Кто владеет информацией,
|20 jan 2017|
We Also Need Other Russia
Fedoseev Ilya 20.07.2007
Already for several months association under the name "Other Russia" draws to itself general attention. "Other Russia" is interesting to both - press (judging from the quantity of publications) and authority (judging from the quantity of special service police units in the days of "Marches of Not Consent").
As if to the Russian left (alas, meanwhile they are not numerous and deprived of influence) there is no agreement of opinion in their environment in connection to "drugorusses" though generally they tend to support this organization. This article is going to bring a little bit more clarity in the question about "Other Russia".
For same purpose it's necessary first of all to understand its class nature. Abundantly clear that there will be no "Other Russia", if there was no in the Russian society objective need for it (baizes about awful Americans capable to arrange color revolution in any place on the globe for a heap of dollars we shall leave to the Kremlin propagandists). As you known, where there's a demand, there is a supply. But who exactly needs "Other Russia"? And what for?
To answer these questions is necessary to look narrowly at the today's, not other Russia structure - to the Russian State as Karamzin and Prokhanov would say. What kind of structure is it and whose interests it serves?
Actually the Russian arms, a double eagle, very accurately reflects the essence of the state by he name the Russian Federation. The Russian ruling class, as well as at the bird mentioned, has one body but two heads. These heads are - bureaucracy and large bourgeoisie. In other words, the state, as a matter of fact, is a private corporation which only mission is - maximum profit of the share holders. The number of the share holders, for sure, is strictly restricted.
There are no insuperable partitions inside the ruling class. The official can become an oligarch, an oligarch - the official as we have observed many times. He can be official and oligarch simultaneously. For example, if the top-manager of "Gazprom" - the bureaucrat or the bourgeois? It's hardly possible to answer at once.
One head of the Russian eagle actively guzzles everything he can reach, other - protects food of the first head from encroachments using its beak. All others are - strangers on this holiday.
Shut-out to the Table
The number of these "others" enter not only hired workers (it is possible to call them "proletariat" but so, I think, will be more clear) but also petty and average bourgeoisie. Its interests are not considered in a state policy at all, it has no representatives in authority. Parliamentary parties existing in Russia are not in contact with population, including petty bourgeoisie, but constantly keeps in touch with authority. An input in the legal, parliamentary policy in our country is tightly closed - there are no plans to open it in the foreseeable future.
"Bourgeoisie" is a noun. However in our conditions it is far not so important as adjectives - they, as a matter of fact, change all social nature of the phenomenon. The large bourgeoisie is almost exclusively focused on the world market, whereas petty and average - on internal. In this case the picture of a life of pre-revolutionary Russia, drawn by Boris Kagarlitsky in the book "Peripheral Empire" almost completely repeats.
Meanwhile the Russian petty and average bourgeoisie has already ripened both economically and politically. But there is no access to it in the state system. In opinion of the ruling bureaucracy it is just the object for robbery deprived of civil rights. Economist Michael Deljagin in the work "Punishment on a Threshold" has excellently shown interest of that class in radical change of a political system.
Interests of petty bourgeoisie are expressed by "Other Russia". Certainly, it's a question only of interests and not of social structure of the movement - in this sense it's extremely motley.
What does this interest consist of? The main item in which practically all participants of the movement are together is that the state should release a society from the universal vigilant control. Functions of the governmental authority are supposed to be narrowed considerably by depriving of its ability to get into all spheres of human life. All the rest is - on the second place.
Freedom from the state control (and - let's be frank to the end - the state robbery) is required to domestic petty bourgeoisie. "Other Russia" promises it. Though "Fair Russia" of Sergey Mironov is also name half-jokingly "socialist-revolutionaries" but actually just "Other Russia" is very similar to the socialist-revolutionaries of centenary prescription. Vladimir Golyshev being close to this organization, the editor of site Nazlobu.ru, wrote in his program article "Nationalism Which Will Win": "Communities, benefiting from the policy of encouragement of "non-Russian quazi nationalism"..., render to the operating country leaders invaluable service, superseding the local majority of the spheres forming the petty-bourgeois environment - the basic motive power of national revival" (it is underlined in the original). In other words, "Other Russia" is - the political agent of petty bourgeoisie. Certainly, alongside with people realizing the sociopolitical function, in the ranks of this movement there is a significant number of citizens which for some reason are not satisfied with the present mode. In this case the name of the movement very truly reflects its essence. Which Russia? Just "other" - not similar to the present one, not Putin's one.
Certainly, petty and average bourgeoisie have realized their interests still far not up to the end. The funny case with Michael Kasyanov who was once seriously designated in leaders of "Other Russia" proves it. Actually, for sure, this disgraced grandee suited to the leaders of opposition in no way. Some Russian blogger very precisely compared Kasyanov with Samokhvalov from immortal film "Office romance". In such situation it was possible to act only Yeltsin-like: stigmatize angrily privileges of the elite, go by public transport and in every way show ones democracy. But Kasyanov was not capable of doing such things. However, the process of realization of own interests among petty bourgeois runs in a groove and it can propose adequate leader for sure.
Orally "Other Russia" shows desire to return to the situation of 1990th years - to the times of Yeltsin's presidency, not encroaching on greater. However, this movement actually is directed on weakening positions of ruling bureaucracy and releasing of a society from its control (that was not actually present in the last decade). Practically, it is a question of liquidation of notorious "verticals of authority" and liquidations of existing half-monarch mode. It is rather probable that in case of arrival of "drugorosses" to power, the functions of the president will be considerably restricted, may be this very post will even be cancelled.
But whether "Other Russia" can win? Most likely it will win indeed - though it's not for sure that in the nearest years. Even if the Kremlin will manage to liquidate this movement, something else will appear instead of it - because as it was already said - there is a need for it and it is deep-rooted. The stronger will be position of petty and average bourgeoisie in our society - the more chances "Other Russia" will have for victory.
It's another question, whether this movement, having come to authority can liquidate the problems which have generated it? For sure it cannot. Firstly, the majority of today's problems were originated in the questions of property - but "drugorosses" do not dare to encroach it. Besides... Well, yes, today's large bourgeoisie (that is tenderly called oligarches) cannot exist outside of close symbiosis with the state. But whether petty and average bourgeoisie can exist without such symbiosis? Let me have a doubt. At least ninety years ago this class by itself appeared to be weak and inviable - it predicted collapse of socialists-revolutionaries and Menshiviks in a course of revolution and domestic war.
But what can we do - we, who are (or at least constitute themselves) left? At least, today, at this stage we are on one way with "Other Russia". The enemy is - bureaucratic monster - we have one and the same.
The victory of drugorosses is also favourable to us. Left and working-class movement in the country gains in strength and it's possible to suppress it only by superrepressive state of a name of Vladimir Putin. If in Russia appeared people who are going to pull out at least part of the teeth of this state - it will be an error not to help such people.
Meanwhile "Other Russia" longing to its aims objectively contributes us to reach ours. It's not worthy to amalgamate "Other Russia" - but it's necessary to help it.
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk