Translated material
Trumutation of liberal democracy
Vladimir Pastukhov* - On the revolution of common sense and military conflict in Ukraine
Peter Sarukhanov / "New Gazeta"
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Pastukhov Vladimir Borisovich or concerns the activities of foreign agent Pastukhov Vladimir Borisovich
Trump's position on military conflict in Ukraine is considered in most cases either as an artifact of his charming mentality (well, the person Putin likes - it happens), or as a logical part of the traditional American isolationist approach to foreign policy (enough to feed Europe).
However, with a more close view of this position, deeper roots are also found, closely intertwined under the surface of events with everything that happened in the world in general and in America in particular over the past four decades, that is, during the end of the Cold War.
Trump is not an impromptu history, it is not leaving, but a coming nature that belongs not so much to the past as the future. Trump as a person can cause a smile, indignation, irritation. Trump as a phenomenon should cause anxiety and desire to rethink the history of post -communism not only for the vanquished, but also for the winners.
Primary
The very first initiatives of Trump showed that he intends to cut Bayden’s legacy from his shoulder as the legacy of the whole era. In the same way, from the first steps of Putin it became clear that his ambition does not only extend to overcoming the Gorbachev-Geltsian heritage, which would still be clear, but almost to rethink everything that has been done in Russia since the time of Peter I.
If you try to bring the denominator under all the privileges (a return to the “two genders”, the procession against the “inclusion policy”, the rejection of political correctness, overcoming the “complex of guilt of the White Man” and so on), it becomes clear that we are talking about the refusal of the concept “Equality of opportunities” , which lies in the basis of the ideology of “new liberalism” .
In the first approximation, Trump is really just a reaction to distortions and imbalances of the left -handed (more precisely - left -handed) agenda, the content of which, no matter how wise words, it came to an attempt to establish “paradise on the ground” as soon as possible (“let the will be a will yours on earth as in the sky ") - that is, to achieve the maximum possible equality between people, Despite all the actual differences between them.
Actually, this leap from equality to true equality was a branded sign of “New Liberalism”, which promoted the recognition of the priority of minority rights with their special, narrow interests before the rights of the majority with its common and broad interests. At the very moment when, after the subtle setting up of the state under the philosophy of “activism”, the majority unexpectedly turned into a minority for themselves, Trump appeared with his “revolution of common sense”, the whole hidden meaning of which comes down to the fact that the majority is tired of pretending that it is in minority.
Liberal undemocracy
In a sense, the second coming allowed Trump to play the role of a boy from a fairy tale about the naked king. It turned out that one of his exclamations is enough for everyone to become obvious that the ideas and principles of “new liberalism”, so widely advertised all over the world, are not supported by the majority even where they come from, that is, in the West, not to mention the already about All other nooks for the planet.
The question arises: how could this ideology become a dominant political trend around the world, if most is indifferent to it, if not hostilely, configured?
There can be only one answer to this question - because the political system existing in the West over the past decades can be called democratic . If we leave aside the qualitative characteristics and look only at the quantitative side of the issue, now, after the triumphal return of Trump and no less triumphal procession of “Trumpism” in Europe, where the ultra -right forces breathe in the back with the traditional Grands of European Policy, it will be necessary to admit that
For decades, the course on “inclusive” did not find support from the majority of the population, but was actively supported by the state that remained free from the opinion of this population for a long time.
I emphasize that I do not raise the question of the correctness or incorrectness of the policy of “inclusive”, like many other postulates of “new liberalism”. Personally, a significant part is sympathetic to me, and even in relation to the part that is less sympathetic to me, I recognize a certain case. It's about something else: this policy did not enjoy public support, but was supported by the state . So, this state was undemocratic. "Why?" - This is a separate and very difficult question.
The vicious circle of liberalism
The history of “liberal democracy” is a great example of the fact that, even moving in the right direction, but with excessive speed, you can get into the vicious circle of history and find yourself in your rear , risking even more acceleration to rest on your own ass.
