Кто владеет информацией,
|9 dec 2016|
Baranov Anatoly 15.11.2006
One curious thing happened one of those days in Russian political arena - Sergey Ervandovich quarrelled with Gennady Andreevich. Or may be vice versa. Or may be they didnt quarrel but were quarrelled. But the result appeared to be quite expected: both became targets.
Now retired schizophrenics are discussing who is in a greater degree "azef - Kurginyan or Zyuganov, are telling stories from those times when its not possible to check who said or did this or that.
Zyuganov reproaches Kurginyan in reception of the elite real estate within the limits of Sadovoe ring - that is the truth. Kurginyan reminds an application made on TV by Zyuganov on the 2nd of October, 1993 - and its also the truth. The truth is so specific that it can be interesting after one and a half tens years to a rather limited circle of people. The fact that on reputation of both politicians fat spots were formed - is today's fact.
Lets do like this, from the end: if (by the way, from submission of the first secretary of Moscow City Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation of that time Prokofev) Sergey Kurginyan would not participate in privatization of the capital real estate now there will be no independent and self-financed projects. In general, it is known, how Kurginyan disposed of the resource which he formed no foreign real estate, no casino, no brothels. There is a club, really, located inside of Sadovoe ring but its not a profitable house, it is the humanitarian project. If everybody who received something from Moscow City Committee disposed of it in the same way
Now what does Kurginjan reproach Zyuganov with?
"Zyuganov is one of nine co-chairmen of the Federal Tax Service. He together with others supervises over street actions. But - up to a turning point!
On the 2nd of October, 1993 he appears on television with an appeal not to participate in meetings and strikes. Here is what he says in conversation with the chief editor of "Soviet Russia" on November, 21st, 1997: "Few hours prior to the tragedy in October, 1993 I applied to refuse active performances. If I was listened to then, there would be no dispersal of the Union, no deaths and wounds.
It is a well-known logic of "ambiguous peacemakers": "if in 1905 there was no armed revolt, there would be no victims". But at least its a logic! And Zyuganov in the next lines of the same conversation "If then when the execution of the parliament had been preparing would send working collectives on Moscow streets, they would block roads to tanks that went on execution and nothing would happen"".
Lets try again from the end. And - dialectically, that is in a binding to real time and real events.
When did Zyuganov appeal to working collectives to go out into the streets? In the 20th of September, after appearance of the order №1400.
When did Zyuganov called the supporters to leave the streets? On October, 2nd, when the House of Councils was in dense blockade, military units faithful to a mode were strapped into the city and the outcome of forthcoming storm was extremely clear. Collectives didnt appear, workers did not begin to protect workers'-and-peasants' authority.
How should responsible leader act? You are right, to try to prevent senseless victims. He failed once again
In the same issue "Zavtra" where Kurginyans article against Zyuganov is published, theres material of Sergey Zagatin where precisely similar behaviour of Rogozin before "Russian March" is admitted to be correct and fair. If there is no opportunity to break situation no reason to risk people.
And then, probably, on October, 2nd Sergey Ervandovich examined Rochdelskaya Street through recess of "Kalashnikov's" sight, ready to die for authority of the Soviet Union and he was sorry that in such situation for Gennady Andreevich's words. But lets examine the leading and directing force to which S.E.Kurginyan refers to to the Front of the National Salvation, Zyuganov being one of 9 co-chairman.
Co-chairmen of Federal Tax Service were established M.G.Astafiev, S.N.Baburin, G.A.Zyuganov, V.A.Ivanov, V.B.Isakov, I.V.Konstantinov, A.M.Mashashov, N.A.pavlov, G.V.Saenko. Political Committee of Federal Tax Service joined except for co-chairmen V.I.Alksnis, V.I.Belov, E.V.Volodin, S.P.Goryacheva, V.I.Ilyahin, S.Y.Kunyaev, M.I.Lapshin, N.N.Lisenko, V.G.Rasputin, A.T.Tuleev, S.Z.Umalatova, I.R.Shafarevich, etc
As we see, none of the mentioned people fell a victim of a bloody mode, wasnt wounded or at least scratched. Moreover, a number of the listed persons are quite safely arranged and built in this most antinational mode with which Zyuganov - continues to struggle as he can do it.
Does he struggle badly? Badly. Show the one who does it better.
The matter is that the mode has won. It has completely won on all fronts, it has humiliated and has outraged everyone who was against and those who was for it but from time to time doubted. There is no sphere of life where it would not affirm and has not marked a corner by its caustic flow.
The only thing that it could not create is moral authorities. Ksusha Sobchak or Maxim Galkin couldnt be in reality being treated as conscience of nation? We have many famous people and nobody at it even can plainly say why they are only shown by TV. But no one from those who acquired popularity in the last 10-15 years can be treated as the voice of conscience or at least mind. Only a voice from a TV-set.
Everything on what the moral authority of authority keeps is received by it in the inheritance from a former Soviet life, many times humiliated and scolded. Even Putin's authority keeps on the fact that during Soviet time he was the lieutenant colonel of investigation and the champion of Leningrad on sambo-wrestling. The fact that he was the first assistant of the governor of Petersburg, the chief of the Control-Auditing Department of Administration of the president and director of FSB is being mentioned casually.
