The prospect of repression

I was greatly impressed by the scandal around the "last address" - Sergey Parkhomenko

He spoke in detail about him at Echo, and on his page in FB all the materials are collected more or less. I decided to write about it.

It is significant when Alexander Shokhin, the comrade -in -arms of Yegor Gaidar, now the president of the Higher School of Economics, begins to fight the “last address”. Indicating, carefully and carefully that not everything is so unambiguous in the Stalinist terror, it is not worth installing the tablets on the houses where people took them to shoot them, you need to figure it out in detail if the execution in a sense was correct and reasonable - the position set forth in the article of the current ally, Alexander Shokhin Kuzmin. In my opinion, starting, say, from the work of Hasan Huseynov, it was inconvenient to admit that you are a professor of the Higher School of Economics (colleagues, I'm only talking about myself), but these are the circumstances of our wonderful time. But what, it turns out, the reformers were the way to put it ... people are sharp and fresh.

But the smell of fresh Svinsky manure is boring. When the news field was processed from the edge to the edge, the brain in the order of the protective reaction ceases to respond to what is happening in the "who is now borneled". Here it may not be interesting to the news aspect of the problem.

People calling to stop installing the “Last Address” signs, carefully and carefully approach each case, remarkably ignore the fact of rehabilitation of the executed. The state officially admitted that the person was shot innocently, there is no crime, here is the document, the person is innocent - but no. This should not be formally treated, it is necessary to creatively, neatly and balancedly approach each case, because these are people, and suddenly the execution was in a sense justified. Rehabilitation is conceived as something not significant, which is unexpected for the statesman.

And in truth, we (Sergey Parkhomenko once called to participate in the initiative group, which created the “Last Address” movement) also doubted this rehabilitation. Rehabilitated in the USSR at the request, first from close relatives, then from almost any person, but the request was supposed to be. But there was no one to ask about many, there are also families, and all friends and acquaintances too ... They remained not rehabilitated, that is, people legally destroyed by the state. It is impossible to accept, and I do not accept today. But we agreed with this. It is precisely in order for people like Shokhin, allowing themselves to say that everything was not unambiguous with Stalinist repressions and, approaching balanced and neatly, many citizens were partly shot, this thought would be kept inside their bright souls. This is about these, with the destruction of which you are carefully in solidarity, we will not speak. But these - they are recognized by the competent authorities innocent, here are the signatures, print, number, all the rank: there is no corpus delicti. The error came out, you know, they wrote guilty, but it is just not-, the reservation turned out, it happens. We have a signs for a reservation, otherwise a person lived, and he was buried.

It seems important to me. We relate to repression differently, but equally to rehabilitation. This is formal and not significant. We politely slip a certificate with the seal to them, they carefully ignore it.

What is the meaning of rehabilitation? It is actually not very useful to the state in reservations with a death, and if it does not have angry voters who can ask the competent authorities, then it would seem to repent. The shot are shot, you won’t resurrect a certificate. But he needs to return to the legal legal field. The state, making these certificates, says: I am not like that, I think this is unacceptable, wrong, this is beyond the boundaries of any legality, it is just a deadly murder. I endure it outside my household and I don’t exist anymore. So in a sense, it is not killed issues these certificates, but to itself. It with signatures and seals claims that it has returned to the field of normality, like, say, a sexual maniac, which has successfully passed the course of compulsory treatment and sterilization. Causing and accepting these certificates, we confirm, yes, treatment is possible. This is now a normal state. And not recognizing rehabilitation, we agree that this is impossible.

This was a systematic mass destruction by the state of its own non -guilty citizens. This can probably be considered partly justified by higher considerations, as Shokhin thinks, it is possible - by the savagery of crazy scum, but to amputate, to separate it from yourself, it cannot be separated. Inquiries are legally insignificant. We can solidarize with executioners, we can with the victims, and just that I - not me and the hut are not mine, does not come out.

The twentieth century did not ask us, it is obvious, but it seems to me that it has not yet been fully set by its comprehension. This is very evident from the war, which, at first, under Stalin, was a glorious story about heroes and marshals, then, under Khrushchev, a story about the terrible trench truth, and then under Brezhnev, both in one bottle, that is, a story about a holiday with tears in his eyes. And everything stopped on this, today we are eating the Brezhnev myth, hastily label holes with paper clips from the spiritual stapler. Reflection is work on oneself, “Work of grief”, as Alexander Etkind defined in his wonderful book.

She takes time. Take Tolstoy, from the war of 1812, the same story about the glorious exploits of young generals, the capture of Paris and the balls of the Vienna Congress, before the “war and the world”, where instead of heroes the people who did not know the person, organic mass of people, a blessed and right organic life were half a century. True, we are even late for this period.

It seems to me that with repressions - another situation of the Russian twentieth century - about the same situation. The understanding that we have is the sixties, dissidents and late -Soviet emigration. Without a doubt, great people sometimes are great minds. But, for all that, people for whom camps and repression are real experience, experience of monstrous, inexplicable injustice that happened personally with them or their relatives. It seems to me that the idea of ​​rehabilitation is very about them, about people who believe that trouble can be corrected, guilty of punish, restore justice and still live, live again. This is a very understandable feeling, human. Think, only nine years have passed from 1928 to 1937, it is both from Sobyanin’s struggle with traffic jams to the struggle of Sobyanin with Covid, both bustling and busy. Ten years ago, everything was more likely not very, but still nothing, and now a new constitution - it seems that everything can be returned to normality, return, as they say, in the Plakymskaya era. But with the 37th it is impossible. Nothing can be replayed, this is already so good with us.

