself; then others consider the very foundation of the formation of unusual, since it is built on holding the corporation (as is commonly called) the “lake” not only of the authorities, but also the states obtained as a result of privatization, in this environment of revered dishonest and unfair. In other words, some agree that the system that has prevailed after the privatization of the 90s does not exist, if only their own laws, others believe that this is impossible, since the construction is based on criminally acquired conditions that should be selected from their owners, because they, these owners, are actually the main foundation of this system.

No matter how close the positions of one of the parties are, it makes sense to admit that in a democratic society, the right to exist, both supporters of the first, relatively speaking, right -capacity opinion, and supporters of the second, relatively speaking, left -winged. And if we talk about the position of the authorities, it is easy to see that the first authorities do not like and do not respect, the latter are afraid and hate. By the way, the authorities were not the first time to divide the temporary allies, checking the reservation for right -wing liberals, if only they tore a connection with the left radicals.

It is clear why there was a completely fruitful alliance between groups of completely different political orientations for quite some time. Some, the supporters of Alekseeva - introduced the respectability of the old human rights ferment in the general piggy bank, others - the rage, categorical and power of youth protest. Alas, we are used to the polarization of everything that opens up to our eyes, in everything, seeing the half of good and the pole of evil. However, it makes sense to at least temporarily abandon hard polarization and admit that different political positions are a consequence of different social and cultural conditions. And it is completely unrealistic that young people from proletarian and provincial families have the same political ideas as that of the elderly intelligent human rights defenders wise by experience. We are well aware that going out in a stiff clash with cops that beat the heads of clubs on the heads, more handful of young radicals, and not tired of life, mature and intelligent people. And the fact that they were made by batons equally indicates only the myopia of the authorities who managed to configure against themselves not only radical youth, but also quite professionally consistent intellectuals, who are simply ashamed to live and do nothing in conditions when the power is again disgusting, like the hands of branded. But the union of the first and latter turned out to be fruitful, like the marriage of an aristocrat with a peasant woman: some, I repeat, gave this protest a shade of political respectability, others injected young and healthy blood into it.

I can imagine how many objections an epithet can cause healthy in relation to the National Bolsheviks. Yes, if all the sins of Odica Limonov, his imperialism and Russian great power, his shooting from the Serbian gun at the residential quarters of the Croats and the support of the last war against Georgia, then about political health (although it is, I don’t know) is difficult to talk to them. I wrote about this person- anti-Flyuger More than fifteen years ago, analyzing how controversial it is to always spit against the wind and be in opposition to any strength and any majority only because it is power and the majority. But if we talk about the real hope that the “lake school”, which has settled in power, does not stay there forever, then this is hope for a young and healthy protest growing from social lower classes, the protest of those young and desperate who has nothing to lose, and the authorities know this very well, therefore afraid.

Why does the authorities do not take the right -winged opposition seriously? Because, contradicting the trifles (not trifles for us, but for them - yes), in the most important thing she plays by her, power, the rules and does not encroach on the holy. Take such a bright and implacable publicist as Julia Latynina: how she is a bonearit of an absurd and stupid Putin regime, how desperately it takes away the corrupt officials to clean water, and from the authorities there is no gaping of toothy, no opalae, no reprimanda. Why? Because the indomitable Julia is the right liberal publicist, that is, does not oppose the consumption society and in every second transfer or article does not forget to remind you that private property is sacred and much more important than such nonsense as democracy. Or, the same thing, the Message sends the authorities: I have nothing against the foundation of your power, moreover, I strengthen this foundation as I can. Because the authorities are ready to discuss how democratic they are, whether Russia has matured for freedom or has not yet matured - the main thing is not to question the results of privatization. And this is understandable, Julia Latynina is a capable and ongoing bourgeois publicist, to whom all these barricades and revolutions are tired of that life.

But we are democrats, why don’t we see with understanding at these boys and girls from poor dysfunctional families who have no social prospects in the circumstances of stupid Russian bourgeois, which even Soros called gangster capitalism? They have the right to demand from the criminal authorities the crowning on the throne of not only compliance with the rules of the game, but also the revision of these rules, that is, the foundation of the regime.

I do not want to say at all that the union of a tired, elderly intellectual and young desperate radical is impossible. The union is based on exchange, in which for the time being, both sides win. Strength and reckless courage for respect and European reputation, and together they, of course, are stronger than separately. But if it is time to say goodbye, it means that the society has reached the level when different political positions should represent itself in different ways. And frankly, then the right liberals are closely and psychologically closer to me, but I have no doubt that Russia's only hope is the maximalism of young souls and their irreconcilable radicalism.