The Russian Totalitarianism. Freedom here and now. Dmitrii Shusharin

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ in 1989. All the same populism, the fight against corruption and privileges, complete misunderstanding of what is happening in the former Soviet republics, now sovereign states. And contempt for business, businessmen, “profiteers”. In general, the lumpen-intelligentsia is certain that it should be in power, that the government should listen to its advice and treat them preferentially.

      The progressive public does not react at all to the systematic repression and destruction of small and medium-sized businesses, although this is the same bourgeoisie that, as the third estate, has grown to the nation, demanding equal rights of man and citizen and a democratic rule. It’s a different story with the clientele around oligarchs, even those fallen into disfavor, like Khodorkovsky Company. But the intelligentsia, even in the service and maintenance of the bourgeoisie, keeps the old contemptuous attitude. Well, what rights they can deserve! Profiteers! … Their ideal is the alliance of a progressive general secretary with the progressive intelligentsia, as in perestroika time, in order to jointly control these profiteers.

      Modern Russia has no subject of democratic changes, which can constitute the essence and basis of modernization. These changes are not for the sake of profit, but for the benefit of the fatherland and humanity. To save honor, not property; soul, not comfort. The last thing is to connect the hopes for freedom and democracy with someone’s pragmatic, utilitarian, selfish ambitions.

      Therefore, the search for a subject of modernization of Russia, a force that has the potential to take the lead in civilized development of the country, certainly should not be conducted on a class basis. The world’s national bourgeoisie fulfilled their historical mission only rising above their class interests, leading the movements of the whole nation, which most often grew out of resistance to power, which has always been guarding its own interests.

      And the authorities don’t bother to hide their attitude to their own capitalists and the right to private property, which is reflected in the statements made by those who must protect this right. As the chairman of the Constitutional Court Zorkin said, “the myth that, despite dubious privatization, an effective class of proprietors has been created in the country, collapsed following the financial crisis.” He added: “The crisis is an occasion to conduct an inventory and identify legal defects of the privatization processes of the 1990s”, conducted along the “radical neoliberal matrix”. " After the economic crisis the age of liberal legal technologies became a thing of the past,” concluded Mr. Zorkin.36

      These words did not entail a centralized nationalization, but the YUKOS affair signalized the permissibility of raiding across the entire vertical of power in accordance with the status of the raider. The main thing is to “take according to your rank” (an old Russian saying about the rules of bribery).

      As for the businesses of a different level, the historic mark was “The Night of the Long Scoops” in Moscow, when hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses were destroyed, with their outdoor concession stands demolished in a one-night action, the legality of which, in most cases, was confirmed by judicial decisions. It was then, in February 2016, the Mayor of Moscow, Sergei Sobyanin, described the relationship of power to the right of private property:

      “The demolition of illegal buildings in Moscow is a clear example of the fact that the truth, heritage, history of our country is not for sale. You cannot hide behind pieces of paper about the property, acquired through obviously fraudulent means. We will return Moscow to Muscovites. Its squares, plazas, streets – open, beautiful, beloved.”37

      The speechwriters of the Moscow mayor deserve credit for their skills. Their words appeal to the community’s consciousness, suggest the idea of the immorality of private property, and most importantly, indicate the non-recognition of legal acts, including court decisions, that were taken under the predecessor of the current mayor. The right of ownership must be reaffirmed every time as the new people assume the high office.

      Actually, this situation is a consequence of the absence of stable power institutions and politically and economically independent social communities. Appeal to the middle class is meaningless, since the appellants themselves are not able to determine the composition and distinctive features of the class. Property characteristics are not identical with social ones, and it is useless to talk about millions of owners of apartments and small household plots.

      The main value of the middle class is its political and economic independence. And here we are faced with another paradox: how can one appeal to an economically independent social group after several years of policy of destroying the political independence of the population? And, except for declarations, there are no signs of encouraging economic independence. Moreover, when we talk about property characteristics, the polarization of society is revealed.

      It should be noted that the Russian population lost both political and economic independence without much resistance. The population expected to participate in the sharing of petrodollars, whether direct budget payments, or various types of private entrepreneurship opportunities. The innovative potential of the middle strata (let’s call them so) is very doubtful, and to declare them a creative class is a distortion of the truth.

      The most reasonable would be to admit that there is simply no middle class in Russia. That this term, which denotes a certain second-order proprietary, and firstly an axiological community is not applicable to modern Russia, for the middle class means primarily certain models of social behavior and goal setting, rather than ways of obtaining income and ownership of properties.

      But it is very difficult to part with the myth of the middle class for those who consider themselves to be opposition and are constantly trying to prove that this class is interested in democracy and a free market. Like, it is the only support of democracy, because it is profitable. And the members of this class understand this, therefore…

      This is a fundamental mistake. Democracy, unlike totalitarianism, is not rationally asserted. Its advantages cannot be logically proved, because they are not identifiable. Democracy either becomes part of personal self-identification, and on this basis leads public and national identity, or not. And it was not I who came up with this notion.

      Neither was I, who discovered other things. It is for this reason that democracy carries a totalitarian potential. It is rationally vulnerable at the ordinary level. And at higher levels too. As for the middle class, it was the backbone of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet. What is being observed now in Russia testifies about the conscious policy aimed at reducing the population size at the expense of unproductive social groups, lowering the educational and cultural level and the impoverishment of significant part of the population.

      Putin does all this in the interests of his own middle class. Which was not invented by the ignorant but progressive intelligentsia, but a real, established over the last fifteen years around the oil and gas profit beneficiaries, law enforcement agencies, in state corporations, the civil service, in the media. This is all Putin’s middle class, a totalitarian breed.

      Consumerism and pedocracy

      Neo-totalitarian model, preceding the current system, is associated with the name of Vladislav Surkov, who served as deputy head of the presidential administration, later transferred to the government. This character, naturally demonized, is interesting, in particular, by the fact that he the one who facilitated the continuity between the nineties and Putin’s rule. The neo-totalitarian model presupposed the consolidation of the society on the basis of such principles as sovereign democracy, pragmatic patriotism, careerism and consumerism.

      The turning point in the formation СКАЧАТЬ