The “last address” was conceived by analogy with the German “stumbling block”, by tablets that are installed in Germany at the place of arrest of the victims of the Holocaust. They had no possibility of rehabilitation there, no forced treatment did not allow the Hitler state to get a certificate of normality. There, all the victims of the Holocaust were immediately recognized as innocent, the emergence of Shokhinsky thoughts that it was necessary and carefully and many Jews partly went to gas chambers, did not arise. They needed a much more radical understanding. It, in general, comes down to two points.

Firstly, it was a crime of the German people, in general, there are no innocent. Secondly, German culture, all, did not hold the Germans in a civilized state. And, therefore, it is not only necessary to revise the state system, not only to judge criminals - politicians, officials, military, law enforcement agencies, judges, party members - not only to destroy the supporting structures of German industry, business, and the financial system - this can be done quickly - and also rethink German national culture. Is Nazism possible without it? Without Wagner? What about Heidegger? What to do with Hegel even? Is Nazism possible without Hegelian thesis that the absolute spirit has chosen a place of manifestation in the German people?

This does not mean that nothing from German culture could stand. But I, perhaps, agree with Dmitry Bykov that the German national identity in the sense in which it existed in the 19th century is absent today. Not Germany in Europe, but Europe in Germany - this is the result of this work.

Sometimes I catch myself on the feeling that our sleeping areas, in the five -story buildings, which are still in the stands, have still a bore, despite all their squalor, has one significant advantage. They breathe easier in them, this is a space where Comrade Stalin no longer came in. And I, with all the disgust, understand Shokhin (this is a rather rare sense of sympathetic disgust to someone else's cowardice). The city that began to appear along with the “last address”, the walls of houses covered with the names of innocent are a city that appeals to understanding. He is not afraid of the cemetery, but the deeds of our hands.

I think, and I think with horror that a German operation on ourselves has yet to do. We won the war, and this pillar of the history of the twentieth century supports our identity, but its repression is corroded. Leo Tolstoy was discovered that the people are an organic mass, alien to reflection and individuality living life - he is the hero of history and he benefits. But in the twentieth century, the Russian mass turned out to be not living life, but by a national self -assault, and the great Russian culture did not hold it on the border separating a person from the beast. Whether Russian repressions were possible without great Soviet writers - this is not even necessary to ask. “Little,” says Ivan the Terrible, brilliantly played by Nikolai Cherkasov in the film of the brilliant Sergey Eisenstein, much more clear. But is Stalin possible without Gorky? Without the "twelve" and "Scythians" of the block? Without Poles and Jews at Dostoevsky? Without Chernyshevsky? What is there, without Taras Bulba? Without karamzin?

I would really not want to ask these questions. I understand the desire to somehow shut up them, ban, close them, in general, so that they are not. I am not ready for the loss of Russian culture, as is happening with the German, the formula “Not Russia in Europe, but Europe in Russia” destroys me - I have not achieved many in Russia, but I am completely nobody in Europe. You can endure your own abomination - won Shokhin. But the innocent do not let you go. As the same Etkind shows, everything happens according to Freud, if the work is impossible to carry out, if you simply displace the injury, it constantly returns in perverted forms. Only these are not psychological complexes, these are politics and economics.

After all, let's confess to ourselves, we are waiting all the time. We live in the future of repression, and it extends back and forward. So far, Covid, all nothing, everything is on self -isolation, but how it will end, they will begin to take it, because otherwise why a new constitution. They captured Crimea, and they will begin to take those who are not happy. Here Medvedev left, and they will begin to take Medvedevsky. Here Putin came, and now they will begin to take the Yeltsin. Shokhin what? But nothing, he is a guipar alite, you think, is not scary? All his accuracy is just a chur of me, there were no repression and will not be, and if anyone was killed, they may be guilty, but I'm not like that, I have nothing to do for me. We do not believe in any social ideal, in any values, we do not want to deal with any policy, because we know that in a bite. We chose Vladimir Vladimirovich - and do not let go of fear. He himself is from these, but not evil, maybe he will not begin. And he does not leave fear. He himself of these, there, every next shot the previous one.

The hidden fear fetters the brain. Take at least communism. After all, a strong idea. In social justice, the mass of cute, and in the oligarch-billiarders there is little pretty. Nothing spoils a person so much as a fixation on money. Private property is quite disgusting even with Adam Smith, when it turns out that delicious buns is obtained only from the thirst for profit, but in reality even worse. It is difficult to seriously object to free equal access to education and medicine. It is unlikely that a decent person can afford to fight for national dominance or against the equality of men and women. And the idea of ​​turning labor into creativity, into creation for a common good - yes, this is happiness, what can I say. And note, the collapse of the USSR did not lead to the death of this idea in Europe and America. On the contrary, she even blossomed. To voice the right programs there today requires a frank cattle, well, like Trump, and a decent person, a politician, or a public intellectual, or a university professor, simply cannot but be left.

But we cannot move in this direction. We do not understand them, we are disgusting with their solidarity with refugees, we are shocked by their struggle for the rights of women, for the rights of national minorities. We are trembling from their massive cheat companies, from their public confessions. We simply do not understand how they can think so and do so. And everything is very simple. There is no sin of mass savage on them. They do not know that all this is a vile and disgusting lies. What solidarity with refugees are actually repressed peoples, in turning labor into creativity-massive slave labor in camps, behind cheat-companies-executions, free access to medicine-punitive psychiatry and the case of spaces.

They can move on, but we do not. A neat and balanced policy comes down to the idea: and let's forbid it all so that there is nothing. But this is an ostrich, with the head in the sand and the bare backward, facing the sky. Even worse. You can live with a skeleton in the closet, but you will always think for yourself and for that guy. And the head from fear is not to poke into the sand, but to this closet, towards the skeleton.

The sourcehere

Photo: 1. Project "Last address" .
2. Museum of the History of the Gulag in Moscow. Alexander Zemlyanichenko/Ar/TASS