Ten questions Zakhar Prilepin

Introduction to a conversation with writer Zachar Prilepin.

A year and a half ago, Yuri Saprykin told me : "It is now clear that the point is not in the orange revolutions, but in general it is already not clear what-in some kind of hole, in a black hole, from which, God forbid, something will climb into something."

Moreover, he said this about the Perm and Far Eastern partisans.

Now there was a feeling that the black hole is not partisans, but that which always avoids a direct look - the underestimated power of the “vertical”, which for some reason was considered weak (interpretation and falls) - and she takes out of her black hole more and more new jockers. That is, it makes concessions in the "main" issues that are not the main ones. For example, the center of Moscow was instantly filled with troops on March 5, hundred thousandth Putings were instantly gathered.

Despite the fact that we have nothing clear - neither real private property, nor real public, nor public. An example is an apartment formally in private property, but in fact - houses are still on a draw still land. You can’t own land forever, you can only temporarily speculate. All resources were in the intermediate position of the shareholder of thousands of LLCs, in which, judging by the excavations of Navalny, it will never be possible to distribute the right to own and profit in a fair way.

If the ruling type of state man, at any level, from riot police to Putin, is a “double”, brightly represented in the Prilepin novel “Black Monkey”, then there may be no need to build a large state. A large state is rapidly contrary to the "its" human man, because it makes him an abstract, crazy and non-combustible screw.

I would like to ask Zakhar Podlepin strange questions. If morality is only during life on Earth, in the family arises, then how can we revive the village killed by the temptations of the city? How to integrate an unexceptable person into the power, here is the question of questions, because the deception of voters is always secondary. How does any democracy turn into tyrannical lawlessness? Maybe, to avoid the bureaucratic thieves' lawlessness, it is necessary to build small “transparent” regional, provincial - so to speak - republics connected by general language and Orthodox faith, as is the case in the Arab world?

You can ask even more strange issues related to the ever-relevant topic of state-police violence. After all, it is the police violence, that is, the acts and the inherent of the judicial police system, which concern us all personally, it is this type of violence that is the reason for the end of the unacceptable discontent, whether it is “manifold-fans” or “fake-fabric-sugar”, it is all the same.

Back in 1921, the philosopher Walter Benjamin, in the article “To Criticism of violence”, noticed the strange: “The statement that the goals of the police violence are always identical to the goals of the rest of the right or at least somehow connected with him is completely false. Rather, the “right” of the police denotes in essence the place in which the state, whether from powerlessness, whether due to immanent connections within the legal order, can no longer through the right to guarantee its own empirical goals, which it wants to achieve at all costs. Therefore, the police “for security reasons” acts in those countless cases when the legal situation is not clear, when the police accompany the citizen on the “ordered” instructions of life, roughly insulting him, or simply oversees him ... Violence from this institution is an amorphous, as it is nowhere to be a comprehensible ghostly manifestation of states in the life of states. ”

It turns out that our citizens have the same problems that arose after the First World War throughout Europe. “The pacifists are opposed by the Bolsheviks and syndicalists. They destroying and generally certainly criticized today's parliaments. No matter how desirable and comforting the plenipotentiary parliament may be, in the consideration of fundamentally non -violent means of achieving a political agreement, parliamentarism cannot appear, since with its help only those legal orders can be achieved that both in their source and in their outcome are of a violent nature ”

Therefore, we addressed ten questions to Zakhar Prilepin, as understanding the current state of Bolshevism. - D. Lisin

* * *

Russian magazine: Come on a swamp movement right away. Why did not cause large -scale provocations from the authorities for the transformation of "sacred victims", organizers of rallies into the convict? A year ago, with respect to another Russia, this happened - a fabricated case after the Manezhka December 2010 (Berezyuk, Khubaev, UNCHUK).

Zakhar Prilepin: Firstly, here, on the swamp, another scale, and, moreover, there is a thorough liberal support here, and in the case of the national digitalballs you have come to the manifold, it is to this day not as wide as it could be.

