Protest without Udaltsov

On the morning of September 8, Sergei Udaltsov, opening the Forum of Left Forces, welcomed its participants as his comrades-in-arms and like-minded people, promising them that the triumph of socialism would inevitably follow if the liberal opposition overthrew the hated Putin. In the evening of the same day, Udaltsov was already explaining to the press that the forum was a gathering of irresponsible sectarians, and his colleague Ilya Ponomarev, who did not bother to attend the forum himself, in the best traditions of domestic conspiracy theories, began to look for Kremlin agents among the delegates.

Why did such a radical and somewhat comical change occur?

Instead of acting as “extras” with figures making speeches on behalf of the “left movement” at liberal meetings, the forum delegates spoke in their own voices, declaring that they did not intend to support the policy proposed to them by the leaders of Bolotnaya Square.

The change did not occur by chance, but seemed sudden only to those who did not know about the processes taking place in the activist community after May 6th. Oddly enough, the latter included the gentlemen whom the liberal press persistently presented to the public as “leaders of the left movement.”

It was no secret to anyone that young communists, anarchists and socialists were not very fond of liberals, but as long as the activist regularly went to rallies, receiving blows with batons and sometimes prison sentences, the liberal establishment did not care about his ideological sympathies absolutely. The fact that on their little-known websites the radical left scolded neoliberalism with the last words did not change matters. Just as the Bolotnaya Square podium actually imposed itself on the protest movement as a whole, several politicians convenient for this podium were actively promoted by the relevant mass media as the “left wing” of the protest. These leaders had no real support, and were actually “hanging in the air.” But until the left activists showed independent political initiative, this was not too noticeable from the outside, and the difference between certain groups participating in the protest, for an external observer, consisted mainly in the color of the flags.

Meanwhile, the several months that have passed since May 6 have changed the situation dramatically. Firstly, the inconsistency of the strategy of the leaders of Bolotnaya Square, who simply call on people to go to the same rallies again and again under the same, and also outdated, slogans, has become completely obvious. Secondly, the dominance of liberals in the capital’s stands alienated the provinces, which began to see “Moscow showdowns” in the events taking place. Even in St. Petersburg, skepticism grew. And finally, thirdly, the social situation in the country has changed significantly over the summer. Rising prices and utility tariffs, a new stage of education reform, Russia’s accession to the WTO, and the subsequent closure of industrial enterprises and job cuts worry people much more than the question of how fair the procedure for the December elections to the State Duma was. And the liberals from Bolotnaya Square and their friends who pose as leftists not only turn out to be insensitive to such topics, but sometimes even support government measures. The opposition in Russia is very strange: it hates the government precisely for those actions that enjoy popular support, but is ready to support the government in those decisions and steps that cause popular discontent.

Of course, the leaders of Bolotnaya Square felt that not everything was going as it should. But instead of thinking about their policies, they were looking for some kind of miracle cure to solve all the problems. It seemed to them that they had found a solution, but it was not very successful. They proposed holding elections to the Coordination Council of the United Opposition. At the same time, the left was not even asked if they wanted to participate in this association.

The elections caused growing resentment, and not only on the left. The methods of their organization were not very democratic; many noticed a strange similarity between how the Churov Election Commission acted and what was done in the opposition camp. We must give liberal leaders their due - they are so alien to democracy, they do not understand its meaning and content so much that they cannot comply with democratic rules even when it is beneficial for them. The criticism began with condemnation of the methods of preparation for the elections to the Constitutional Court, with outrage over the financial contribution required from candidates and the removal of undesirable candidates from the race, as well as the possibility of falsification of Internet voting, but then the discussion turned to more significant problems.

Calling Putin an “impostor,” the leaders of Bolotnaya Square could not help but realize that they themselves were not elected by anyone and do not represent anyone. The growing discontent among the protest participants had to be somehow quenched, especially since liberal leaders need some semblance of democratic legitimacy in the event of possible negotiations with the Kremlin. Private agreements are one thing, but public signing of agreements is another. The government and the opposition are run by people of the same circle, with the same views and preferences. But in order to remove existing contradictions, they need equalization of status.

For figures whose political existence depends primarily on the support of the liberal media, the elections to the Constitutional Court turned out to be the moment of truth. In order to demonstrate their value and usefulness to the leaders of Bolotnaya Square, they had to drag left-wing extras to the elections at any cost. After all, then the “swamp people” could no longer speak on their own behalf, but on behalf of the opposition “as a whole” and even on behalf of “society”.

In recent years, in Russian capitals, a kind of “bourgeois left” has begun to emerge, which has long existed in the West. It is not true that capitalism rejects any criticism and any values ​​that are in conflict with the market. On the contrary, these values ​​are needed to enliven cultural life and public debate, just as spices are needed for cooking. And the less edible the dish, the more seasonings may be needed.

The paradox of the situation of the “bourgeois left” is that the liberal establishment needs them precisely as leftists, as representatives of a “different ideology” (in digestible doses, of course), their popularity in the relevant circles, their status, their “promotion” do not depend on their own intellectual, political, scientific or other achievements, namely the ability to represent “leftist discourse” in a bourgeois environment. And hence the need to constantly confirm one’s own legitimacy, connection with the real left movement, or at least with discussions in this movement.

