Euromaidan: Left reaction

The left and right are Montecki and Capuletti of modern political mythology. In four senses at once. Firstly, the plague is for both of them at home. Secondly, due to the archaic of the confrontation-taking into account the accelerating historical time, a comparison with the Trojans and Achaeans would be even more correct. Thirdly, by the intransigence and depths of fundamental contradictions - I want to recall the Swift stupids and witnesses. And, finally, fourthly - all this was not only for a long time, but also not true. The writers wrote, and in reality, some completely different faces peek out from under the masks of the buffoonees.

And these faces could be caught in the lens, observing the reaction to the Euromaidan in the Runet space.

"Left"-"right"

May a respected reader forgive me, but I will delve into this very left-right dialectics. Let him take into account that many words in this text are for a reason taken into quotes. And just in case, in order not to forget about the position of the author, he holds in his mind during reading the first paragraph that he had just read. For if we talk about the author’s political credo, then this is, without a doubt, the liberal transcosmic anarcho -communism , which Maximilian Voloshin said well, corresponding to the quote from which this text ends.

The right conversation is short. The Imperials according to all concepts should be kept and not to let in, to demonstrate the connection of the colonial discourse with the gender - to shout: “Ah you, bitch and b ... - But I love you - get away from the same and do not try to take the car, it is recorded in my name, don’t leave, well, what to give you? Well, do you want a bicycle?” The "national democrats" caused perplexity, who were never waited by the extreme right brothers in the nationalist international from the Tyagnibok party. The reasons for the failure to appear are understandable - these brothers prefer to be friends with the distant Marie Le Pen, with whom it is so pleasant to speculate on how in the ideal world there will be no Slavs in France. Although things do not work out with the Euronaci - in April, Tyagnibokovites wanted to beat the Transcarpathian Hungarians. And the Hungarian brothers were offended - after all, it was they who recommended the Ukrainian "freedom" in the alliance of the national movements of Europe. Okay, they did not appear - but for strategic considerations it would be possible to at least support the mental structures such as "revival of the national spirit" at least at a distance.

But there are liberal right ones? Yes, they say there are. But only in their internationalism they are not right. Just as there cannot be left -wing nationalists. Or maybe - but exactly in the sense in which there is "wooden iron". Because such right -wing people advocate freedom. And also - for equality and brotherhood. At least in this matter.

However, an intuitive gestalt “right” always smells of something retrograde. Generals Somos. Aparteid South Africa. Or at least Reaganomics and Tetcherism. "In the morning in America" ​​and "moral majority." Blood and soil. Family values. There are plenty of canned goods on the shelves of an ideological supermakete. However, of course, we can say that the internationalism of the right is simulative, for Freedom for them is primarily the freedom of the global elite, and brotherhood and equality for them are only a tool in the fight against elites of narrowly national ones. But black work should still do some kind of blacks outside the walls of the "free world". However, internationalism remains internationalism, and Obama with Condolisian Rice and General Powell does not change their genome, which cannot be called simulation. The very need to have a Black President says a lot, as well as the planetary days of Mandela's memory. Even if it turns out that Obama is a direct descendant of those who sailed on the "Mayflaueer", who made a dozen plastic surgery and woven personal history for a successful political career.

Confusion with the opposition of the “left”-“right” has arisen from its very birth in the French assembly. The most equal and free designated themselves as supporters of the Jacobin dictatorship and terror. And then the Marxists brought the base to this contradiction, who preached the path to without a state society through a dictatorship that did not have precedents for the rigidity of dictates in the history of Europe. It goes without saying that in practice, instead of a non -state society, an increase in the class struggle appeared as socialism was building. And this struggle, one must think, with the victory of the world proletarian revolution, would only intensify - and such a revolutionary dictatorship of the end would not have. The period is always transitional, and the enemy never seizes, because if he falls asleep, it will not be needed by the Cheka, and this is not possible.

This is the desire of a part of the “left” to the dictatorship and created the basis of the confusion in question. The modernist pathos of the forerunner of the “left” could well express himself in sympathy for the absolute, not restrained by the former estate traditional counterweights of the monarchy. These forerunners, following the example of Plato, talked with the autocrats in the hope of “enlighten” them and to modernize them on top - after all, the peasant will not agree to count the thunder and lightning with a simple, which does not have an indicating moment with an electric phenomenon. A retrospective look from the 20th century opened Peter I as the first Bolshevik, a Bolshevik on the throne. The left supporters of the dictatorship considered that they better know the genuine needs of the dark, prone to Vandea of ​​the people. And the right - those who have not wanted to give the rights to the Gentiles, foreigners, women, poor, lower classes for so long - received a beautiful trump card for the future. Which over time acquired in a political game, which reached the climax after the seizure of the RSDLP (b) of power in Russia - more precisely, after the destruction of the colonial system. From that moment, the right ones got the opportunity to declare that they advocate the freedom of individuality, while the left advocate for its enslavement and even destruction. For the flowering Leontyevo complexity against the total Hunwebian depersonal.

