Кто владеет информацией,
|23 jan 2017|
Fedoseev Ilya 01.04.2008
Protest actions against social and economic rate carried out by the Kremlin took place all throughout 90th years of the last century (though fading by the end of decade). If in the beginning of the 90th such actions had rather mass character and looked terribly enough at first sight, closer to the end of Yeltsin's presidency they degenerated in ritual actions. People gathered, listened to speeches of wise orators, scanned «Yeltsin's Gang on the Dock!» - and went home.
However such concourses proceeded in new millenium and take place also today. How do authorities react to them? Certainly such meetings were forbidden and dispersed; it happened sometimes that not without violence. However such things happened basically only before October events of 1993. Then the mode finally felt its force - and understood that it's possible not to be afraid of meetings. Further in the majority of cases they were carried out absolutely legally and the authority pretended that noticed nothing.
"Dissenters Marches" appeared in the middle of the current decade cause completely different reaction. Authority tries in every possible way not to not allow them and if it is impossible - to surround it with such quantity of armed militia that the city seems to be occupied. Meanwhile, on its mass character (as well as on its aggression) they do not go in any comparison with "red" performances of 15-years old. Even now meetings of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation gather not less people. Nevertheless the Kremlin is not afraid of them. While "Dissenters" - it's obviously afraid.
Is it paradoxical? Only at first sight.
The matter is that for last years the Russian middle class got stronger and formed. Certainly, this public group, strictly speaking is impossible to name a class in Marxist sense of a word - people in it are united mainly on a level of incomes. However, no matter how strange it is, this strata has acquired class consciousness - consciousness of petty bourgeoisie. Hardly the fact that significant part of middle class - are people of hired (though intellectual) labour that is proletarians can change something. These people see the world, think and act - like petty bourgeois. It is one of the cases when subjective is victorious over objective.
The fine bourgeoisie was always in «peripheral empire» of Russia, first of all, castaway, for the second - powerful factor of instability. Judge for yourself. The main capitalist in Russia - is the state (both till 1917 and after 1991). Integrated with it (to be exact, overgrown from it) large capital acts as the younger partner of the Western capital. World market - is the main interest for both of them (the basic goods - grain before revolution, oil and gas - now). What then should fine and average capital fastened on the national market do? Its interests are not interested in general to anybody, while authority takes them into account only in rare cases.
Politics, as you know, is continuation of economy by other means. Political liberalism always was ideology of petty and average bourgeoisie. Petty bourgeois wants to have multi-party system, parliament, free elections, non-censored press... In the West where fine and average capital has (more precisely, had before epoch of globalization) big weight, all this is present in good supply. Whether we are worse?
Well, we are not worse - simply our empire is peripheral, called to provide first of all needs of the world market. Therefore our parliament - is not parliament, elections - are not elections and parties - are not parties and everything is solved by the grace of the president of all Russia.
For certain someone will recollect 1990th years here. It's true, by the time we had though groaty but parliament (though nothing depend on it but it was already done). There was also a press which could print something without approval of the heads. The matter is that Russia of Yeltsin's times was not really capitalist. It was then so to say an epoch of construction of capitalism, time of creation of a class of proprietors and forming of bourgeois relations. Yeltsin was not the god. He, certainly, could say: «So be capitalism» - but capitalism would not be established in a flash because of it.
It was formed only to the beginning of new decade. Gradual suffocation of liberal freedom happened then is connected with it - and not at all with personality of «a bad man and topping fellow» Putin. If the Russian history is capable to teach something - that only to that capitalism in Russia can be only autocratic, authoritative... So - any but not liberal.
Judge for yourself. Embedding of Russia into the world capitalist system fully took place at Peter I. Already in five years after Peter's death, in 1730 there was the first attempt to limit autocracy (I mean, certainly, well-known "standards"). To know the end, look in the textbook of history. All subsequent feeble efforts to limit arbitrariness of the monarch were also unsuccessful - and, however, they did not stop till 1917. Once it looked as though it was successful - in 1905 Russia became «almost» liberal. Reolutionary movement weakened only a bit - Nikolay II, so to say, «tore off manifest» and everything remained as used to be. In a word, historical experience proves: bourgeois Russia can be only autocratic Russia and there is no other way.
Here - petty bourgeoisie with the requirements of parliamentalism, free press etc. That is why these people are dangerous - they, according to expression of Brothers Strugatsky, «wishing strange». Paradox, actually, is that the Russian petty bourgeoisie, on the one hand, is an integral part of capitalist system and can't exist outside of it. On the other hand, it, not understanding anything, opposes its deepest bases which can be expressed in presence of Tsar - Father, the Lord's Anoited president or bloody KGB. In a sense it is similar to Krylov's pig under an oak - undermines roots of an oak, not noticing that thus it deprives itself of glans. In Russia it is the class - suicider - or, more precisely, class - Shakhid.
Experience of 1917 showed it with all possible persuasiveness. Then, if someone does not remember petty-bourgeois parties - socialist-revolutionary and Mensheviks (there were also cadets firstly expressing interests of large bourgeoisie but they were quickly asked to go away). It also appeared that the Russian petty bourgeoisie - is absolutely nonviable - without support of large bourgeoisie and autocracy. Bolsheviks who backed on industrial proletariat and secured support of land-poor peasantry coped with it without special efforts.
Almost a century passed - the situation repeated. Precisely the same in peripheral empire (definition "power" since then was added) of Russia the authority is being held by large capital and state bureaucracy. Exactly the same petty bourgeoisie (now it is possible to say "middle class", there will be no big mistake) forms its organizations - «Other Russia», UCF and other. They write liberal slogans on their banners, not understanding that thus they approach wreck of capitalism in our country...
Let's help them?
© 1998-2016 FORUM.msk