Translated material
Gaidar and his team
Appeal to Valeria of Novodvorskaya and Stalistatin Borovoy
Dear Valeria Ilyinichna and Konstantin Natanovich!
Since our previous epistolary communication (" New clericalism "), you have repeatedly turned to the topic of my historical studies of Gaidar reforms:
For which I am grateful to you. Although I can’t help but notice that your attempts to find the secret reasons that, from your point of view, could explain mine - “so strange”, in your opinion, is a fascination with the recent history of your own country, although they improve my mood from time to time with their exotic versions, but it seems that nobody except you and partly of me (in terms of improving mood), are completely not interesting.
However, the very topic of the Gaidar reforms, judging by the intensity of your appeal to her, it seems that you are not entirely indifferent. Like, however, to me. There are not so many such people who really interest this topic in the public space. Unlike numerous leaders and employees of the Gaidar Institute, the Gaidar Foundation, the Academy of the National Economy, the Higher School of Economics, Anatoly Chubais, who continue the work of Gaidar and are able, only in ritual spells and to participate in hysterical representations along with Kurginyan and Zhirinovsky, but not for a intelligible public discussion with substantive opponents.
Therefore, let me make you an offer.
Instead of looking for once again, “whose mill I pour water”, what “dark forces captured me”, “the victim of what low passions I ended up” or “in what black campaign someone uses me”, I propose at least part of your attention and your efforts to directly attach to the essence of you and me the subject - to the actions of Gaidar and the decisions of the Gaidar government, which had a considerable impact on The recent history of our country, including the current political and economic regime formed not without its participation.
Let's try to discuss the substantive problems of what happened in our recent history. For example, the problems that were raised in several texts, released, in particular, by me during the time that passed from our previous communication:
On the "threat of introduction of surplus" in the fall of 1991
The structure of food imports to Russia in 1991-92.
Orders of Gaidar Autumn 1991. What was it? - 1
Orders of Gaidar Autumn 1991. What was it? - 2
On the threat of state interventionism in the fall of 1991
On the policy of state interventionism in 1992
Gaidar and the appointment of Gerashchenko
Why was it necessary to lie so frankly?
Why was it necessary to lie like that? - 2
Gaidaro -Cuban transactions - 1
Who liberalized prices? Or: Why lie so frankly? - 4
Boris Lithuania on Government Policy in 1991-92
Sample "Reform Program" for 1993
How is Gaidar different from Balcevich, Claus, Laara, etc.? ( part1 , part 2 , part 3 )
How would you describe this, Evgeny Grigoryevich?
Difficult path to freedom ( part 1 and part 2 )
You can try to discuss any of these topics, you can several of them at once, you can do not trifle, and all at once.
For his part, he would have proposed for your consideration three small interconnected issues:
Do you think the facts, documents, certificates, which are the basis of these texts are real or referred? If you consider them falsified, please explain which exactly, what exactly, on what basis?
If you consider these facts, documents, certificates are not assigned, but real, then you could not evaluate the actions of E.T. Gaidara, about which these facts and documents testify, as liberal, democratic, morally acceptable for you? If you think that the mentioned actions of Gaidar (for example, refusal to liberalize prices for basic foods, nationalization of the sleepers, financing of the intelligence center in Lourdes by special operation under the cover of oil exchange for sugar, saving the Eurobank - a banking roof for communist subversive operations in Europe - with the help of a billion dollars received from the IMF, deception of members The intrigue against B.N. for the appointment of V.V. Gerashchenko for the post of head of the Central Bank, always have a regiment at hand, ready to shoot at the people, etc.) were really liberal, democratic, morally acceptable, then you could not explain why?
If for some reason you do not come to such a conclusion (that the actions of E.T. Gaidar were liberal, democratic, morally acceptable), then could you formulate a recommendation that arose from such a conclusion for supporters of the liberal and democratic development of our country? Let me try to help you formulate possible options for such recommendations.
3a. Actions E.T. Gaidara was really not liberal, democratic, morally acceptable, but it is completely unimportant. It is important that he became (it was, is, it will still be) a model, an idol, using your words, a "icon" of the Russian liberal-democratic camp. Therefore, it still needs to be praised and offered, and new generations of liberal -minded citizens must be taught to "make life" with "Comrade E.T. Gaidar and his team."
3b. Actions E.T. Gaidara was indeed not liberal, democratic, morally acceptable, but to talk about it aloud, discuss his views, actions, motivation and consequences of his actions publicly. We have no other leaders, idols, “icons” that I would like to worship. Therefore, it still needs to be praised and offered, and new generations of liberal -minded citizens must be taught to "make life" with "Comrade E.T. Gaidar and his team."
3v. Actions E.T. Gaidara was not liberal, democratic, morally acceptable, and therefore we need to figure out why it turned out that the person who performed anti-liberal, anti-democratic, immoral actions turned out to be a model, an idol, a “icon” of a liberal-democratic camp. In addition, to us, the supporters of the liberal and democratic path of the development of our country, it is necessary to decide what is more important for us to beat ritual worships in relation to the false icon or still try to defend the principles of the liberal -democratic structure of society and the state - despite the fact that these principles were rudely trampled by the faces that were for some of us for some time by our idols and icons.
Naturally, a fan of possible versions of this kind of recommendations is not limited to the proposed three options, and it is possible that you will find other considerations. In any case, I will wait for your, I hope, a fundamental answer.
Sincerely yours,