There is also such a binary couple as individualism and collectivism. She, in her nebula, is quite related to the opposition of the left and right. Around the crowds of faceless individualists and completely atomized collectivists rummage. Nietzschean’s lines pass in front of the windows of socialists who have been locked behind two doors. The right collectivist regularly attends Sunday services, opens against contraception and legitimization of sexual minorities. The left individualist eats the LSD to the music of Pink Floyd with Tom Sartre and discusses about the society of the performance (the right individualist can join the trip, but it is unlikely to advertise - he can damage a corporate career). Those who want to follow the example of an anarcho-communist Pavlensky and impersonally beat the scrotum to the paving stones of public places somehow-in any case, in the amount that could talk about the extinction of creative independence and individual initiative in the left movement as such.

Soviet stage

The key stage in the confrontation of the “left” and “right” are the years of “Soviet power”.

This is the time of the tragedy of the global “left movement”, even that part that did not want to walk at all and draw only understandable to the buckets, cadre and run -in. It took the simulacrum as authenticity. And I wanted to believe the progressive humanity that one sixth globe was implemented by a plan for building an unprecedented society, that a jumping into a new, which is not at a hedged kingdom of freedom, fraternity and creativity, that its builders said not only deforestation, but also the flight of countless chips. In addition, they do not cut. And not a forest. And not chips. And do not fly. Because all these are the machinations of counter -revolutionary sharks of the pen and jackals of rotary machines. Ostap Bender is an actor artist who, with his immortal canvas, “sower” exposed the essence of the Soviet government, who drove the country into some kind of hocracratic feudalism.

Yes, the Soviet government was the first to declare the complete equality of women and revised patriarchal family law. Yes, in fact, the Soviet government was originally modernist. However, political freedoms were destroyed even under Lenin, and under Stalin there was a large -scale restoration of anti -Modernism in the gender, national and religious region, as well as in the field of art. In non-freedom conditions, only single projects could somehow develop, mainly military and cosmic. The most general and middle engineering is the Soviet operation “Y”, since they called the relevant ministries so that, apparently, no one would guess. In captivity, intellectuals and creators do not multiply - and it is not surprising that the Soviet Union as a result ceased to be perceived as the vanguard of mankind and lost the planetary competition on all fronts, losing its admirers in the world - Western intellectuals and peoples of the third world. From modernism in the USSR there was only a sign. There was emptiness ahead. The Golden Age remained in the past. The present represented a decrepit party -member and major - the latter, having untied their hands, quickly converted the ideology into the palaces on the Cote d'Azur.

It would seem that the left opposition in the USSR was pursued much tougher than the right one. The West did not stand up for her. But it was also betrayed by many Western “left”, which were more important than their above illusions plus various material bonuses coming from the country of their ideal. As a result, Soviet dissidents mainly began to position themselves as “right”, divided into right -wing Westerners and right -wing soils. The paradox of the situation is that the power itself is the same pseudo -Soviet party -propeller power no longer the left. The formation of two castes - functionaries and the “common people”, an inert ideology (in fact, hikocracy), which impedes the development of free thought, the degradation of civil society and the same solidarity of the working people - all this reveals the Soviet system as the main system as the right, right in the bad sense of the word. In the USSR there were practically no left - neither in power, nor in the opposition. Some of those who, by all European standards, should have been left -handed, could not afford it for image reasons. To be a “left anti -Soviet” - meant to doom itself into ostracism and oblivion.

Or, rather, so - the USSR learned the worst features of the “left” and “right”, going beyond this opposition, but not to the new world, but into reality, similar to the Inca empires.

After decay

However, the myth of the USSR continued to live after its collapse - acquiring pronounced nostalgina features. If he now has revolutionary potential, then only in the context of the “conservative revolution”, he is actively used by the adherents of which (examples of this - Dugin and Prokhanov). The features of traditionalism here and here appear through the remnants of varnishing of post -Soviet nostalgic “left”. One has only to look at the respectable Communist Party, which acts as a united front with those for whom the Golden Age is also in the past - the touching “red -white alliance” for family values ​​and against homosexuality. Such “leftism” is just another type of canned food in the traditionalist supermarket already mentioned above.

As for the romantic ultralevs, it would be curious to see what they would do in the USSR and what would happen to them there if they send them there in a time machine. And most importantly, for such left, of course - not to let Lenin take out of the mausoleum. Because it is impossible, of course, to destroy the monuments and rewrite history. The Bolsheviks were its main admirers and guardians - this is known to everyone.

