Where does Sakharov Avenue lead?

In the issue of the newspaper before last, I shared in my opinion column my thoughts about scientists as a social group and expressed the idea of ​​the need for a special party of scientists. Responses to this note raised the question of whether such a party is needed in the current circumstances. Here Artemy Troitsky in “Minority Opinion” on “Echo of Moscow” (January 3) suggested that modern life in general can do without parties, since there are no classes in the old sense, and there is no class struggle. He doesn’t consider our parties to be parties at all.

It is true that our parties only superficially resemble parties. But this is a legacy of the Soviet era, when we had one party (that is, it was not a party, literally “part”) and quite obviously was not a party, but an order like the knightly orders of the Middle Ages. Before the revolution it resembled the Order of the Jesuits, after the revolution it resembled the Order of the Templars. Modern parties partly inherit the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (communists), partly took over its order functions (ER), and partly were created artificially as its likenesses and harmless competitors. Normal parties, if they arose, were nipped in the bud.

The absence of normal parties is, in my opinion, the main weakness of the opposition movement. Our people have been taught to establish social connections, evaluate programs (not individuals) and trust parties. There is no one to organize the movement and clearly express its interests in dialogue with the authorities.

In my note, I tried to show that scientists have special interests and that these interests, although they particularly concern scientists, coincide with the interests of the general public. However, really, is it only the party that can accumulate the interests of scientists? Is it possible to get by with the Association for the Support of Science, trade unions of scientists, etc.?

Let's see how these interests could be expressed in a program and whether it could be a program of a trade union or something similar.

First of all, scientists as professionals are interested in freedom of thought and speech, which gives them the opportunity to manage and implement their main capital and the main instrument of production - knowledge. The implementation of this right especially affects workers in social sciences and researchers of spiritual culture, but does not leave natural scientists aside - no dogmas of any religion should be imposed on them. Neither mature scientists, nor young, nor the younger generation. The separation of church and state is a norm for which science strongly supports.

Further, scientists are interested in ensuring that the state budget allocates funds worthy of modern science for science in general—at least the same share of the budget as is allocated by the advanced states of the world. We are far from this now. We are used to cutting corners on science, culture and healthcare. Instead, we planned huge amounts of money for weapons and the military-industrial complex. This is consistent with the country’s foreign policy and propaganda, which creates among the population a manic mood of a military camp, surrounded by enemies who are trying to attack us and seize our territories.

Consequently, scientists are interested in radically reconsidering the entire state development strategy.

We are taught to believe that the most powerful power in the world, the United States, is our original rival and enemy, that it is an aggressor dangerous to those around us. While we were dangerous to those around us, who dreamed of fanning the fire of the world revolution and feeding aggressive regimes all over the world. The USA is one of those few powers with which we have never had a war and which has been our ally more than once. After the war, the Marshal’s plan was accepted by many European states, but we, suspecting a catch, rejected it. And where is their goodness now, and where is ours? Now we don’t dream of overtaking the USA, we don’t dream of catching up with England and Germany, we would like to catch up with Portugal... Yes, we were ahead in certain sectors, but in general, in terms of living standards, we are among African states.

In fact, we are not going to fight with the Americans - in the West, our rulers have money, children, families, villas. And it would be funny: their industrial power is nine times greater than ours. We have already strained ourselves once in the arms race: the USSR collapsed (it suffered a “geopolitical catastrophe”). All this hysteria is designed for internal consumption. All this drumming is needed only to motivate the maintenance of a colossal army, and the army is needed to maintain power over the non-Russian outskirts (and in dreams, to restore the empire). And also - to protect the wealth of the elite and its power and order from the very poor population. In what other state is such a mass of soldiers called VV - Internal Troops? Think about it: who are the Internal Troops going to fight with? There are police to maintain order. And who are the troops against?

That is why it is high time for scientists to demand a revision of the country’s development strategy, a revision of foreign policy, and not just domestic policy. A change in orientation from rogue states (North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, Iran) to the leading democratic states of the world - the United States and its allies, to the European Union.

This is also important for scientists because it is now where the center of world development of science, the most advanced technologies, and the bulk of scientific discoveries are located. We have nothing to learn from the Juche sowers or Ahmadinejad, but there is something to learn from the Americans and Europeans if we want to survive as a nation and as a state in a world in which China and the Arab East will play an increasingly impressive role.

It is also in the interests of scientists to stop the catastrophic flight of the nation’s minds and gene pool from the country. It seems that Pasteur said: take 200 outstanding minds from France - and there is no France. How much has been taken from us?

Of course, you can close the borders, but I’m afraid the flight cannot be stopped. And those who left will not return. In order for young people to remain in their homeland, it is necessary to change the atmosphere in the country: eliminate African corruption, replace the entire law enforcement system, starting with the courts, arrange fair elections, lustrate at least the top of the bureaucracy, and, of course, change the government.

As you can see, the program inevitably becomes political. This is not a trade union program, not the charter of the Association for the Support of Science. Although science, of course, needs to be supported.

Is it difficult for scientists to create their own party? Probably no more difficult than creating a newspaper of scientists. But the newspaper does exist. It was much more difficult for the pioneer academician Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov - he was a loner against the aggressively obedient majority. Isn't it time to continue his work by a community of scientists organized into a party? Once we entered Sakharov Avenue...

Lev Klein