In general, the starting point for the development of the idea of “liberal democracy” was a desire to separate “true democracy” from “untying”, to show that the formal institutional solution of the problem of society control over power is not its final decision if it is not filled with corresponding liberal content, that is, is not built around the idea of human rights and freedoms. In itself, this approach does not cause objections, and did not give reasons for reproach for several centuries, while it practiced with moderate ardor.
The idea of “liberal democracy” reached its maximum functionality during the Cold War, when with its help it was convenient to draw a border between the real democracies of the conditional West with the pseudo -democracies of the conditional East. However, after the sudden death of the USSR, which made the confrontation between the “two models of democracy” an irrelevant, the concept of “liberal democracy” underwent serious changes and was reoriented to the needs of the “internal market”.
The general meaning remained the same - true democracy was contrasted with the untrue. But the parties were adjusted - the emphasis was now to protect the rights of minorities.
Accordingly, the true, that is, liberal, democracy was recognized as the rights of minorities were protected in a special way (we can say that they were provided with “inclusiveness”), and not the true - democracy, in which the majority opinion dominated.
Attacking minorities
I published an article with the same name (“attacking minorities”) in 2018 (it can easily be found on the network by name), which allows me to lower the details. I’ll add only that then, seven years ago, all this turned out to be on the periphery of attention.
It is difficult to say whether there was a historical necessity, or this was a random coincidence that changed the direction of the history of history, but the restructuring of the internal content of the concept of “liberal democracy” coincided with the next technological revolution, which supplied humanity with completely new means of communication, including the Internet, social networks , mathematical methods for processing huge data arrays. One, but far from the only, of course, the result of this next technical revolution was that small groups of people (including active minorities) were previously inaccessible to them to form the public opinion of the majority. Of course, this happened before, and many times, and yet the scale of the phenomenon has become completely different.
Minorities ceased to be as unprotected as they seemed before. Especially if it was about compact, well -organized and internally structured communities who understand what they want and who could achieve their goals. The combination of these capabilities with philosophy, which built the rights of minorities to the cult, positioning minorities (any) as a natural sacrifice of the majority and forming the majority of guilt in front of minorities, led to an unexpected result - the minorities learned to strictly impose their will on the majority, dictating the pace of social changes, to Which society as a whole was completely unnecessary .
I emphasize once again: I do not question the vector of the planned changes, considering it as a whole and correct and inevitable. We are talking about the pace, methods and the need for consensus, even if we are talking about special rights.
Union of "Sword" and "Oral"
The information revolution was not the only factor that contributed to the unnatural transformation of the concept of “liberal democracy” into the practice of “liberal undemocracy”. The second no less significant factor was the design of the “dictatorship of the bureaucracy” inside the appearance of the constitutional and legal state that is still externally.
This new (more precisely - forgotten old) power of the bureaucracy was reflected in the concept of Deep State (the deep state - not to confuse with the deep people), which reflected the existence within the democratic external political system of the insoluble and almost irremovable "substrate" from the so -called "professional mafia" - officials who have remained in their places for decades , despite countless shifts offices in government tops.
In this irremovable and indelible environment for decades, human capital was accumulated for decades, the source of the origin of which was the same tanks, of which the bulk of which took place activistically in, promoting ideology, in which the priority of state policy was the protection of the rights of “flawed minorities”.
It is not surprising that a strong political union between public activism and the newly -minted Deep State was just a matter of time. But when it took place, a variety of compact groups of activists, which promoted ideas, possibly the right, but too revolutionary for their time, got a unique opportunity to realize their ideas with the help of the state (that is, based on state coercion), bypassing the stage of their political testing through democratic Elected institutions and mechanisms of representative democracy.
On the one hand, the state promoted something that seemed to be a controversial majority of the population with its laws, and on the other hand, activists through the instruments of modern mass communications drowned out alternative points of view. Such a union of “sword” and “screaming” (from the word “yell”, that is, shout) was destructive for democracy.
