Political misery

This note is not journalistic, not theoretical, not news. Here is practical historiography - it is necessary to fix the course of thoughts that accompany social processes. But systematically, and not calling for another indignation or public events. Of course, indignation and protesting here are always in background, but there should be a small systematization on top.

Alas, products of this properties (which do not insist on anything, but collect what are happening around thought) so small that a document that wants to call himself a “roadmap” cannot be bypassed.

Moreover, the discussion that arose after the publication of the article from NG ("New) through the answer to it with the editorial article by another NG (" Independent). The initial article is called " May Abstracts " - what, of course, is pathos. There is a subtitle, " how to" force "Putin to peace with his people ." Here, yes, the already certain narrowing of the topic, associated with the obvious Putino dependence of the author and part of the democratic revival. Of course, this (voluntary) self -restraint will play an important role in this dispute. It is not entirely clear the eloquation of the word "force", but this - as it will be seen soon - also symptomatic (this author, it turns out, also quoted Putin).

So, the article by I. Yashin in NG. It is 18182 signs. There is an introduction, conclusion in it, and inside it is five chapters. Here is the introduction: " The feeling that many supporters of the opposition today do not fully understand the strategy of the protest movement, as well as the tactical tasks that we have to solve in the foreseeable perspective, has come up with the need to formulate a kind of road card: a set of practical problems and technological methods for solving them ."

The conclusion will be in its turn, and now the subtitles (with the more or less first, revealing the essence of the corresponding problem with paragraphs):

" Street . The most important task of the opposition and the active part of society remains street pressure on the vertical of power. It is impossible to count on a change in the political system without a powerful external impulse, which has already begun to deform it (albeit non -essential) ."

" Cracks in the system . The vertical of power, built in Russia by Vladimir Putin, today does not look as monolithic as a few years ago ."

" Civil diplomacy . The theme of international pressure on Putin and his environment is of secondary importance compared to the task of mobilizing protest within the country, but it is able to give opposition some levers of influence on power ."

" Anti -corruption networks . Anti -corruption independent investigations have shown their high efficiency in recent years. Exposing cases of corruption surrounded by Putin and state authorities, as well as the coordinated attacks of civil society, which followed them, indicate high -tension points to the" vertical " ."

" The formation of the image of future Russia . The decomposition of the myth of the destructiveness of the opposition is one of its key tasks, which should stimulate the beginning of a large -scale dialogue not only about the methods of combating the regime of Vladimir Putin, but also the formation of a" positive agenda " ."

The first feeling

What to say? Of course, there is a pretty stylistics, such (" The decomposition of the myth of the destructiveness of the opposition is one of its key tasks ") recurrent definitions and Baron Munchausen would make you envy (swamp, hair, itself). As for the essence, then the conclusion has not yet been quoted about it. Here it is:
" The system created by Vladimir Putin cannot exist forever, its degradation and spreading are visible to the naked eye.
Monopoly on power, corruption and growing social stratification are an explosive cocktail that jeopardizes the future of Russia. The collapse of the system can happen very quickly.
The opposition in cooperation with the civil society is obliged to be ready at any time to take responsibility for the country . "

The article should be evaluated highly - due to the fact of its appearance. At least, the intention is demonstrated here - to have a "road map". For the same reason, there is no point in exploring it in detail, except that one point can be noted that describes the position of the speaker himself (this is important for a balanced historiography). There, therefore, we are talking about the opposition in different types. The possibility of creating several new parties is outlined (“ In the future, these organizations may well form a new party system of Russia, which will be formed after the removal of the power of Vladimir Putin and the natural death of the current simulation system ”). But about a separate party:

" It would be useful to form a united democratic party, a request for the appearance of which did not just match-overliving .... The Democratic Party with liberal, conservative and social democratic factions, undoubtedly, corresponds to the interests of a noticeable part of society at least in large cities.
The legal framework for such a structure, I believe, should become the Republican Party of Russia, which is already expanding due to the accession of colleagues in Parnas ... It would be of great benefit that would be joined by the “Left Alliance” association “Left Alliance” created by the most opposition deputies of the “fair Russia”, the contradictions of which with the party leadership of the “SR” are growing every day . ”

In general, it is curious why the “Left Alliance” here fits into the united democrats when the left party itself is already painted above, but this is a private detail. The most interesting where the author of the article is located here? That is, he would be inclined to united democrats, and he would write in the format "how to arrange RPR correctly." I would be left or right - I could advise how to build their programs. And why is it right to immediately advise everyone at once, is it a pure mind? This is perhaps the main secret of this document (possibly associated with some secret of its author). Really, who does he see himself in this space picture? The answer, of course, is not very important, but interesting. The position of the head of everything is again here, how many of them appeared per season? No less than a couple of dozen.

"Semloretical protest"

The answer was also systemic. This answer is not to the authorities, but the reaction of a certain separate and not quite defined point. Perhaps this point wanted to clarify for myself where exactly in this space, it is located itself. This is also NG, but not "new", but "independent." There are much smaller letters there (3789), but poetry is even more intense, already a title: " The question of Putin as a semantic axis of protest."

There is also semantic subtlety: not Putin, but a question about Putin. Which, as it turns out soon, is already the main nuance of the situation. Moreover, there is already a subtitle: " The opposition needs to clarify your attitude to the current president ."

Moreover, the interest of the authors (NG editorial office) in this matter is some really sincere: “ The strategic meaningfulness of any opposition plan will depend on whether the unambiguous answer to the question of the place of Vladimir Putin in the new democratic system is given in it. There is no unequivocal answer in the“ road map ”of the road map: he writes about Putin’s compulsion to the rejection of political monopolism, then about his detachment, then about his detachment. From the authorities, this muddy mixture of the vocabulary of evolutionary democratization and the vocabulary of the revolution a la Arabic spring is characteristic.

It is logical, who does not want to know that, finally, there will be - either evolution, or a revolution. The question is completely everyday, how to go to the street, for example? But here for some reason NG falls out of time: " By and large, the opposition needs to be decided for itself, who is mister Putin ." A strange question, because in winter, and especially on Sakharov it was publicly established that Mister Putin is who (in a bad sense, that is, in Russian).

It is still more complicated

In fact, Mr. was simply stylistic inaccuracy, then it is clear that the question is different. NG does not mean Putin as such, but his position within the framework of the system. More precisely, I would like to keep in mind this. But now, the theoretical complexity of the moment - the president is a phenomenon of dual nature - both the individual Putin and Putin -system.

In accordance with this split, NG also reveals the ambivalence of the opposition:
" She either believes that Putin’s presence in politics in any quality poisons the environment, or recognizes the right to fight for power, limiting it in such a way as to minimize possible abuse.
... A separate question is with Putin's presidency. The opposition fundamentally does not recognize its legitimacy, or there is still a set of conditions for which such recognition is possible . "

Of course, the presidency is not a separate question, but the same (Putin is noumenal or phenomenal?) - but projected to realities. However, clearly not noticing, NG already makes his choice in favor of Putin as an individual with the role of his personality in history, and not as a functional element of the system (albeit key). It must be assumed, because this system itself is inseparable from this individual, and it is impossible to think separately in principle. In general, this is a serious conclusion.

But then the symmetrical question resumes: what is the opposition? NG raised the question before the opposition - what is Putin for her, it is necessary to ask the question of what the opposition is. Well, yes, here he is almost asking, but who to ask about it? Here, Yashin (and he, like an oppositionist) himself is addressed to a certain opposition, which has no appearance or warehouse. Unless she has Putin as such, it is he who makes meaning and so on, purely as a guiding (bearing in mind the "road map") a star.

Once again - there is not a politician, not a polemic, but a pure amazement of a metaphysical that arises from (as she actually put) has come from nowhere. Which, further, sets up the participants in the mass process already mystically. Well, this gives the result when the logic is used "after that, it means - as a result."

But (from the theoretical side) there is a problem: what can mysticism achieve (as a practical part of metaphysics), which sees the essence of the political process in the question and the answer: "Hu from Mr. Putin - Mr. Putin from HU"? It’s just some kind of mantra, and the constant pronunciation of the mantra entails a complete peace. For example, in the format proposed by Yashin: " Putin's refusal conditions must be discussed from the political monopoly ."