The same conservative transformation was waiting in the “Soviet” state and the meme of the “friendship of peoples”. They, as you know, “rallied the great Rus' forever” and this line from the Mikhalkovo anthem designated the very essence of the problem of substitution of internationalism by imperial chauvinism.

Left reaction

Now let's think about what the idols of the USSR-Nostalginers would do, if they were in our time. For example, Vladimir Lenin. He would have considered that something like a bourgeois-democratic revolution is happening in Ukraine. He would hardly have been able to skip this revolution and not support. She does not need to counteract. It must be led. The very place for the Leninsky revolutionary - in the Euromaidan. Otherwise, only reinforcements and Talmudists from Marxism can think, the hedgehog is clear. In conditions of bourgeois freedom, the freedom of action of the Leninz is greater than in the conditions of the comprador dictatorship of the Putin model. And it is necessary to learn the Ukrainian language - or at least English, so as not to speak with the bourgeois revolutionaries in the official state language of the authoritarizing metropolis.

Now let's look at the typical Euromaidan reaction of those Russian -speaking comrades who call themselves “left” - and about whom it is customary to think similarly in society.

Here is what the author of the “left” blog “in the country and in the world” writes , close to the community of the Phanster and Openleft.ru store.

“It is worth noting immediately that we decided to devote the main time to the speeches of Ukrainian activists - those who, from the first day of street protests in Kyiv, went out into the streets and tried to bring their position.”

If you convey your position in Russian, then the report is unlikely to be successful in this situation. But how can you? The fascist short -costs gathered, which Algeria decided to separate from France - instead of making a proletarian revolution immediately throughout the colonial France. From the point of view of the post-Soviet Russian “left”, there can be no support of the national liberation movement.

“Zakhar drew attention to the fact that the anti -communist slogans, such as“ a commune - to Gillyaku! ”Sounded from the nationalists even before the protest became mass.”

It is clear any left -heading, not suffering from dogmatism, that the Communism brand for the Ukrainian Maidan is associated with the imperial period from which the Euromaidan is designed to free Ukraine. Therefore, this brand should not be used as absolutely unpromising. And it is best to abandon this brand by the left - since the word “deteriorated”. The supporters of the world brotherhood of free people to use this term today is the same as to use the swastika to absolutely good to use in political life, which was once a good symbol (the term “communism” had a negative ethical load from the very beginning of its existence, since the unlimited period of the allegedly pre -preceding communism was pushed into practice, which was never advanced in practice “Bright future”).

“During the further discussion, Zakhar Popovich noted that mainly visitors from the western regions of Ukraine took part in the destruction of the monument to Lenin, and they make up the backbone of those who spend most of the day on the Maidan.”

Monuments to Lenin are a trace of the hi-jerocal-feudal Stalinist government and are associated with the Euromaidan with the Pirate-Feudal authority of Putin. The defense of “sacred places” is not a lesson for left -wing modernists, but for right -wing traditionalists. The attitude to the monuments of the “Soviet” era is a litmus piece of paper to determine the degree of simulativeness of left -wing positioning. It should be understood that the monuments to Lenin for Euromaidan are the same as the monuments to the Russian emperors, only much worse. Since more modern. The same should be said about the monuments to Lenin in Russia itself - since the activity of this person and its consequences caused tremendous damage to the very idea of ​​a non -state society without coercion and operation.

And now we will get acquainted with the views of the left with almost no quotes - Boris Kagarlitsky , for his political left activity of the deadline in the USSR.

Firstly, Kagarlitsky, when he speaks out about the possible development of events in Ukraine, is not worried about something, but the economic penetration of the United States into Ukraine. He is also worried about citizens of the European Union - who, in his opinion, who did not want Ukrainian workers in Europe, who do not want, in his opinion. He is not embarrassed that he actually becomes the position of European extreme right. In his opinion, Europe will ruin Ukraine as, apparently, it will not ruin its union with the authoritarizing Russian Federation. Better alliance with the latter than with democratic Europe. The migration of labor is, from the point of view of Kagarlitsky, it is bad. In Europe, according to him, nightmare unemployment-but he is sure that the Ukrainian workers will still go there for some reason. Apparently, it’s better for them not to give such a chance. Karelitsky, as happens with the left, knows better what Ukrainian workers need. The old kind logic is “the worse, the better.” But where did he see the labor movement in Russia? Maybe it is better for him to try to organize it at himself first, and then regret the fate of Ukrainians in Europe? Something tells me that there will be much more opportunities for the development of the labor movement in European Ukraine than in Ukraine of Russian.

