Our youth is a flight

In connection with the scandal of "Gozman -skoybed", many again started talking about the restoration of modern Russia. It is alleged that this is the response of the authorities to the protest performances of 2011-2012. So, according to the commentator "Freedom", "creeping Stalinization began relatively recently." The author of the article in Novaya Gazeta directly calls the “Gozhman case” a symbol of the revival of Stalinism. Irina Prokhorova also believes that the country has come to a dramatic line, and calls for intellectuals to realize its responsibility and go to the fight against the totalitarian consciousness of society.

Late, gentlemen comrade! The current situation is such that even in people who unconditionally condemn Stalin for repressions associated with his name, the model of public administration of Russia does not cause fundamental rejection. Few in the country is fundamentally against consciousness - it sees the "special" historical path of Russia. After the disappointments of the 1990s, and today, even as a result of disappointment in Western civilization, many are at least condescending to the Soviet reality of the 1930-1950s. Then, they say, there was order, in general, they rightly punished for the crimes committed, held in fear of bosses, correctly dealt with the "fifth column", and most importantly, then the country rose, won and everyone was afraid of it.

The popularity of the Stalinist myth is a diagnosis and at the same time a sentence: the authorities, the so -called reformers, society, and especially the intelligentsia. After all, these are her representatives, including from the so -called progressive public, the very intellectuals that Prokhorov addresses, enthusiastically participated in the restoralization inspired on top. And this process began not yesterday. It has been going on for more than 15 years-from the mid-1990s, when the supreme power set the task of finding a "national idea" and when a fundamental turn to the so-called objective historiography of Soviet society was indicated. These are specific people, whose names are well known, wrote and published with a mass circulation of colorfully designed books about Stalin-state. It was they who made nostalgic documentary and feature films about the Soviet era and about Stalin, who flooded Russian screens. It was their efforts in the heads of people who were strongly connected by Stalin and Victory, this is their efforts into the mass consciousness of cliches about the ambiguity of the Stalinist era, that all this is “our story” and about the historical value of Stalinist modernization. It was they who did not just sing, but glamorized the Stalin era. Here is a very recent example associated with the name of the informal leader of the “white -open” movement of Boris Akunin: how beautiful everything is in the idealized Stalin Moscow on the eve of 1941 in the film “Spy”, shot according to the novel of this writer, whom some have read to the place of the Russian Vaclav Gavel!

The Stalinist model is really almost perfect. But this model is? Control of the country? Development of society? No, withholding power by a group of persons who are currently in power. Yes, this model is based on Russian historical traditions, but it was under Stalin that this state model received its finished expression. Supreme power acts in its country as an invader in the occupied territory, in an atmosphere of strict secrecy. And the population lives in the position of the hostage - under the supervision of special services and other power structures, without even realizing this position. Vladimir Putin solved the problem of holding power to his corporation even more successfully than Stalin, because in the conditions of the information society mass violence is not required. You can, as Gleb Pavlovsky said when he was by Putin, and without him to create a situation of mass dug for the population.

The prerequisites for such a development of events were laid already in August 1991, when the mechanism of communist rule with its infrastructure of secrecy remained untouched. And when Vladimir Putin returned the practice of appointing governors, everything finally fell into place. It is characteristic that even after that numerous experts talked about the vertical of the authorities, about the authoritarian regime, which was formed in Russia, but at the same time avoided comparing it with the Stalinist regime. If the comparison was carried out, then through the personalities of Putin and Stalin - and, as a rule, this comparison was immediately heard as inadequate. The analogy between Putin and Brezhnev was and remains more. As a result, the essence of the issue of the Stalinist model of the country's management for mass consciousness turned out to be buried under endless chatter, the core of which is a simple dichotomy, voiced by the permanent Svanidze-Kurginyan: Stalin is a criminal who has hands in the blood elbow, against Stalin-statesman, builder of the state and winner. And there are results: in the consciousness of the people over the years, the myth of the non -alternativeness of their historical fate, its doom to be a state people, which are fully dependent on the supreme power, have been successfully introduced over the years.

And do not deceive yourself and others: today there is nothing to oppose the situation. Unlike Yuri Pivovarov, who recently declared that “we first have a mature civil society,” I see no conditions - neither historical, nor mental, nor social - for the emergence of such a society in Russia. Like the opposition - in the form in which both of these phenomena have developed in the West. In the context of the established vertical of power and omnipotence of special services, they cannot appear. Any protest movement that arose below would be suppressed in the bud. The current government clearly extracted lessons from the historical past.

If in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century it was possible to form an institution of opposition, there would be no revolutionary shocks of 1917. If it was possible to do this in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there would be no Putin omnipotence today. Meanwhile, the same people who today lead the protest movement did nothing, in order to prevent the “publicity” of Sergei Grigoryan to prevent “democratic Russia”, to support the “memorial” in an attempt to leave a position on socio-political activity in their charter. The exclusion of this paragraph blocked the path of turning the “memorial” into a wide socio-political movement (so necessary for the moral revival of Russia!) And contributed to the transformation of it into a closed non-profit organization (which the prosecutor’s office accuses today of the Irony of History precisely of socio-political activity). The same people who are opposed to Putin today, in the early 2000s, went to cooperate with the new government on its conditions: it is enough to recall the first civilian forum of 2001, convened by the efforts of Pavlovsky and Co., in which the same Georgy Satarov and Lyudmila Alekseeva played the most active role.

In Russia today there is no civil society that could defend the prisoners of Bolotnaya Square. To protect non -profit organizations on which they put the stigma "Foreign Agent". To protect representatives of small and medium-sized businesses, the percentage of which in society steadily reduced all these years due to the strategic course in the authorities for contestation.

The truth of the historical moment is that Stalin's fans and the successors of his political practice won modern Russia. And these are not old retirees, as many intellectuals are trying to present the case. These are youth, who grew up in a restoration of restoration and absorbed all these cliches about Stalin. And this is not a "rotting Putin Empire", as Valeria Novodvorskaya believes . This is a regime that is now transmitting from the stage of formation to the stage of strengthening. If you do not hide your head in the sand, but soberly look at Russian reality, you will have to admit: the future of Russia today belongs to the Stalinized young generation. By the way, Stalin turned 60 in 1939.