"Do not like traffic jams - sell the car"

Return to the page of the discussion club

What is happening with a civil movement now, can activists influence something? Where is the line between activism and politics? Whether the city activist should participate in politics and whether it is possible to change the Russian state system from the inside - these issues were discussed by activists and journalists at the Publicpost discussion club as part of the SocialCamp 2013 civilian initiatives in Yaroslavl.

Igor Zadorin	Peter Ivanov
Grigory Okhotin	Denis Stark
Maria Khromtsova	Nikolai Klimenyuk-Publicpost chief editor
Mikhail Kaluga - The moderator of the discussion

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : We have two groups of questions: theoretical, related to the analysis of the ongoing processes, and more practical. But we will start with an attempt to assess the situation. The researchers and activists themselves will help us in this.

Now activists are becoming less, movements become less, and this is an indicator of what is happening with a widely understood civilian movement. It seems to me that this problem definitely fits into the agenda of our today's conversation. At the same time, the number of movements is growing, but does this lead to qualitative changes in society? Can activist movements change something? I would ask everyone to speak out on this subject and would begin with Igor Zadorin.

Igor Zadorin : It seems to me that activists are not less, their composition changes. In all phenomena there is a core and periphery. The periphery is pretty mobile. In 2010-2011, people who are not connected by stable ties with real civil initiatives actively joined the permanent core. In our study, in many respects, civil activism includes some activists who are guided by leisure effects. You can recall the well -known saying of the same Marx: "The revolution is a carnival." Now this periphery has decreased. But the core, it seems to me, remains the same. Moreover, it wiser and qualitatively became more serious and effective. Can volunteers change something? Of course they can. The only question is that the changes always happen? Civil initiative almost always acts as a requester or petitioner for other entities with large resources for decision -making. That is, they themselves do not become real subjects. And here there is, of course, a problem. It seems to me that you need to go more actively, if you speak in brief form, not only curse it, but just actively go, join in the election bodies and relevant commissions, public councils, even if they are 90 percent formal, but go actively, become a subject.

Peter Ivanov : I would like to develop Igor’s thought and supplement it with the fact that today it was already at the presentation. There is a determined place of localization of urban activism, and there is a certain system gap, in which activism is formed. Very similar things and very similar activists appear in various cities. But each of these activists believes that they are only the only such throughout the country. In fact, a systemic phenomenon is perceived as an extraordinary phenomenon. And there is no institutionalization of urban activism. And due to this, there is no exchange of experience, there is no qualitative change in practice.

Activists demand something in power, some kind of change occurs in extreme mode, but this does not lead to systemic changes in practice. For example, I live in the Treparevo-Kniculino area, and we have a very active local deputy, and due to his activity, all Moscow believes that a powerful civil society and a huge number of activists have in Troparevo-Nikulino. In reality, there was no success in any story.

Grigory Okhotin : In fact, I have nothing to add to what Igor said. Activists are completely less. On the contrary, the nucleus is increasing, and we have statistical evidence for this - according to the basis of detentions. If earlier only the National Bolshes were delayed, now they are delaying everyone - for social initiatives, city initiatives, they detain people who go with smiles on Arbat.

In fact, activism as a lifestyle, as a set of technician, ceased to need some institutional venues, where people exchange experience, and people take this experience by copying already famous Russian and Western examples.

As for whether the activist can change something, it seems to me that the activist is starting with himself. And first he changes himself, and then he changes the environment. And, of course, our environment has changed tremendously. Activist - from the word "active", and our environment has become active in different guns.

The only thing I do not agree with is that you have to go to power. Power kills, the power is absolutely amorphous, meaningless, this is not a subject, it is an object, it cannot be mastered, and the meaning of the activist is in the development of reality. Now activists are institutionalized. And it seems to me that you do not need to go to young activists, but just to engage in their activism.

Denis Stark : Regarding the increase or decrease in the number - I have no statistics, but I have observations and the feeling that some message of activists is changing. If earlier, activism was with a tear, that is, it is necessary to save the world at all costs, sacrificing themselves, their time, now I see that people continue to do everything, but the request of activists is as follows: I want to do this in pleasure or at least without sacrifice my family, work, rest and so on. If the organization cannot offer a format of participation without a tear, without risk to health and career, then activists can leave.