But these two authors are intelligent authors. And here are other, more frank “left” speeches: “oligarchic leaders of protest”, “customers from the EU and the right ultra they hired by them” and other well -known rhetoric - familiar from the first two channels of Russian television. Only with the “left” phraseology. But in reality - simply relapse of imperial Soviet propaganda, continuing to exist in a modified form in Putin's Russia.

There is a feeling that many “left” would just like the restoration of the USSR. Such a restoration is impossible - and this is their tragedy. Ukraine is semi -knowing by them as a former part of the USSR, and therefore it is better for Ukraine to stay with Russia. What if a miracle happens, and the USSR will rise? And they, these left, “will complete the reforms like this - Stalin, Beria, Gulag”?

No, to think about the world revolution. Instead, again, some revolutions of the old simulation regime of the type “graciously deigned” the old simulation regime pop up. Oh, sorry - "building socialism in one individual country." On the one hand, sympathy of the sad fate of European workers whose standard of living will fall as a result of the influx of Ukrainian migrants. On the other hand, these very Ukrainian workers, instead of rotting under the Putin authorities, can still, despite the warnings of Kagarlitsky, go to Europe in search of the best share. So no, it is better for them to close the boundaries. If if they go where they go, then to Russia. The fall in the living standards of Russia's workers is a completely different matter. It’s just not clear why something else. Apparently, fear causes the possibility that Ukrainians can be seduced by bourgeois democracy. Let the semi -feudal mode be better.

It is difficult to explain all these inconsistencies of the modern “left” discourse. Involuntarily, one has to come up with explanations taking into account the role of the unconscious and familiar stereotypes of thinking, fragments of “Soviet” propaganda.

New agenda

This is one of the main problems of the modern world and its political development. The false reality of the USSR distorted and confused the space of social thought. The only adequate output for people of good will, whose goal is to improve both individual and society, overcoming violence and exploitation, increase the degrees of freedom, disclosure of creative potentials, the development of social empathy, cooperation and mutual assistance - to abandon the obsolete political phraseology and mythology as a whole. Refuse to worship the old idols. You can not pour new wine into the dilapidated fur.

The yard has long been a new agenda of the revolutionary day, set by the “Youth Revolution” of the 60s of the XX century, which has achieved significant results and the continuing, albeit not in such a violent form, to this day. This is the agenda of the world revolution, the most effective participation in which is possible only if society is transition to the European liberal-democratic type of existence. I wish this to Ukraine and its people. The agenda of the revolution, which some culturalists call even “the second axial time” - the release of mankind to a fundamentally new level of consciousness, individual and social. It was this output that Maximilian Voloshin prophesied, hiding in Crimea during the years of the Reds from the White, and the whites from the Reds: “I joined the political party, which will arise fifty years later and will be the extreme left in the parliament, where the anarchists will become a conservative majority.”

Post Scriptum

The text that showed me very pleased that there are left -handed ones in Russia, which think about the Euromaidan in a similar way with me was an interview given by the well -known shareholder Peter Pavlensky, already mentioned by me above, the Ukrainian network edition of Art Ukraine .

Here are a few excerpts from it:

“If we talk about a certain ideal of society - anarcho -communism, for example, it is now happening on the Maidan. These are all these subcultural disputes about the dominance of the right or left - this is a complete garbage. The very structure in which both homeless people, workers and students are together: all who need clothes or food can take it for free, those who have the opportunity to carry food and clothes for others. To give a volunteer, this is a society in its ideal state of self -organization The Maidan will cease to exist, the state will again force people to fulfill their official obligations and move according to previously predetermined schemes. And now there is anarchist coexistence, because anarchy is possible only in conditions of self -organization, when the state is undermined as a single structure.

...

The point is not in the left and right subculture, not in these superstructures. Flags are just badges that mean nothing. In the era of Bolshevik imperialism, red flags hung everywhere. And what did these flags talk about communism? It was speculation on human ideals and a gross substitution of concepts. What is happening on the Maidan is much closer to anarchism than any of the possible social programs can give.

My attitude to the division into left and right was expressed in the fact that I arrived. I read the posts, saw all this longing and left melancholy - “Oh, this is not ours.” What is not ours? So we received many subcultures in Russia and this is in the hands of power. Rhetoric schisms are endless and in Russia this led to a complete crisis: there is a monolithic centralized power that involves a large number of resources, and an slurred opposition, which has crushed itself and turned into one continuous contradiction.

...

The Maidan must go beyond the localized pastime and penetrate all the structures of a public organization, it should become widespread resistance and sabotage of the authorities and management. And then the triumph of self -organization will come and the victory over the tyranny of the centralized apparatus of power. ”

The author is a candidate of philosophical sciences.