Secondly, the authorities had to reach the elections - and, I dare to assume, it was the Kremlin, and not the opposition discussed the topic you raised with the State Department. The Kremlin promised that he would kill the situation peacefully, and the State Department hinted that it was not worth planting and pressing anyone, otherwise "the foundations of democracy will be violated" and the like.

Now, when the elections have passed, the authorities already have the opportunity for some of the opposition to build more and drags on the loins, and in a certain situation, if they do not disappear, and plant someone.

We had a rally on March 10 in our lower - a hundred people were tied. And before the elections they did not even try. They are no longer particularly ceremony! The king is in the kingdom. And the go -ahead from Moscow is clearly received.

RZh: Is it not therefore that the authorities consider the “other Russia”, unlike fluffy white -wingers, that they (Berezyuk, Khubaev, UNCHUK) look like a Sanka, the hero of your novel “Sankya” are ready to go to the end?

ZP: Well, the fact that the National Bolsheviks is the most active part of the opposition has long been clear. And the desire of a certain part of the liberal public is like a barrel of the National Bolsheviks from the process, it is precisely this intelligent envy is generated: our dear democrats secretly understand that they are not competitive as a politician, in comparison with the nationalballs.

Therefore, all their democratic, soap, pink protest merges - because, as Limonov correctly noted, the current confrontation does not have a detonator. And the detonator is just the National Bolsheviks. Without them, everything will be so smoking for years to no avail, one child, and that’s all.

RG: Everything develops according to the patterns of the activity of the prohibited party Limonov, which, in my opinion, is the purest example of the introduction of artistic actionism into political life. Now there is a “citizen - poet” as a pure, but purely verbal semblance of tomato throwing into tandem. In a purely verbal opposition “throwing tomatoes”, almost incompetent was connected - Yuri Saprykin and Bozhena Rynsk, Sobchak and Akunin. But apparently, the whole ardor of anti -Putinism does not cause any fears in power. Why? Is it because the former and future National Bolsheviks are completely different people than the market or even Sobchak?

ZP: And I do not know whether it causes fear or not. I think that some things, some people still get them and annoy them. And Saprykin and Kashin torment them, and Akunin is annoying, and the State Department program was covered from Sobchak, and their bulls infuriated them periodically.

These, of course, are different people - the National Bolsheviks and Bozhen, but their activity does not contradict each other in many ways at present, so I do not think that all these people should be pushed with foreheads and generally compare.

RG: If the smartest Saprykin-Belkovsky relate to the quiet evolution of power under mild pressure and even patronage of cultural elites, then what do young activists of another Russia hope?

ZP: Young activists of another Russia are habitually waiting in the wings - the very moment when it will be possible, having made an unexpected jump, to cling to power into the throat. And the authorities guess about it. Otherwise, what would Khubaev and other comrades do in prison.

Actually, young "other Russians" also do not hide their intentions.

As for the "quiet evolution of power" - I don’t even know how this is laid in the head of Stas Belkovsky deeply revered by me. If she was not within 12 years - why would she get, from where? This quiet evolution hoped very much when Medvedev came to power, I remember all these conversations. The result in the end is zero.

Why are we so naked today? Who has reassured us, I don’t understand?

RG: What do you think the main in the confrontation of the authorities? How to act in conditions when, sucked out of a finger for any reason, "disobedience to the legal requirements of the authorities" makes any rally marginal and worthless? After all, we have so much riot police that power really belongs to a police officer, an introductory, acting by order of the majority.

ZP: The main thing in the confrontation of power - I consider the confrontation of power, literally. You need to get up - and stand against. There are no problems here, and do not scare this riot police endlessly.

OMON of guns does not shoot at the protesters. Look how civilized, damn it, countries behave? Italians, Germans, Greeks, British, French - they come out and confront. Both Ukrainians and Georgians - everyone went out and opposed. Someone sought his own, someone is not. But we have dozens of visual examples before our eyes: how to do it. And we are all: riot police and riot police. Yes, dick with him, with riot police.

