Posted 7 ноября 2022, 07:23
Published 7 ноября 2022, 07:23
Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:55
Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:55
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
It was she who allowed us to consider society not as communities of individuals, but as accumulations of biological organisms. Radically unequal already due to a combination of circumstances - such as place of residence, quality of life, immunity, rules and laws at the moment. Democracy was squeezed in the vice of momentary pseudo-humanism, whose name is "survival". And now spontaneous (viral) destruction has been replaced by "rational", in the name of "traditional values". Tradition and empire are worse than any infection.
Against the backdrop of global destabilization, disassembly in the Russian elites looks more like a vulgar carnival. So, for example, attempts to present Ksenia Sobchak as an “oppositionist”, “fighter against the regime” and “persecuted” look like a foul-smelling provocation and (or) cheap PR. Moreover, it includes not only biased and paid LOMS and bloggers, but also a naively enthusiastic audience that is secretly or clearly fascinated by Ksenia's specific talents.
Postsovok is built on a secret respect for scammers and swindlers. This is what the same Sobchak looks like for many. Journalist Arina Kholina writes about Sobchak's interview with the famous intriguer Anna Delvi:
“In Russia, you have a lot of fans, in Russia they love scammers very much, Ostap Bender is a national hero,” Sobchak says to Anna Delvi. WHAAA? Maybe Mavrodi is also a national hero? This position seems to explain a lot for Ksenia herself. Bender has always been the hero of the crooks and thieves of the 90s. Like Tony Montana (Scarface) is a thug/thug hero of the same period. Bender, of course, is a very charismatic literary character, but he was invented as one of the murky types of that crazy time, that horror, poverty and devastation from which Ilf and Petrov saved with their incredible wit.
But Kholina's view is the exception rather than the rule. So, for example, one domestic intellectual from nationalism writes about another completely pseudo-intellectual:
“Galkovsky is smart not because he speaks smart. But because he divorced R. for grandmas, beat off the bride from his podpos, divorced his sect for grandmas (so that there was enough for an office in Iceland), and gave birth to children. Now he is sitting alive, healthy and contented with life (unlike many), trolling people on YouTube, and it seems to him that he will also be well donated for this.
Here it is, the "Russian man's" idea of success! That is why people with such an approach are not accepted in Europe. And not only because they are afraid of deception. Rather, because they are just squeamish. Unfortunately, fake reality breeds deceit and scams everywhere, not just where they are conceived. So a number of political scientists and artists who left, in their reflections on political prospects, rested inability to sell them to the West. Sell, of course, not in the literal sense. But at least it's good to present. But to be honest, first of all with ourselves, we do not currently have a political program and tactics for this brand. And not because we are not creative. But because the political situation now forces us to solve completely different and more important problems.
Alas, often the results of public cultural gatherings are such predictable conclusions in their banality, such as: “Wandering for 40 years” (necessary). Russians are stupid people. "After dictatorship there will be only dictatorship." Nothing more politically unconstructive and culturally banal can be imagined. And most importantly - this is an excellent program "How can we not equip Russia and never come to power."
Russians - people - "scapegoat". On which everyone decided to blame everything, including the departed compatriots. Russians are people who have been subjected to a terrible social experiment for more than a century - socialism with terror and genocide, which ended in rashism. For some reason, those who are now kicking the Russians are not kicking the Germans. Although (unlike me) they draw historical analogies. Notice they only say "Hitler". Such a position is the reverse side of hysterical love for grandfathers and birch trees, patriotic hysterical hysterics. In fact, these are two sides of the same coin. False dichotomy "love-hate", a marker of latent consistency. The Russian people are as bad as they were made to be. But you did not study, but only fenced off from it.
Political scientist M., meanwhile, sang a "speech of hopelessness." So beautiful that if it didn't exist, it would have to be invented. Everything was there. From “why we can’t and don’t want” to “why we won’t” and why “not we”. I quote:
“From “us”, i.e. one thing is expected of those who are “generally involved in this”: that we will point the finger at some group - a “stratum”, “community”, “social group” with which “hope” is associated. Is she not? But it doesn't matter that she isn't. We must construct it discursively so that it "begins to appear." If we cannot point to such a group in Russian society, then everything else is just “chewing on the footcloth of authoritarianism,” and in this case we will be told: move away from the aisle. And they will do it without our participation.”
In general, it is not clear why the local intellectuals go to political science and back. And in circles. The local intellectuals (well, so be it, intellectuals) do not seek tangible benefits, they do not strive for power. They are looking for a strong group to join and serve for more than modest preferences. Therefore, some of them used to serve the authorities, then the non-existent bulkism or the conditional “collective West”. Which, however, also does not exist. There are individual subjects and groups representing individual interests. People (!) agree with people (!) That is the whole secret of world politics. Instead of looking for some kind of “stratum”, it would be worth taking care of your own political subjectivity, that is, becoming this stratum yourself.
Such a depressing "public consensus" essentially boils down to the fact that it is easier for its representatives to bury Russia than to start radically transforming it. The problem is that this opinion is being imposed as a true, objective, almost "political program". Whereas those who think in this way should act honestly and leave the field for political subjects. Here, according to the old Soviet habit, they want to "take a place" so as not to share with anyone what they themselves do not have. We can focus not on a stratum, but only on a few key figures. It is they (the political subjects, which, by definition, are few) that drive the historical process. The rest will be forced to obey him due to circumstances.