Russian political analyst Dmitry Nekrasov, in connection with another scandal, during which journalist Oleg Kashin complained about the persecution by the team of Alexey Navalny (Navalny's opponents were actively spreading the rumor that his wife Yulia's father collaborated with the KGB), drew attention to the true reasons for the occurrence this kind of events. Indeed, why is the practice of desperate persecution of political, and not only, opponents so widespread in Russia?
“In the 1930s, many people were also sincerely perplexed when they became victims, and before that they were also completely sincerely, without a shadow of doubt and with righteous anger, poisoned previous victims...”, - Nekrasov notes. And explains why this is happening:
“...There is such a book “Russian model of management” by A. Prokhorov (not an oligarch). Perhaps one of the best books about the peculiarities of Russian management and even more - Russian civilization.
Among the theses of this book there are two of these (I will greatly simplify):
1. In Russia, in comparison with the West, the role of interpersonal competition is lower and the role of competition between packs (sects, schools, clans) is much higher.
2. The result of the competition of packs in Russia is determined to a much greater extent by the ability of the pack to destroy other packs than by the ability to demonstrate the actual result. Whereas in the West, most of the competition between packs for resources occurs in the form of competition among results to achieve them, in Russia the peak of competition is shifted to the period until results are achieved. The winner and receiver of the most part of the resources is the bander that was able to discredit and deprive other banders of resources even BEFORE any result could in principle be achieved.
As a result, the winning bander receives some (not the fact that the optimal) result, which is used due to the lack of alternatives, simply because as a result of the game of destruction, other banders could not achieve any result, being deprived of resources at an earlier stage.
(That is, in some part, there is competition of results in Russia too. The question is in different proportions. And in general Prokhorov also deduces from this many strengths of the Russian model of management. I simplified the picture to illustrate my theses, otherwise I refer to the original source)
A few quotes from Prokhorov itself:
“Even in such a seemingly delicate sphere as science and art, as soon as a new direction in painting, literature, music or theater is outlined, then the supporters of this direction immediately form a closed sect and begin to desperately enmity with others. directions, revile them with the last words...".
“Actually, in science the result should speak for itself - discoveries and publications, in literature - circulation of magazines, in art - sold out houses and queues at the box office. But our writers, artists, actors, scientists for some reason do not wait for the public to come to them and recognize their success. They stray into banders-clusters and from the first steps prove that their teaching, their direction, their school are the only true and correct, and most of their energy is spent not on creating themselves and establishing their scientific or artistic direction, but on to crush rival schools, spending time and energy on journalistic, administrative and political struggle with them".
"And what forms did the struggle of scientific schools acquire in Russia [in the 1930s - 1950s]. In almost any science, after a brutal mutual war, one school was declared the only correct one, the rest were persecuted".
“In the West, [banders] are focused on [improving product quality] to attract more viewers. [In Russia] the scientific, artistic and literary schools from the very beginning are determined to crush the competitor, to create confidence in the public and the state in the pseudoscience and malicious squalor of everyone else.
The new theater school is not just fighting for existence, it proves that any normal person can only go to the performances of this theater school. And all the rest - to close and prohibit. Scientific schools claim to liquidate hostile research institutes, hostile departments, close scientific journals..." "Literary groupings do not want to wait for their editions to grow and the circulations of competing journals fall. They seek either the administrative closure of other people's publications, or their capture".
“In the management systems of Western countries, the redistribution of resources in favor of the winner is the result of competition, its outcome. In Russia, the redistribution of resources unfolds from the very beginning, even before competitors have received the final result of their activities...”.
Doesn't it look like anything?
I have been thinking for a long time about why our opposition mainstream is so intolerant, obsessed with the search for "murzilki" and "cleanliness of the ranks." In general, little different from the Bolsheviks of the 20-30s. Once I explained this for myself by the personal characteristics of Navalny himself: the inability to play as a team and the unwillingness to build equal relations. However, completely similar processes unfold in any other banders. The further, the more I understand that this is rather a consequence of the general features of our cultural code, and not of specific people.
And it is not the political pack that can show the best result that can win in Russian conditions, but only the one that sincerely and selflessly spends its resources on defaming other similar packs.
Only when applied to politics, the victory of such a bander can in no way lead to those positive changes, the struggle for which is proclaimed on their banners. It is only possible to reproduce the same "Russian model of government" with the same shortcomings, but with different surnames..."