RZh: Why can’t you gather "three" in the squares, why not approve the 31st article? Is it because the ownership of the land, on the city, on any fossils of the venary, unwritten in laws, went to the bureaucratic class, which will always now be disclosed from itself lift-colonels-administrators. What to do with it?

ZP: You can’t get together because shallow people are sitting in power. They tell the whole country about the marginals from the opposition, but, unlike the voting Politin majority, which believes these tales about the marginals, draw conclusions from the events in Egypts and Syrias. The fraud about the invented confrontation of the Uralvagonzavod is revealed to the mythical creative class, because both of them are sitting in the offices at computers, and even Beria did not make a bet on the real cattle and scumbags. Our government does not hold anything, it hangs in the air, and not grown into the lands of the provinces with roots. Under certain circumstances, they will not have time to blink and believe - how so it happened so quickly: yesterday there was such a great and omnipotent Putin - and today he is not, and no one collects the militia to save him.

RG: Maybe instead of the Russian Federation it is necessary to build "United provinces of Russia" with a strong regional, equal power?

ZP: The Earth is sacred, its division from the evil one.

RG: There are two theories. That the government system spoils a person and, on the contrary, a person adapts any stateist for himself. This is a paradox and a dead end. If the system rules, then only non -systemic people can change it, only with weapons in their hands, because otherwise they will not be allowed close to the “buttons” of reprogramming. And if the main person, then all the more will not be allowed. What to do to kind people who do not want to pick up weapons?

ZP: What to do to kind people, if the war and the enemy at the gate? Speaking for a good person, inevitably start into space of pathos. But what to do to kind people, so as not to live under them without feeling the country, but to live in a huge country without a sense of shame for aimlessly lived years? The pathos of a good person requires another - this is the pathos of a person who has a future.

We must be aware that the change of current government in Russia is the key to our future, our security, this is a matter of survival of the country. A kind person thinks about his children - where will they live? Or is he so kind that he hopes to take them to a more convenient place of residence than our wonderful country? And our country is great and wonderful, we feel it all.

Now, if a good person knows how to think, let him decide how to behave.

RG: Any power on the blood? (The American president, like the Russian, can declare a state of emergency for any reason, for example. The system of the most notorious democracy is on a constant threat to the townsfolk. Therefore, democracies have to fight all the time so that the layman does not forget who has power in their hands. No philistine is involved in any "state" decisions related to any weapons against anyone, from the ownership of the property anyone)

ZP: Power - violence, so what? Any act, formation is pure violence, over yourself and over others. Violence everywhere is the upbringing of children, the scripture of novels is also violence against a person. I am much more worried about the issue of preserving the country - and, as a result, the security of people living on its land, its culture, its language.

Another question is that the violence that is now applied in Russia is its meaning only to hold the current power in the hands of the possibility of using financial resources for personal purposes.

And so - do I look like a pacifist? Violence is inevitable, this is one of the conditions for preserving life. The main thing is that in addition to violence there are some other grounds for the existence of statehood. The USSR, like the United States you mentioned, had a messianic idea, had a heterogeneous social and complex cultural paradigm - and all this was attached (in the case of the United States is still attached to this day) on a state apparatus that uses violence. However, the difference between present -day Russia and the USSR is just this: the current government has only autocratic habits and no messianic grounds for their demonstration, and the USSR, whatever they say there, had reasons, and at times more than good ones.

RZh: Tell me, for what, or rather - for whom do we fight, for which ruler? What qualities should the "right" sovereign have? Is it possible to "invent" the ruler and find him among the opposition?

ZP: He should not think of his existence outside his country, outside its borders, outside its future. He must probably have a sense of metaphysics of history, a hum of history, its procession - recently we are dealing, as it seems to me, with very mundane personalities, not at all proportionate Russia, its past and the tasks facing it. Vladimir Andreevich Prokhanov invented Vladimir Vladimich with his impression and messianism in the sixth. It seems to me this is a very curious, inspired occupation, but, in fact, meaningless.

Dmitry Lisin talked