The activist should become the subject of changes, I absolutely agree with this. On the example of our environmental movement, we are subjects of changes, we are in this area, and now we see significant changes at the level of legislation, and at the business level, and in relation to people.

Regarding the fact to go to power: there are restrictions on freedoms, and on the other hand, representatives of the authorities, officials - they are easy enough to manipulate. We can enter into municipalities, to the district administrations of those people who support us. All officials are people, and among them there are people who suffer from ecology issues.

I believe that representatives of activism go to some elected, power structures are not the most effective way to achieve changes. There are more effective ways where you can make your strength and achieve changes.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : That is, you say: yes, we need politics, but we will communicate exclusively with lobbying efforts, ignoring the direct forms of representation, participation or pressure. Should an activist participate in politics? Everyone says: of course, it should, yes. And the question is not in strategy, but in tactical methods.

Igor Zadorin : For example, eco -settlers practice social escapism: they left, minimize all their relations with social reality, and even more so with the authorities. After some time, they understand that nothing happens, some skills have already atrophy. And there are those who constantly fight and live in this struggle, do not see their faces, but only a target that must be hit. It is clear that it is necessary to somehow combine different methods.

We have many civilian associations both chose one strategy and live in the framework of this strategy, regardless of what problem they solve. Some tasks are solved by the dialogue, and some struggle, pressure, and you need to choose or combine.

Grigory Okhotin : We must remember that the activist community cannot increase activities without ensuring safety and efficiency. But the nucleus of the activist community knows very well what the EE center is, knows very well what arrests are, and Denis Stark experienced this yesterday. We are not afraid, activists have always been a fifth column for power. Now activists who call themselves social, not political, sweet, with such, with ruffles, the state is supposedly not afraid of. This is not true. The state in any case is afraid of any independent activity.

The activist thinks horizontally, and the organization thinks vertically, and the entry of activists will save the third sector from turning into a fifth column.

Peter Ivanov : It is funny that politics is perceived as a natural state of activist activity. My colleague did a study on city activists in Moscow, and everyone was all without exception that they were not engaged in politics: "Here are the" city projects "of Varlamov and Katsa, and we, Archnadzor, are not engaged." "City Projects" Varlamov and Katsa say: "No, no, it is Arkhnadzor is engaged in politics, but we are not engaged." There is a very serious stigma of political activity. If a person is engaged in politics, they immediately begin to look at him: either there is either a moneylell money, or for the money of the State Department - one of two.

At the same time, activist activities in post -Soviet countries are always political. In fact, any activist activity is political, but at the same time it seems to be a shame to engage in politics. And this provokes a variety of argumentation strategies and a variety of ideological concepts, including the emasculation of the policy of non -zacactivist activity.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : It seems to me that politics comes when you have not yet gone beyond the apartment, next to the meter's readings. And the second: it is funny that the metaphor of political perception fits through two poles - the Rosmolodezh and the State Department, as if there is nothing in the middle. This is a very important detail for worldview. And this is what we can talk about a little further - can we go beyond this artificial confrontation between Rosmolodezh and the State Department?

Denis Stark : I would like to say about the word "politician." This, in fact, is just a matter of semantics. You use the word "politics", and when we speak about this in the environment of activism, we avoid this word, we say - influence on power and so on.

I work in Holland, and every morning I come to work and say: "Hui Morgan!" - This means "good morning." If I also express myself in Russia, this will be perceived in a certain way. So it is with politics. This is a word that civil activists try to use less, and I do not see a big problem in this. Each community has its own semantics: the British speak English, Russians speak Russian, programmers speak their slang, social activists speak their slang. In public slang, the word "politics" is not scary. These are measures that you took to keep attention.

I was detained yesterday. People in civilian clothes came on the street, showed crusts and said that, according to some of their data, I was from Holland and I have drugs. I was brought to the police, checked, they did not find drugs. But I was scared, and then, somewhere after the hour of conversation, I had absolutely trusting, cool relationships, and when we said goodbye, they sting my hand and said: "Thank you very much that you are doing what you are doing." I received four people from the police and the Investigative Committee, which are now now concerned about garbage issues. They apologized practically, they said: “We doubted, but you understand, we received a signal, we had to work it out. But they are cool people! They had a request that they had to work out, but they didn’t really want to work it out.