Treatment of democracy with a sledgehammer
Unfortunately, democracy today needs to be repaired not only in Russia, but also in its Alma Mater. The majority uprising would have occurred in any case, sooner or later.
But you can repair differently. Apparently, this time the story chose a sledgehammer for treatment.
I am afraid, however, that very soon, few will worry about it. Just as in the late 90s in Russia, a request for “such as Putin” was first formed in Russia and only then, in fact, Putin himself appeared, in America the 20s, first a request for “such as Trump” arose, and then appeared already And Trump himself. The paradox of the situation is that Trump, and Putin, being obvious autocrats, came to power largely because long before them the state ceased to be democratic in the exact sense of the word - that is, it ceased to pursue a policy supported by the majority. These were autocrats, called up for power by a majority in order to “treat” democracy with a sledgehammer of authoritarianism.
The anti-liberal rhetoric of both causes such support in society that the type of leftist, with a shade of anarchism, a radical-aggressive “new liberalism”, which has become a dominant ideological trend in the West in general and in America, in particular, is associated in the majority with a violation of democratic principles, with a violation of democratic principles, Therefore, it is perceived as violence, as something imposed on top The "Istabrifment", which is understood as the Deep State Union with Left activism (Woking) .
The world apparently awaits a large -scale “Trumputation” of liberal democracy, but Trump and Putin themselves are nothing more than an unsuccessfully chosen history for a painful, but inevitable surgery.
The end of the "Washington consensus"
Francis Fukuyama, who made a career on the prediction of the “end of history”, can be considered in some way the forerunner of the “Washington consensus” , in the narrow sense of the word - a set of economic ideas relating to the principles and values of the market economy, based on respect for the inviolability of private property rights, and in the wide - a set of views on how the world order should be arranged, based on liberal values and principles, after, in fact, the “end of history” begins (that is, the era of a complete and irrevocable victory of liberal ideas). With the advent of Trump, it really came to an end, but not a story that feels remarkably, but a “Washington consensus”.
It is not surprising that the ideas of “new liberalism” with his accent on equality instead of equality were extrapolated on foreign policy . There they acquired a natural “decolonization” format for such ideology, that is, a policy aimed at destroying all old empires. Naturally, to the ground, in order to then erect the only and unique liberal empire in their place (so Chubais with his doctrine of the “liberal empire” for Russia was in principle in trend).
Any strength, even economic, even simple cultural influence, not to mention military power, was delegitimized as if it were led out of brackets as if it were led out of brackets. Strength - nothing, principles (freedom, democratic choice, etc.) - everything. The old empires and, above all, the Soviet (in their new hypostasis - Russian), had to disarm the force of the liberal spirit, giving freedom to everyone who made their choice in favor of Western values. But they did not disarm, did not dissolve, but applied their "illegitimate" power. As a result, a nuclear war loomed on the horizon. It became obvious that the “Washington consensus” is a beautiful utopia, which at best leads humanity into a dead end, at worst - to the exit.
Revolution of "black investors"
And again, as in the case of the general ideas of “new liberalism”, it cannot be said that in such an idealistic view of international relations there is something fundamentally vicious or even simply wrong. On the contrary, its highly humanistic principles are very sympathetic and even coincide with all the declarations adopted by the end of World War II with all the good against everything bad. Only in the real world, such ideas turned out to be like Jeromovsky Monmoraxi, who, as you know, was "too good for this life." Power can not be noticed and even ignored for quite some time, but still not endlessly. In the end, she herself will present herself in all her neglect and put on the table the most significant argument that will stop disputes - the war.
The understanding of the war, in my opinion, has become the most important trigger of an explosive burst of the right wave that carried Trump to the surface of political life. Actually, the entire revolution of “common sense” is reduced to recognition and adoption of the fact that the world (and by no means Russia) is “understood and YN ”
And in it, the force still rules the ball. Maybe not like before, but too obvious not to notice it. She was noticed how often it happens - with a breakdown.
