Political life on our planet is becoming increasingly tense. After the introduction of sanctions, it affects almost every person in the country. Involuntarily, you begin to become interested in what is happening in ruling circles. And you are immediately faced with the question of who liberals are. It arises, you just have to look through a few articles or programs related to internal politics Russia. Some liberals are praised in every way, while others criticize them no less loudly. It’s hard to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Surely it is necessary to begin, no matter how unpleasant it may be, with clarification of the essence of philosophy. Namely: what ideas they defend, where they came from, how they see the future, then it will become clear who the liberals are. Let's try to figure it out briefly.
From the history
It is clear that the reader is interested in Russian liberals.
After all, they are the ones who influence his life. However, we will have to rewind time and look at the root of the emergence of this ideology. Otherwise, the essence of what follows will simply be incomprehensible. The fact is that at the moment humanity has given birth to three different ideologies, competing with each other, if not fighting. Their bearers are trying to introduce their own views in various states and build their own system. Let us name the adherents of these three ideas. These are liberals, conservatives and socialists. In a democratic society, parties are created that promote certain ideas. However, each of them adheres to one of the above-mentioned ideologies. Each movement has many subtleties, expressed in the nuances of the proclaimed principles or goals. Some parties are, so to speak, hybrid. That is, they combine the principles of various ideologies in their programs. But this is not particularly important. To understand how Russian liberals influence the situation in the country, the fact that they have ideological opponents is enough. It is from their opposition that the internal political life, which certainly affects the well-being of citizens.
Liberal views
We will start with pure theory. That is, let’s consider purely ideology. Then compare it with its competitors to understand more deeply. It must be taken into account that all three ideologies are not just fighting in the minds. The field of their practical implementation is the state structure. That's it, in general. That is, each ideology gives birth to its own social movement. Liberals and conservatives, for example, form political parties who are desperately fighting for power. Naturally, they need to present their ideas to the electorate in the most advantageous light. What attracts liberals? Their main value is freedom. It extends to all spheres of society. In economics, it is expressed by competition with equal rights. Everyone has heard about this. There is a so-called free market. Liberal citizens are attracted to the rule of law. That is, ideally all people are equal to each other. Everyone has the right to their thoughts and values. In addition, they are offered to be broadcast to the public completely freely. Liberals consider restrictions unacceptable, except in special cases. Namely crimes. Otherwise, a citizen, according to their concepts, has every right to everything he wants. That is, we can answer the question of who liberals are as follows. This is a political movement fighting for full civil liberties. The theory is quite attractive, don’t you think?
Compare with conservatives
The eternal “enemies” of liberals base their ideology on “protection.” Conservatives believe that there should be, even dominate, something unshakable in society. It forms the ideological basis on which everything else develops. For example, today's Russian conservatives talk about family values. This means that this social institution cannot be changed to suit newfangled trends. He is unshakable. To spite them, the LGBT community is being created, a social movement that denies the traditional institution of the family. Liberals and conservatives base their debate around this issue. That is, they try to prove to people the attractiveness of their views, which, we note, in this case are mutually exclusive. The same is observed in the field of organization of the state economy. Liberals stand for complete freedom. Conservatives believe that it is necessary to preserve a certain “established way of life.” For example, neocons talk about the inviolability of private property. By the way, liberals do not contradict them on this. However, they believe that freedom of enterprise cannot be limited by strict rules. That is, any citizen should be able to compete with others on equal terms. It turns out that the liberal movement, in principle, is quite democratic and flexible. In theory, it may well coexist with competitors and find consensus. However, in practice it turns out differently.
Shades of liberalism
Ideology is a rather complex topic. The fact is that the development and embodiment of any thought is impossible instantly. It takes a lot of time to introduce it into society. Fruits, as is commonly believed, appear after years, or even decades. But party supporters are instantly attracted by beautiful slogans or interesting projects. People don't often delve into where a particular idea can lead society. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the shades and nuances of liberal ideology. To do this, let us again turn to history. Thus, in the nineteenth century a special movement arose - the liberal socialists. Its ideology was based on the fact that the working class as a whole became more literate and acquired the right to vote. A typical liberal socialist of that time proposed to fight against child and dangerous labor and for increased earnings. All this was proposed to be enshrined in law. For the nineteenth century, the ideas were quite progressive. Representatives of a different direction, the liberal democrats, believed that the development of civil society could only be hampered by government intervention. He was accused of restricting civil liberties. Both of these liberal movements are in conflict with each other. Socialists believe that democracy cannot coexist with private property. Their opponents talk about the priority of individual freedom, regardless of property status.
Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies
There are several points that will help you understand the essence of the proposed material. Namely, the attitude of representatives of the described ideologies to the fundamental foundations of the state structure. For clarity, socialists, conservatives and liberals are taken. The table contains brief characteristics of their fundamental positions, according to the theory.
From the table above it is clear that liberals defend complete freedom of the individual, even when it is not guaranteed by the state. That is, a person has the right to any self-expression and is burdened with responsibility for its use.
Why and when to study differences in ideologies
In the global world, there are practically no countries where information is censored. It is clear that ideas spread very widely. Any person can choose for himself those that best suit his worldview. In a sense, this state of affairs may pose a threat to statehood. Modern technologies are such that representatives of certain movements try to “recruit” supporters even before they acquire the right to vote. That is, children are already subject to information attacks from adherents of certain movements. This is probably why the school curriculum deals with questions about who liberals and conservatives are (8th grade). The younger generation needs to be prepared to participate in public life. Young citizens must approach it consciously and creatively.
After all, after a while they will have to take over the “reins of government” and begin to make independent decisions. However school program does not guarantee that students fully understand who liberals are. The question is very broad and covers a huge period of human history, perhaps the most dynamic. Ideology itself cannot be static. It grows out of the needs of a society that is constantly changing and developing, consistently creating and solving problems. Representatives of one or another ideological direction need to be at the center of these changes, to develop together with countries and peoples.
Liberals of Russia
Only the lazy do not provide a list of people promoting such an ideology in the modern Russian Federation in critical articles. The current confrontation with the West has led to some imbalances in domestic policy. Since it is built on liberal ideas (officially), all shortcomings are usually attributed to them. Here experts lump together economic and social problems, without particularly trying to substantiate their claims with ideological shortcomings. Let's see what the liberals of Russia actually created. The list of their names usually begins with Yegor Gaidar. Is it so? Did this one stick statesman liberal ideas? This is debatable. Rather, this character influenced the formation modern Russia, professed conservatism. For him, private property was an immutable thing. But the freedom of a citizen is a secondary matter. His phrase about people “who do not fit into the market” is well known. She's cruel in her own way frank essence, since she belonged to socially vulnerable citizens. A society for which justice is not an empty phrase, but real value, could not accept such ideas. The figure of E. Gaidar is recognized by the expert community as the most striking among domestic liberals. This man was not engaged in theory, but in its practical implementation.
Anatoly Chubais, who is well known to everyone, also belongs to the liberals. Naturally, the list of liberals is not limited to two names. One can recall former Russian Finance Minister Boris Fedorov, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and others. Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is also called a great professional liberal. In general, I could go on listing names for a very long time. famous people which, unfortunately, often only cause indignation among the population of our country.
Well, nowadays it is customary to include in the social movement “liberals” anyone who criticizes the policies of the President of the Russian Federation. This is not entirely correct, but it is historically justified.
A liberal is one who looks to the West
The point is this. After the destruction of the USSR, society faced a difficult question: “What next?” It just so happened since the century before last that the elite “copied” scenarios from European countries. They believed that the snow was whiter there and the gold glittered brighter. That's what we decided. We will build such a society. During this period, only the communists could give battle to the liberals. There was simply no other force. It should be noted that the communists were one step away from revenge. Zyuganov had excellent chances in the Russian presidential elections. It was not so easy for the people of a huge country, brought up on socialist values, to turn towards perceiving reality in a capitalist worldview. For more than twenty years, they tried to introduce other ideas into society. About equality and freedom of enterprise, about equal opportunities and so on. Only the mouthpieces of this ideology were mostly based on Western examples and principles. In addition, it is known that they did not receive their salaries in the Russian Federation. And for many this looked like a betrayal. And if at the beginning of the construction of the new Russia such facts were perceived as “learning from experience,” then after the Ukrainian crisis the attitude towards dollar salaries changed somewhat. And it's not that the liberal movement did anything bad for people. Rather, historical memory played a role here. The people have not forgotten that Russia had to fight many times. And all the invaders came from exactly the same direction from which they are now trying to teach us.
Economic field of activity
Let's delve a little deeper into the practical side of implementing liberal ideology. Namely, how representatives of the movement represent the country’s economy. It should be noted that purely practical issues they are not detailed. Declaratively, liberals proclaim such things as the need for a market economy, with the mandatory removal of the state from its regulation. They strongly oppose any form of administration. That is, the entrepreneur must gain complete freedom in the zone economic activity. Here they are opposed by conservatives who express thoughts about the need, for example, for state intervention in social sphere. That is, in their opinion, laws are needed to regulate the activities of all enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership. Conservatives and liberals of the Russian Federation have a consensus on only one issue. Namely: they agree that private property should become a paramount value in society. This interesting topic. In fact, historically this cannot happen in Russia. That is, private property periodically changed its owner. Even in tsarist times, there were periods when land was owned by those who served the state. With the loss of his place, such a person was deprived of his property. Then everyone remembers October Revolution and expropriation. That is, for the introduction of the sacredness of the concept of private property into society (as exists in the West), more time must pass than the life of one generation. In addition, very important point is the practical implementation of freedom of enterprise. Purely, this requires a high educational level of the people. However, liberals in their political struggle focus on opposing government regulation. They give the example of the USA, where a person can open a business in a matter of hours. This is considered a special achievement of liberal democracy. Only they lose sight of the fact that after a year, 95% of new entrepreneurs go bankrupt. And of those who survived, half leave the arena within a few years. Liberals call it competition. But in fact, this phenomenon looks like a way to enrich the banks that issue loans to these hapless entrepreneurs.
Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals
You and I haven't touched on one more important topic. Namely, the attitude of representatives of liberal ideology to issues of social protection and cultural development of the population. And this is the reason for the people’s antagonistic attitude towards them. The fact is that liberals, calling for complete freedom, allow serious distortions in the social manifestations of their policies. Take the LGBT community for example. There is nothing wrong with the fact that any person has every right to live the way he wants. This is a personal matter! However, why highlight non-existent problems of minorities? Do they concern the entire society that professes traditional values? It just so happens that patient and kind people live in Russia. By the way, liberals call this quality tolerance. The point is not in the term. It’s just common among people to feel sorry for outcasts and apostates (not traitors). Do you have own vision how to love - no one will throw stones for it. It's a different matter if you shout to the whole country about your preferences. Until it affects the majority of the population, no one will say a word. As soon as society begins to feel threatened, things take a different turn. For example, today many people ask the question: “If liberals defend the minority so loudly, then who will stand up for the majority?” There is a clear imbalance in political pressure on the people. The latter begins to resist. Well, values don’t take root in it, just like any values in the West. Statements by liberals, especially in Lately, only aggravate a situation that is unfavorable for them. For example, Khodorkovsky’s phrase “it’s a shame not to steal from such a state” cannot be perceived as the slogan of a person worthy of trust. Or K. Sobchak’s statement that Russia is “a country of genetic scum.” This is humiliating both for the people and for this representative of the “elites”. Therefore, it is so natural to treat liberals as traitors. Carried away by Western values, these people have completely lost touch with the people for whom they should live, think and work. After all, this is precisely the purpose of the elites.
conclusions
We will not argue that liberal ideas are as bad as they seem today. Not everything in this ideology is aimed at destroying society. Quite the opposite. Many of the ideas that have already been implemented were promising and humane. For example, the fight to ban child labor. However, ideas have their own “lifespan”. They must either transform to meet the needs of society or fade into oblivion. And the first sign of the need for such changes is their hypertrophied, even grotesque, manifestation. This is exactly what we are seeing today. What happens next? Can liberalism survive and change? Time will tell.
Who are liberals?
Ukraine led to the death of Russian liberalism. At least, director Alexey German Jr. thinks so. Maria Makeeva discussed this with journalists Andrei Loshak, Konstantin von Eggert and historian Nikita Sokolov. Let us recall that liberalism (from the Latin liberalis - free) is a philosophical and socio-political movement that proclaims the inviolability of human rights and individual freedoms, advocating minimizing state intervention in people's lives. Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of every person as the highest value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order. At the same time, the possibilities of the state and church to influence the life of society are limited by the constitution. The most important freedoms in liberalism are the freedom to speak publicly, the freedom to choose religion, and the freedom to choose representatives in fair and free elections. In economic terms, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the supremacy of law over the will of rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence. While some continued to follow the events in Ukraine with horror, and others ate kebabs with appetite, in Russia the liberal idea was quietly buried, without fanfare. The funeral was announced in his blog on Echo by director Alexey German Jr., who wrote that after the Odessa events, “in Russia, liberalism finally died for me. He died not as an idea, but as a community of people who believe in a certain set of values.” So why did Russian liberalism become “everything” overnight? We will not present the entire conversation here. Here are just brief excerpts from the conversation that took place. Alexey German Jr.: It seems to me that the most dangerous thing that could happen happened - a huge number of amazing, wisest people, respected by me, it’s stupid not to respect Shenderovich or Shevchuk. These beautiful ones (Shevchuk to a lesser extent) are moving towards sectarianism. They are moving because they are not being listened to, because the circle is getting smaller and smaller, because a huge number of people are leaving the country, because a huge number of people have simply given up. The mistake is repeated, which is that there is only my opinion and only it is correct, there are no other opinions and there cannot be. I don’t think that the idea of liberalism should be nullified. At this stage, from my point of view, she died. Let's imagine that we will have free elections. How many will vote? One million, one and a half What percent of the population is this? Journalist Andrei Loshak largely agrees with Alexei German Jr., but formulates the postulate “liberalism is dead” somewhat differently. “We lost,” he says. As for the Odessa events, Andrei Loshak completely agrees with Alexey German. Only he doesn’t understand what the liberals have to do with it – where is their fault? Andrey Loshak: Of course, a tragedy occurred. I, like everyone else, have probably also re-read a hundred posts with these photographs of burnt corpses, with interpretations different sides I don’t know these events. I’m not an investigator, it’s difficult for me to compare different facts, because everyone is foaming at the mouth, everything is very emotional, and when you read, it feels like everyone is convinced that they are right. You can see how emotions overflow and people are blinded. There are a lot of fakes, a lot of counter-propaganda. It is already very difficult to understand what happened there. One thing is clear, that after this the world will not be the same, because, of course, the death of more than forty people is terrible, it cannot pass without a trace. I don’t think that the true culprits will be identified, just as it is not very clear what happened with the bombings of houses in Moscow in the late 90s, with the terrorist attacks. All this confuses me very much in this story, it is very muddy. But, of course, people who represented a certain position, the so-called Anti-Maidan, died. And, probably, German Jr. is right that this is certainly not a reason to mock and rejoice on this topic, which, to my horror, I actually discovered, for example, in my Facebook friend feed. It seemed to me that we would never get to this point. Indeed, there were some almost enthusiastic cries that this was what they needed. The fact that liberals are those who are always to blame for everything is understandable. But perhaps there are some other definitions? Has the liberal idea been defeated and is it good? I asked this question to journalist and publicist Konstantin von Eggert (a convinced conservative, by the way). Eggert: First of all, it always seemed strange to me that after 20 seconds extra years After the collapse of the USSR, we still have these strange names in use like: liberals, democrats and something else. Democrats today, by the way, may be more correct than liberals. Who are liberals? In the Russian understanding, this is any person who disagrees with the Kremlin’s position on some issue. In reality, Russian liberals are probably the same movement as, say, somewhere in the UK, where there are people who read The Guardian newspaper, they consider themselves left-wing liberals, and there are some people who read The Daily Telegraph newspaper, They consider themselves to be right-wing liberals. If we talk about me personally, as a citizen, in the Western classification I would in no way be a liberal. I am a supporter of the free market and conservative social public values. It seems to me that this whole conversation is missing the mark, because it does not take into account the fact that Russian society, at least the thinking, educated part, whatever you want to call it, has undoubtedly already divided itself. And this is a division that was not noticeable during the protest period of 2011-2012. Ukraine and its attitude towards events in Ukraine will go further. There will undoubtedly be a division in this regard. Makeeva: Following the holidays, the Austrian performer Conchita Wurst became or has become the leader of the Medialogia company rating. Among the top mentions in the Russian press is the publication of RIA Novosti or the Rossiya Segodnya agency, which talks about the triumphant reception given to Conchita in Austria. To quote: “Despite the fact that Austria is generally