Grigory Okhotin : About politics. Activists try not to use the word "politics" because they beat for politics. Everyone understands what policy they beat. For politics, they plant for three days, they are thrown by drugs and so on. Now this stigmatization has intensified. But we are engaged in political activity, and we do not deny this. Only one must clearly designate this in a philosophical way what civil policy is and what a policy is - the struggle for power. We are not engaged in the struggle for power. Politics is any directed social action. Now everyone who is here is engaged in politics.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : Firstly, I would like to say that you do not know how you influenced professional drug fighters, including you do not know what they will write in the report.

Secondly: a year ago, in the spring, the same person who was a civil activist grew up in politics. Now Maria Khromtsova is an adviser to the Moscow Department of Moscow. What is this for you - the transition to a new quality, a way of influencing activist organization on the authorities, is it the use of power to implement projects? And what will you do in this new configuration?

Maria Khromtsova : I used to be engaged in civilian activists and various public organizations. And about four months ago I was offered to work in the department, to engage in various things related to architecture, and I agreed because for me it was a personal new level of development. Because it is one thing when you do some kind of unsystematic things, simply because you like it, and another thing is to work there. People in government agencies can change something, and I am interested in doing their hobbies as work. I worked for three months in the department, I have greatly changed the understanding of all the city processes that take place in Moscow. If earlier I looked at this as an activist who has ideas, now I look from the point of view of how to realize it, to whom to write, to whom to give an order, what words to say. For me, this is not the way to implement any activist ideas, this is a way to just improve the urban environment for ordinary residents.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : Thank you very much! It seems to me that it was a very important example.

Nikolai Klimenyuk : I am a citizen: a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian, parent. Your organization has been spoiling my life for many years. And I do not understand how a person who is engaged in improving the urban environment can participate in "this" work. Do you somehow separate your activities from activities, I am not afraid of this word, urban policy? Are you a guide for this city policy?

Maria Khromtsova : Speaking specifically about me, I did not accidentally get here. I am engaged in the development of cycling in the city and cooperate not only in the Department of Transport. I present my personal project - the Bicycle Festival. I often encounter people who negatively relate to the activities of state bodies, including the Department of Transport. I cannot answer for the entire department of transport. If you have any proposals, you can express them through appeals to the department. At least your letters should be at least an answer.

Igor Zadorin : Such a children's position is known, which simplifies the picture of the world to such a structure, where civil activists, in general, a person provides himself to one divine subject - the state on which everything depends. Then you are actually transmitting claims only to the state, and you are hindered by pits on the roads, specific builders who also lobby corporations, specific motorists. Everything is much more complicated. But it is more pleasant, easier and more comfortable to concentrate a claim against one specific subject, for example, the state. And thus remove this discomfort from the complexity of the world.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : And now I want to ask. We pay taxes on roads, corporations, or do we still pay the state that is an arbiter? This is a rhetorical question, but absolutely specific. You are now making some kind of substitution.

Maria Khromtseva : A beautiful question, very interesting. In fact, of course, I thought that such a situation could happen, but so far I have not been in such situations. While I work in the team of people who are charged with ideas, we have no weekend, and at night we sit forever. So I am so far under the impression of specific personalities who are engaged in the development of infrastructure in the department. And I don’t want to think about the thing that you are talking about, and so far it has not been given an opportunity.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : Masha, we appreciated your sincerity.

Peter Ivanov : I am engaged in urbanism, a corporate analysis of the decision -making system in the field of urban planning in Russia. A very interesting model arises. Recently, we have no decision -making system, we have a system of making the only right decision. And due to this, in fact, there are a lot of good things, very many real interesting alternatives in existing practice are impossible. And to blame officials of this, to consider all representatives of the authorities villains on the basis that they are built into a system that simply cannot do any things is quite wrong. The point is not that a person takes some kind of post, but that the system itself does not allow decisions.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : You now said that the system a) does not work, b) it is pointless to work in it.

Peter Ivanov : But it must be changed.

Mikhail Kaluzhsky : Oh, and this is great! And we return to politics again. And then what are we talking about?