The response to the leftist utopia about the fair "world based on the rules" was the new right -hand utopia about the "world based on strength." And if “black philosophers” started a similar revolution in Russia, then “black investors” financed it in America. Such is the correction of the political market.
The historical tragedy of Ukraine
Ukraine was not lucky in the fact that the correction of the "political markets" in the West, and primarily in America, happened on a terrible break ***. She happened a little earlier, this *** would almost certainly not have (in this both Trump and Putin, most likely, were right - they would have sat down and “play” Ukraine among themselves “according to concepts”). However, there would be no freedom of choice then, and a chance of real independence, albeit in a truncated volume (“not to get reliable glory, as long as blood is not spilled”), but most likely they would have agreed on some kind of “Georgian” or "Kazakh" scenarios.
If the correction was withdrawn, then there would be a chance to continue the “Crusade” against the Russian “Empire of Evil”, albeit with non -lobe chances to enter the world war through it.
But what happened happened - the correction passed “on the living”, in the middle of the bloody conflict - and therefore it will inevitably look like a betrayal, although in fact it is not such - after all, no one really promised anything.
На мой взгляд, Трамп во внешней политике не столько изоляционист, сколько циничный реалист, который возвращает нас в эпоху, когда мир воспринимается таким, как он есть, а не таким, каким его хотят видеть.
И если в этом реальном мире есть сила, которую пока невозможно устранить, то Трамп будет с этой силой договариваться, несмотря на все постулаты либерализма, вместе взятые. Это и есть его «революция здравого смысла», экстраполированная вовне.
Америка будет теперь бешено торговаться с Путиным и Си (на самом деле — со всеми), не заботясь о том, какие ценности и идеалы побеждают, а какие проигрывает. «Цветные» революции более не вписываются в американский бюджет, и ликвидация USAID является логичным завершением «бархатной эры». Проблема для Украины не в том, что сменилась американская администрация, а в том, что, похоже, смена администрации стала лишь символом, наружным проявлением смены эпохи и парадигм. Тектонические плиты истории разошлись, и Украина зависла над пропастью в образовавшемся ущелье.
Революция и контрреволюция Трампа
То, что случилось в Америке, выходит за рамки процессов, обычно определяемых как «смена курса». Трамп, осознанно или нет, стал орудием революции. Точнее — контрреволюции, сумевшей стать «революцией шиворот-навыворот». В Америке, по крайней мере, ничего подобного не наблюдалось с середины 60-х годов прошлого столетия, а до этого со времен Франклина Рузвельта с его «новым курсом». Это историческое событие, масштаб которого нам предстоит осознавать постфактум, подстраиваясь под него на ходу.
Последствия на данный момент предсказать очень трудно, потому что, как и любая революция, трампистская эпопея будет развиваться иррационально, подчиняясь лишь своей собственной логике и будучи разгоняемой вырвавшимися наружу противоречиями эпохи «нового либерализма», копившимися слишком долго, чтобы их можно было разрешить «по-хорошему».
Трамп, безусловно, наломает много дров. Есть шанс, что он вместе с дровами сломает хребет не только Америке, но и всему этому миру (впрочем, такой шанс у человечества есть практически всегда). Но когда и если это цунами пройдет, то в хорошем случае на смену ему придет (должна, по логике вещей, прийти) обновленная либеральная идеология, очищенная от левацко-анархистских закидонов, приспособленная к реалиям цифрового мира с его горизонтальными массовыми коммуникациями, то есть настоящий новый либерализм безо всяких кавычек.
Однако это если повезет. И уж в любом случае до этого придется полетать в трубе турбулентности, по сравнению с тягой в которой уровень завихрений путинизма покажется жалкой имитацией настоящей бури в пустыне.
This material was released in the fifth issue of the New Gazeta. Magazine". You can buy it in the online store of our partners .