Do expensive shoes give the right to protest

Soviet school textbook as a textbook of life

The collision of Nikita Mikhalkov on protest artists (if you get so much, then what else can you want, do not lie that, receiving that money, you can be at least something dissatisfied), I personally regard a bunch trick of a rich person, who himself believes that, having money, there is nothing more to wish for.

At the same time, in a sense, it reflects the social attitude to which protest can be considered “real”, more faithful, justified. And it’s not only about those people whose federal television is the only source of information, but about the well-strided consumers of the Internet block.

The impression is that the attitude to protest and, in principle, to the justification of dissatisfaction with the regime and the authorities, we recorded in 1905 and has since stagniped. No tectonic shifts - political, technological - that have occurred since then, in reality have not affected anything. It turns out that the deprived workers of Putilov and similar factories have the right to protest. And no one but them.

According to my (zealous and long) observations,

For the vast majority of our fellow citizens, the only respected reason to demand changes was and remains poverty.

But - what is important! - Be sure to have their own poverty of those who protest. And even the experiences that many people and entire areas in Russia live almost in poverty, that medicines do not reach there, that the pensions are scanty - these experiences, it is believed that exclusively those who barely reach the pay to pay. It turns out that the protests and often the following auto -zak, and now also the subsequent seizure are perceived literally as a kingdom of heaven, where you need to wipe, like a camel through it is known that.

In the early nineties, I witnessed similar conversations in the academic and creative environment of New York. Then a slightly provocatively formulated question was discussed: "Can I be left in shoes for three hundred dollars?" For the present money, this is already six hundred dollars, that is, the shoes were really described. This statement suggested that a person who was so packed cannot disturb the position of the disadvantaged, that all their beautiful words are only a tribute to fashion, that "they may have a heart on the left, but the wallet is on the right."

I must say, claims regarding the cost of clothing were exclusively in demand with us today. About the youth, reaching recent protests, now and then - "they are too well dressed." Julia Navalny blamed a certain Kurtka of a particular company, her husband - expensive and “show -off” sneakers.

And then I want to ask: do disagreements in Russia protest against capitalism? Against capitalism as an economic structure of society?

Okay, of course, among them you can find people of different beliefs - from Libertarians to possibly communists, but unites their rejection and, accordingly, protest against corruption, dishonesty of ships, clamps of freedom of speech, lack of change of power and honest elections. This list can be continued, but in any case, the fight against capitalism as such is not included in it. And even inconceivable palaces, watches or diamonds bother us as evidence of specific corruption processes, and not an illustration of the wrong structure of the world under capitalism.

I very often hear and read about the protesters - "they are baked." Fucking, they do not need to earn money right on a piece of bread to themselves and children. So they will bind. It sounds disgusting, but perhaps this is a tiny share of truth. In the sense that it is difficult to think about freedom of speech and non -compliance with human rights when you or, God forbid, your child is hungry.

Yes, the current Russian protest is not protected because of a piece of bread and not even from a piece of sausage. And for some reason this causes distrust for many. Why? Because the cobblestone is the weapon of the proletariat, and there are no other images of active disagreement in our head? And in order to justify this disagreement, it is necessary that his carrier be disadvantaged, so that he has nothing to lose, except for his chains? Otherwise, the verdict - got baked? Because there are no values, except for basic survival?

I sometimes think that, in fact, these protests are the most modern that we have today. Because they are at least not built into the paradigm, which worked more than a hundred years ago and then described. Because protesters do not believe that the right to protest should be deserved. Because they do not believe that the one who somehow pays/feeds (taking away a number of rights and freedoms) is owed to them at the same time, they are obliged by the coffin of life.

And I also think about the Soviet history textbook for the 10th grade.

He turned out to be a direct textbook of life. For a long time. Good, not forever.