Nationalism: the limits of what is acceptable

Navalny never renounced his right-wing views. Everyone who was ever interested in him, both the Narod movement and other. It just didn't work for a while. And now it's not that for him personally, this was updated - it’s just that the topic became more popular, and he could not pass by. That is, he behaves in this sense completely natural to you. In "Russian Marches" he used to participated, except that he had not been a member of the organizing committee before.

It is clear that Navalny is clearly different, roughly speaking, from Demushkin. But also before Navalny, there were and will be people in the movement of Russian nationalists different views, including varying degrees of radicalism. Yes, sure, Navalny and Milov represent a very moderate option, which is now consolidating around the ROD and the CSG.

Generally speaking, in conversations about civilized nationalism there is always demagogic element. Undoubtedly, in the nationalist movement there are more civilized people, there are more radical, adhering to different ideas about what a nation is. There are differences and they large, they should not be ignored. Another question is what it is in practice will pour out.

Fears in this regard, probably, were most correctly formulated by Sergey Aleksashenko in his address to Milov. In a somewhat rude way, he expressed the idea that people can be with moderate views, but they provoke a completely immoderate an element that you can’t drive back later. It's always a problem for any movement.

Yes, moderate nationalists exist, no one invented them. But what is their objective role? Does it become nationalist through them? movement more moderate or not? It's unknown, a definite answer No.

There is a question of the boundaries of interaction and cooperation with anyone, and Everyone draws these boundaries in their own way. In my mind the danger is that when the political groups that gather engage in politics, not revolution, try to include in their composition radical groups focused on destabilization, it is always gives rise to problems.

I do not see, for example, a big problem that at a rally, suppose PARNAS will be Milov, since he is part of PARNAS. Is Milov a moderate nationalist? Is. Do I need it for it expel from PARNAS? I don't know, they know best, depends on what they want. But in principle it is not a tragedy.

Well, if, say, people at this meeting deem it necessary to give the floor to Belov, it will be strange because it represents movement associated with violent actions, clearly aimed at destabilization. And by the idea of ​​him a place at some other rally. This is how I imagine it distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.

But it can be understood that everyone conceives this distinction differently, because everyone understands that it is impossible to ignore the national theme, and react to it in their own way. And they do it mainly by trial and error. errors. Sources

• Verkhovsky A. Nationalism: the limits of what is acceptable // Grani.ru. 2011. October 24.