In “peaceful” times, when there are no serious political events, combining one with the other is not so difficult, but in a crisis, a choice must be made. This is exactly what the second FLS demonstrated, clearly drawing a distinction between the left movement itself and those who tried to represent it in liberal circles on its behalf. The issue of elections to the Constitutional Court turned out to be an obvious point of demarcation.

In general, it is surprising how demagogic and openly manipulative were the arguments put forward by supporters of the bloc with the liberals. First of all, verbal substitution was constantly used. During the Forum and before it, for example, they tried to convince its participants that anyone who opposes elections to the Constitutional Court is an opponent of any elections in general. It’s as if they didn’t see the difference between elections to parliament, where all citizens really elect their representatives on equal rights, including for political struggle against other deputies, and elections to the governing body of a single organization to manage general political activities. Or they argued that those who call for a boycott of the elections to the Constitutional Court automatically demand a boycott of any rallies and protests. Or they explained that it would now be impossible to coordinate the participation of the left in general democratic demonstrations. But the Forum participants had enough life and political experience to guess what they were really talking about. If the question was simply about agreeing on the date or time of rallies, then no one would organize a cumbersome election procedure for this. And joining a common organization with one’s ideological opponents, submitting to its leadership and discipline, is not at all what the left strives for.

Sergei Udaltsov opened the meeting with a loud rally speech, where he spoke about the threat posed to Russia by the “impostor Putin,” touched on issues of the president’s personal and sexual life, and then called on everyone present to nominate their candidacies and vote in the elections to the Constitutional Court. After which the speakers, one after another, took to the podium to dissociate themselves from Udaltsov and reject his proposals.

Only representatives of two Trotskyist groups supported the idea of ​​political cooperation with the liberals, and even then, as it later turned out, there was no unity on this issue among their activists.

The resolution to boycott the elections to the Constitutional Court was adopted by an overwhelming majority of votes, and in a stricter formulation than originally planned. The ridiculous clause stating that figures who, contrary to general opinion, will take part in elections should be treated with “understanding” was removed. Finally, the Forum decided to support left-wing candidates nominated in the elections in municipal districts near Moscow, which also meant a disengagement with the liberals, because in Khimki Anatoly Baranov was nominated for the post of mayor, entering into competition with Evgenia Chirikova. Also, the decision to admit the Other Russia organization, headed by Eduard Limonov, to the Forum was passed by a slight margin. There were very serious disagreements on this matter, but the prevailing opinion was that among the DR activists, supporters of left-wing views predominated, with whom it was necessary to cooperate.

Of course, the forum participants cannot prevent Sergei Udaltsov, Ilya Ponomarev and several other political party-goers from offering themselves to liberal structures in one capacity or another. Thus, these people even more clearly mark the line of rupture between themselves and the left itself. Even members of their own organizations do not support them. The boycott resolution was prepared by a member of the Left Front, the famous historian Alexander Shubin, and was passed with the active support of LF delegates.

It is not surprising that the Forum’s decision caused real hysteria, both among the victims themselves and among their political partners. Several people simultaneously noticed a funny parallel between the second Forum of Left Forces and the second congress of the RSDLP. The difference of opinion on a seemingly technical issue, whether it is necessary to participate in the elections of the Coordination Council, turned, like the former discussion about who should be considered a party member, into a division between supporters of independent left-wing politics and supporters of a bloc with liberals. But history repeats itself, not without some flavor of farce. The majority of the Forum is still very far from the Bolsheviks of the early twentieth century, and their opponents are clearly not even close to the Mensheviks. After all, the Mensheviks were still a serious ideological movement that had its own thinkers, theorists and leaders, whose authority was based on the results of their work, and not on the support of the liberal press. However, our liberals today are very far from Milyukov, Struve or Tugan-Baranovsky...

It is not surprising that the main accusations made against the Forum are an ordinary slander. The left will take part in the march on September 15, but only under their own slogans, demanding to stop the destruction of industry, nationalize enterprises affected by accession to the WTO, put an end to the increase in tariffs in housing and communal services and transport, and stop the destructive education reform. These are demands supported by the majority of people in the country, but naturally ignored by the leaders of Bolotnaya Square. In the industrial centers of the country, strikes break out one after another - people demand not “fair elections,” but wages, human working conditions, and the right to create free trade unions. And the strikers find support from the left, not from liberals.

Autumn dictates the need for a new protest; social demands are spontaneously put forward from below, not thanks to, but despite the actions of opposition leaders (including those who, by inertia, are still considered “radicals”). Russia is not only what is shown on the Dozhd TV channel and broadcast on Ekho Moskvy. This is not only the Mother See, where the public enthusiastically plays political games that are laughed at even in St. Petersburg. And in order to gain authority in the country, you need to stop playing these games.

After the Forum of Left Forces criticized the liberals and adopted a resolution to boycott the elections to the Constitutional Court, Nemtsov proposed for the rally on September 15 the most “leftist” of all previously proposed resolutions. Here is a call to freeze housing and communal services tariffs, prices for railway transportation, here is a demand to increase spending on education and a call to hold a “discussion” about the pension system. All, of course, in the form of general words, without any mention of structural changes, but this, as Nemtsov himself admitted, caused horror and indignation of his liberal colleagues. So for now this is just a project.
But how the situation is changing. While the left was a good boy and observed “democratic solidarity,” it was impossible to get even a hint of social demands from these people in draft resolutions. And as soon as the left showed its teeth, the liberals began to “move to the left.”
I wonder if this would have happened if the FLS had not adopted a boycott resolution?