The value of the center

Dear Grigory Shalvovich!

I am one of those most irreconcilable radicals whose celebrations in the opposition you are afraid. I am convinced that the system created by Putin and his minions excludes the change of power as a result of the elections organized by this power itself. So, the change of power (which still sooner or later will occur) will be made outside the framework of the procedures established by this authority. The decisive role in this shift will be played by mass protest performances, including the civil disobedience campaign. Probably, the regime will try to suppress protests by force, but at some point the security forces (or some part of them) will refuse to do this. In any case, the change of power to one degree or another will be accompanied by the paralysis and collapse of power structures. All this, in fact, is called a revolution.

I have repeatedly publicly argued that “moderate” or “centers” who dreamed of evolutionary transformation of the existing regime will sooner or later have to make a hard choice. The choice between direct support for an increasingly fascist regime (and, accordingly, its actions to suppress the revolution) and the direct support of this revolution. And, it would seem, I should be pleased with your prediction of the speedy division of moderate into the prodigal "right -centers" and revolutionary "levocentrists". I should delight me that the “most centrist centrists” who did not want to stand on either side or the other, according to your words, simply “shut up”, that is, they will not interfere with natural polarization.

Perhaps you will be surprised, but it does not please me.

Against the bet on the revolutionary path of the change of power, the argument is most often given that the revolution in modern Russia cannot be peaceful and non -violent. The current ruling click in the event of a real threat of her power will certainly begin to shoot. With everyone, as they say, the ensuing. But you and I know that this is not the point. The collapse of power in itself can occur relatively peacefully and bloodlessly (and it happened in Russian history). A certain number of bruises and abrasions obtained during this collapse could still be experienced. The main question is what next. What processes will be launched? Can a new government stabilize the situation? Or will the revolutionary capital begin to break through the knee a lagging province and will be a kind of nine of the country on the verge of a large -scale civil war through the knee? Here is the main risks of the revolutionary path.

If the explosion of indignation after the Duma elections was strong enough to force the authorities to recognize the fact of falsification and at least count the voices, this would make the gradual evolution of the regime. And only the explosion could break through the reactionary power that gap that would open this path. But what will happen if the explosion is stronger than necessary for the formation of a break in the wall? The explosion can break through the gap, and maybe everything is shifted at all. The trouble is that revolutionaries cannot dose the power of the revolutionary explosion. It does not depend on them. People have not yet learned how to manage social explosions and is unlikely to learn in the near future. All theories of controlled social explosions from the same area as the theory of world conspiracies.

However, our actions can affect the probability of a particular development of events. It is obvious that the safest option is to force power to make concessions before the explosion lies. If the authorities stubbornly do not go to concessions and, on the contrary, strengthens the reaction, then the later the explosion happens, the more the danger that it will accept a catastrophic character. The more abominations, meanness, violence, injustices will have time to commit power, the greater the destructive charge of hatred and aggression will accumulate in society. Yes, you yourself write about it yourself. The fact that the planned landings (Navalny, "Bolotnikov", etc.) finally bury hopes for peaceful evolution. Maybe this is not the latest “point of no return”, but this is obviously an important line.

And now I want to ask: which of the prominent “moderate” with a name and status did not understand that the Pussy Riot process is exactly the same milestone in nature - and that it is necessary to postpone all your important matters and come to the court? I ask you about it, because the court had you. But other "centrists" (especially "right -centers") there were not enough. And not because they were afraid to get a club. But because they considered it not appropriate status. One of them nevertheless spoke in the sense that the girls, of course, are fools, but it’s not good too. But he disdain to come to court. Girls are fools ... you will contact them-you will lose the opportunity to quietly affect power through all kinds of unspoken channels.

The social function of the "right -centers" today consists in order to demonstrate the authorities of the willingness to conduct a dialogue with it on any conditions, to strengthen the confidence of the authorities in oneself and its determination to not inferior nothing. In fact, the "right-centers" cover the power from folk rage, sowing in a certain part of society illusory hopes that they will be sipping something in power.

If something can persuade the authorities to make concessions, then it is not a demonstration of readiness to conduct a dialogue with it on its conditions, but, on the contrary, a demonstration of willingness to refuse to deal with it. Leave her alone. Stop covering it. "Open the front" for its radical opponents. For this, by the way, it is not at all necessary to become revolutionaries themselves. The more "legal entities" can be encouraged to break ties with the regime, the higher the chances of avoiding the disaster.

It is clear that the radicals will not listen to status right -centers, because those are socially alien. But the "centrist centrists" can influence them. It is one thing when the systemic liberals accuse the bandits of a frostbitten radical, almost a Bolshevik in the soul, another - when the “most centrist centrist” does it and in general an intelligent person. Precisely because intelligent people are not generally characteristic of Bolshevik to condemn others for conformism and adaptability. So, their word will mean more.

Yes, perhaps, and this will not help to persuade the ruling clique to concessions. Then the radicalization of moderate ones will objectively work to approach the explosion. But again, the earlier it happens, the less the danger of the disaster. And the mission of "centrist centrists" in this case is to extend the restraint on the radicals. Their main advantage over the “legal entities” is impeccability in relations with “stinking power”, which gives them the right to vote in the revolutionary camp. If their voice is not heard, if they themselves are in full swing, considering that they have no place in this cruel world, other people will take the vacant place. Less reasonable, less restrained, less scrupulous, less intelligent. The danger of catastrophic development of events will increase. Therefore - do not leave your attempts to stop great trouble, do not leave the "strangers" for you political news, do not abandon your "centrism", Grigory Shalvovich!