Denis Stark : You can try to remake a non -working system, or you can arrange a working nearby. Relatively speaking, the election system does not work, the decision -making system does not work - you just need to make your own decision. Нужно принимать решение, что делать с отходами — складировать, на свалки, сортировать... Государство не в состоянии сейчас принять верное решение. Но мы не лоббируем, а готовим почву, мы выращиваем культуры, мы практически строим рядом другой механизм принятия решений. Не через выборы, не через политику, не через Госдумы. Меня приглашали в Госдуму принимать участие в заседании по этому вопросу. Я понял, что ничего не решится: Министерство экологии хочет одно, Минэкономразвития хочет другое.

Я вот хотел еще ответить на вашу реплику, Николай. Меня возмущает ваше потребительское отношение! Потому что модель транспорта создаем мы, создают все москвичи. Я не вижу, например, смысла ездить на машине. I will give an example. Я ездил в офис на машине, стали возникать пробки, и это было очень долго. What did I do? Я продал одну квартиру и купил другую квартиру рядом со своим офисом. И все, что мне нужно в жизни, от меня в шаговой доступности. И это мое решение, горожанина, как мне жить. А вы не хотите принимать эти решения. Да, у меня была квартира площадью больше, она стала площадью меньше, потому что квартира рядом с офисом стоила дороже, но я получил другое качество жизни. Я ходил на работу две минуты пешком.

Михаил Калужский : Это также позиция: не нравится правительство — переезжай в другую страну. Мне интересно, возможны ли социальные изменения без политических, особенно в России?

Денис Старк : Почему люди выходят на улицы, начинается стрельба и погромы? Потому что нет диалога. The authorities do not hear people. И когда эта стена становится слишком толстой, ее начинают проламывать. Давайте уже сейчас налаживать этот разговор. Такие возможности есть, у нас это получается, и если кому-то интересно, приходите и спрашивайте, как это у нас получилось.

Григорий Охотин : Я тоже считаю, что решение вовсе не в том, чтобы идти во власть, и решение вообще не за государством. Изменения, которых все мы хотим — в обществе. Поэтому мы работаем с обществом. В каких-то моментах мы начинаем пересекаться с властью, в каких-то хотим, чтобы она нам помогла, но чаще всего мы занимаемся социальными проблемами, а не политической деятельностью. Чаще всего взаимодействие репрессивное, потому что нас власть воспринимает как конкурентов, она считает, что мы занимаемся политикой. Если государство не способно решить проблемы и мешает их решать другим, вопрос — к государству.

И последнее: у нас это называется капковщина, когда наши друзья, приятные люди типа Маши, идут во власть. У меня очень много друзей во власти: московской, федеральной, в правительстве и так далее. Они не способны ничего решить. Просто они не только люди, они — члены системы, а система ничего изменить не может, она может только исчезнуть.

Петр Иванов : Завершая эту дискуссию, я хотел бы обратить внимание на очень серьезную проблему, а именно — что наша общественная жизнь подвержена чудовищному давлению. Потому что расхождение практики и описаний этой практики на политическом языке и способы ее понимания просто разительны. В итоге у нас государство считает иностранные агентами Союз сибирских композиторов. А общество, руководствуясь тем же соображением, той же практикой разделения на белое и черное, считает, что существуют либо Росмолодежь, либо Госдеп. И в итоге это приводит к тому, что отсутствуют какие бы то ни было средства самопознания, саморефлексии общества. Более того, с этим даже социология не всегда справляется, и история с "Левада-центром" в этом плане очень показательна.

Сейчас, как мне кажется, наиболее важной задачей является формирование инструментов самоанализа и языка разговора об активизме в режиме разнообразия, а не в режиме черного и белого, как мы сейчас пытались это делать.

Игорь Задорин : Уходя от государства, перенося центр тяжести оптимизма в партизанство, в параллельные структуры, делаем ситуацию еще более банальной: отчуждение государства становится еще более глубоким и более бесперспективным.

Вот я очень бы хотел, чтобы мы строили разные стратегии. И власть надо использовать, как мы в свое время использовали комсомол для создания компьютерных клубов, молодежных кафе и так далее. Использовали ресурсы и инструменты. Точно так же сейчас мы можем поступать при правильной, технологически выверенной работе.

Михаил Калужский : Спасибо всем! Это было увлекательно!

Вернуться на страницу Дискуссионного клуба