The authority which has developed in Russia is not capable by its nature to create moral authorities. But it is capable to spoil what it inherited from the past. Why should we help it in this matter?
This is the main and may be the only thing weak place of the modern Russian bourgeois reality where opposition has a solving overweight - bourgeoisie does not appeal to moral categories, in the bourgeois world morals - is a destiny of those who lose, something reducing competitiveness in the market.
Though, actually theres no national bourgeoisie in Russia. In the sense that national bourgeoisie in Russia is not a ruling class, it is oppressed and humiliated as well as any other class in the Russian society. And may be even more - by virtue of the fact that there is something that can be taken away from fine and average bourgeoisie.
Ruling class which we have (and theres everywhere) is so-called "world bourgeoisie". For ruling class globalization and postindustrial world have already come long time ago, the world bourgeoisie lives everywhere and nowhere though, certainly, has favourite places of dwelling, for example, London. But representatives of a class of world bourgeoisie have a happy opportunity to live on all surface of a planet, not holding down themselves by national or state frameworks. It can simply float on world ocean on a supercomfortable yacht operating the actives through the satellite channel.
We have no oligarchs and oligarchy its artificial term that means nothing. 10 years ago journalists were paid 50 dollars per hour for 1 mentioning of the word oligarch in the central newspaper. Society was trained to this word, to this term.
In reality those who are called oligarchs in our country is that small part of major national bourgeois which managed to join class of world bourgeois. Classical examples Abramovich, Potanin, Fridman.
Why the term oligarch doesnt reflect the essence of the question?
Because, according to the term, oligarch is someone who due to his wealth buys power. But theres nothing of the kind in nature. Power cant be sold to private hands. Power of the class of the world bourgeois is not personified, its collective. Hodorkovsky didnt want to understand it, he failed to understand who he is in reality; he decided that hes an oligarch in reality, tried to buy some power to himself and suffered a defeat.
The world is ruled by the world bourgeoisie but it is a class ruling in its interests
Directly under a class of world bourgeoisie there is an estate of national bureaucracy. And here it is very important to understand conditions of hierarchy.
President Putin as the chapter of the Russian national bureaucracy, certainly, is subordinated to a class of world bourgeoisie. But inside of the country he, certainly, is "more important" than any of the representatives of a world class. Personally Putin, certainly, is more important and stronger person than Abramovich but in social class plan Abramovich belongs to a higher level than Putin.
Moreover, the authority of a class of world bourgeoisie above the supreme representatives of national bureaucracy just also is carried out in many respects owing to that high bureaucrat is eager to enter the category of the world bourgeois. This is the nature of power oligarchy of Putin and that is its dependence from the world ruling class.
The trouble of
In this situation to speak about any empire is simply impossible. What can one say about the empire, if "emperor" only dreams of its merging" or exchange on the stock of shares in the world corporation?
Certainly, creation of empire "from above", White Empire - is possible - when the national bureaucracy enters competitive relations with world bourgeoisie, builds parallel (perpendicular?) center of force as it was at Hitler in Germany or Alexander III in Russia.
But where can be found today in Russia such super activist national bureaucracy which to maintain success of the project will put in pawn own life? No matter how one treats Hitler, he and his nearest environment made the rate in imperial game the precious skin. And Nikolay II, the close relative of all European monarches, after renunciation of a throne asked Provisional Government to leave him only "darling to his heart Livadiya" - in Crimea and not in London citizen Romanov intended to spend the end of his life, but he was not fortunate.
This is an explanation of the fact that the modern Russian authority does not create own authorities: in the absence of communication with the country, in parasitism of elite, in non-probability of victim from this elite.
Red Empire associating with Stalin was created on blood by virtue of what both Stalin and Stalin's commissars perfectly realized that in the Europe they would be accompanied to the nearest wall. Therefore the success or defeat of the USSR meant for them to live or not to live. And a life was not treated as the supreme value Stalins commissars easily parted not only with somebodys else but also with their own lives.
And what is very important is that Red project arises only from below, through blood and deprivations, through suffering and clarification of all thickness of people, not only its separate representatives or layers.
Stalin himself refused to get out of captivity his son Jacob and against another son, Vasily, Stalin initiated criminal case on charge in abusings.
Khruschev was the first in the country who left authority and thus remained alive. But what did he get? A summer residence and a kitchen garden with cucumbers.
Brezhnev had personal authority not comparable to anything in the modern world including authority to destroy the whole world by pressing of well-known "button". What did remain after his death to the successors? Nothing! Even in Brezhnev's apartment on Leninsky Prospect Hasbulatov lives.
They left only the country in the inheritance.
The present authority openly eats this great inheritance. Half of the country they have already «guzzled» having released in free navigation former Soviet republics. Today the core of the state authority is being eaten in exchange to the right of Putins oligarchy to seat somewhere between the Windsors and Bill Gates.
What today resists to it? Only the Red project which is presented for today by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and personally by Zyuganov. Are there variants? No, there are no variants. Probably, they will appear. But today the moral inheritance of the Soviet epoch has been collected in communistic movement, in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Mainly just because others - cleverer, more fine and intelligent bloody hell! refused under different pretexts from this inheritance. They changed it for something as collection of stamps.
In fact there is nothing easier than to refuse from inheritance thus taking away the burden of former obligations. Its very easy like self-castration.
Snip! And no problems!
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk