And the cook will rule the state...

Andrey Pesotsky shared with us his thoughts about “men-suckers and aunts-sledgehammers”. The article is a typical example of that “feminism in reverse”, which the funny group “Ensemble of Christ the Savior and Mother Cheese Earth” very vividly parodies in their masterpiece hit “Children. Church. Kitchen". Actually, in order to more honestly and openly declare his position, the author only had to repeat this “spell” without bothering readers with such “analysis,” which provides more ground for psychoanalysis of the author’s personality than factual and practically useful material.

The article is made, as they say, from second hand material: the starting point is the recently published and widely circulated statistics on social networks about the number of women in government bodies (this will be discussed below). Next comes “rhetoric”, entirely copied from the books of Eduard Limonov (see “The Other Russia”, lectures “The Monster with Tear-stained Eyes”, “Where Old Women Come From” and “Sexual Comfort”). Even the expression “sledgehammer” itself is taken from “Control Shot” (chapter “Tits in Dough”). But Pesotsky does not follow the leader beyond rhetoric and sharp words, leaving behind the bold conclusions and calls of Limonov’s essays. Limonov, with his passionate attacks - even on such a sensitive topic as gender relations - rebels against the sanctimonious and hypocritical social foundations, morals and prejudices, against the “Russian adat”, the norms of which have turned into their opposite - leading not to the preservation and development of the nation, but its degradation and decay. Pesotsky sets the task directly opposite to Limonov’s desire for the all-round emancipation and liberation of a person, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman: he undertakes to prove to us that governing the state is not a woman’s business: “Those who cannot fully realize themselves in life go to power.” role of mother, turning into real sledgehammer aunts from performing bureaucratic roles unusual for women.”

The reasoning here is striking at a completely low level: “ I note that women are still genetically more predisposed to raising offspring than to such areas of activity as politics, civil service, and municipal administration.” Those. According to the St. Petersburg politician, “such areas of activity as politics, civil service and municipal administration” are a genetic predisposition of men. I would like to see these unfortunate men - carriers of the political gene, the civil service gene and the municipal government gene! Maybe the candidate of economic sciences made such a revolutionary discovery in genetics, discovering hitherto unknown DNA? Nietzsche with his “will to power” is put to shame - it turns out that everything is decided genetically.

I don’t know how many children Pesotsky is the parent of, which so boldly defines upbringing as a female “predisposition,” but as a father I can say directly, if you like, in a Bolshevik way: yes, one of the biological functions of women is childbearing, but raising offspring ( since this is already a social function) the matter is common: both women and men, mothers and fathers. (Moreover, our task is to again make education more “masculine”, “Spartan”. Again, read about this in Limonov, “The Other Russia”, lecture 2).

From the presented statistics, the author hastens to draw another conclusion, no matter how sensational, so superficial: about the “collapse of masculinity in Russian society.” Such loud statements cause skepticism, first of all, about the “masculinity” of the author. Regardless of who carries out political functions in society, a man remains a man, a woman remains a woman, an upright person remains an upright person, always following internal rather than external guidelines, attracting others and forming collectives and unions, incl. marriage The statistics, by the way, are very, very mediocre, not suitable for any serious conclusions about the social, gender and age structure of the Russian government. But even without it, it is obvious that most of the women who caused the author’s worries about the “collapse of masculinity” belong to the middle and low-level employees, are ordinary performers (which does not at all relieve them of responsibility for unfair decisions and illegal actions). You need to understand that removing them from performing their official duties and replacing them with men will not solve a single problem of the Russian state. Not a single one. The predominance (purely quantitative) of women in management must be associated with the following factors: firstly, there is a steady growth of the state apparatus, bureaucratization requires more and more jobs (in fact, this is all that is indicated by the statistics analyzed by Pesotsky); secondly, clerical, office, not physically difficult work is preferable for women - this is, let’s say, a tradition that we inherited from Soviet times; thirdly, women are simply the demographic majority in Russia, there are more of them and they live longer than men. Men are to blame for the fact that Russia has turned into a kingdom of bureaucrats and that Russia is moving towards a demographic catastrophe. Very specific men, we know their names, surnames, addresses.

From an ideological point of view, the article is flawed and, moreover, harmful and vile towards women participating in the resistance, in our struggle. Woman, you can, on an equal footing, get under the batons, break through cop cordons, participate in actions and seizures, distribute leaflets, receive a day of arrest and real prison sentences. But when it comes to changing the regime and actually building a new state, excuse me, go to the kitchen and the nursery, try on a burqa and read Domostroy. The Pesotskys will manage without you. (Although the latter graciously provided for women 20-30% in power, which reveals more a penchant for internal liberalism than a real concern for “women’s” quotas in its secretariat).

The problem is not how many women are in the existing state apparatus, the problem is how much of the existing state apparatus is in each of us, how much we allow it to interfere in our lives and influence our destiny. Lenin, who had a keen sense of reality, is credited with the phrase - with the light hand of Mayakovsky - that “under communism, even a cook can rule the state.” In fact, Lenin first turns to the image of the cook in his work “Will the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” (written in September-October 1917, i.e. a month before the Bolsheviks took power, the issues discussed in the work once again speak of the author’s insight and political sense) in a slightly different context: “We are not utopians. We know that any laborer and any cook is not capable of immediately taking over the management of the state. In this we agree with the cadets, and with Breshkovskaya, and with Tsereteli. But we differ from these citizens in that we demand an immediate break with the prejudice that governing the state is an everyday task. Only the rich or officials taken from rich families are able to carry out the daily work of government. We demand that training in the work of public administration be carried out by class-conscious workers and soldiers and that it begin immediately, that is, all workers, all the poor, should immediately begin to be involved in this training.” . It turns out that the task is, firstly, to make public administration so simple and understandable that even a “cook” could cope with it, and secondly, to raise the “cook” - through training in the “business of public administration” - to such a level level so that she can cope with this task. Lenin, of course, first of all put class meaning into his words and images. But we will not sin against the truth if we look at Lenin’s “cook” from a gender perspective: to make public administration easy and accessible to women; train women to govern the state. This is the creative meaning of socialism.

The last question remains: what should be the real degree of women's participation in government? National Bolshevism has nothing in common with a simple, mechanical solution through quotas of “20-30%, somewhere perhaps a little more, but no more than half,” which the author of “suckers and sledgehammers” refers to. The National Bolshevik men set as their goal the creation of a state (hardly a state in the usual sense of the term) in which their beautiful companions will be able to perform public service on equal terms, without giving up femininity and motherhood. Don’t ask me to point out practical forms - revolution, in that part of it that concerns the construction of a new society, is a creative process (but not spontaneous). Lenin did it, so can we.