considered a more conservative country than many other countries in Europe, left-liberal forces have traditionally enjoyed great influence here, especially in the capital Vienna, and winning an international competition for a small country with a pop music industry underdeveloped, inevitably causes an upsurge of patriotic feelings.” This is where I admit, I got confused. It turns out that the fact that Conchita won, who took third place in Russia in terms of the number of votes cast by Russians at Eurovision, means that European liberals are to blame for everything, they somehow fought our country little by little? Eggert: It seems to me that this should not be given much political significance. I think that this fight will continue. Many conservatives, including in Europe, believe that this fight has already been practically lost, that conservative values have been thrown out the window, and tomorrow they will liberalize something else, some more elements of human weakness that were recently considered a vice. Maybe. But it seems to me that the main task of any ideological struggle of any person who has any views is to defend them. Let's see how many will defend it during the elections to the European Parliament. I wouldn’t project onto Russia; it’s clear which audience is watching in many ways. In addition, in Russia, frankly speaking, you can imagine - a bearded woman, let's vote for a bearded woman, it's just for fun. This is the typical mentality of at least part of our television territory. In my opinion, it's a terrible number, not because it's sung by some dude in a wig, but because it's a terrible song and impossible to remember. Compare her with other winners, with ABBA or Johnny Logan. Secondly, it seemed to me that voting for Zhirinovsky was akin to voting, at least in Russia and Ukraine. You know how people vote on parliamentary elections : but he’s so cool, the elections are not important, let’s show such a thing, let’s vote for this guy who’s yelling. This is a phenomenon from the same category. Makeeva: And yet, in Austria and in the same social networks, this whole event caused heated controversy, almost on the website of the President of Austria or on his Facebook page, where a photograph was posted of Heinz Fischer shaking hands with Conchita Wurst, heated discussions took place cleaner than the one that was on federal television immediately after the final of the competition. All sorts of comments, like: “I’m ashamed that I’m Austrian” and the like. Eggert: I think context is important here. When these people are not alone, when they exist within the framework of democracy, when some leftists with rainbow flags come out against them, tomorrow they come out shouting: “Hurray, Hurray, Conchita won!”, this is normal, this is good, this is not a monopoly. But I would say that these sentiments, of course, exist, and in many ways they are connected, including with the economic crisis in Europe, when it seems that all these supranational projects have led to an economic crisis, which means that something is wrong with our sovereignty, with our values. Let's see how all this plays out during the European Parliament elections on May 25th. But still, I think that the Austrian United Russia members, although I don’t consider the Austrian right as such, are opposed by quite cheerful Reds, who someday, I think, will get their way, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Makeeva: “Who are liberals?” - I asked RAIN viewers on Twitter today - and received a lot of answers. But in principle, all these answers, very roughly, can be divided into two categories, approximately equal, which divide the divide in society. I would like to invite you, Nikita, to guess what these answer options are. So, if we roughly outline who liberals are... and the public begins... Sokolov: Observing the modern discussion, I must say that the word “liberal” has acquired a new and unprecedented meaning for him in Russia, and this meaning completely deprives it of its meaningful meaning. Because now in Russia every person who disagrees with his superiors on at least some point is called a liberal. Makeeva: That is, those who disagree Sokolov: Yes, those who disapprove of the action of the higher authorities on at least some point, no matter what - be it the law on traffic jams in the center of Moscow or whatever. All the same, a person who disagrees with his superiors will be an evil liberal. This is not new at all; in Russia the word “liberal” has been filled with meaning several times. In general, liberalism is such a thing... It is completely incomprehensible to me why Herman Jr. sings the funeral dirge for liberalism, because this is one of the most solid, in fact, moral teachings. Makeeva: Without knowing it yourself, you combined these, as it seemed to me, polar options for answering the question “Who are liberals?” This probably clearly reflects how people in Russia view who liberals are. It’s just that some people think that being against and disagreeing is bad, while others think that it’s good, and everyone gives their own reasons. To what extent does this at least in some way coincide with the classical understanding of who a liberal is? Sokolov: When the government does not behave liberally, then being in opposition to it is a property of liberalism. But being in opposition to the government is a completely non-substantive and non-characterizing feature of liberalism; it has its own very important content. And this content at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century was already finally defined; liberalism is some idea of how to live well. Here Konstantin Eggert and conservatives say that we have conservative traditions, these are our rules, this is the rule we must live by. Socialists say: “We will come up with a Phalanster, where everyone will be equal. Here we have such a rule - the rule of the Phalanster, common property." Liberals say: “We have no rules, let’s give people freedom. Highest level The common good will be achieved when everyone tries different directions on different paths, and then we will understand how good it is.” Makeeva: Aren’t anarchists liberals? Sokolov: Anarchists would be similar if liberals denied the state. But this is exactly where they differ from anarchists, that they do not deny the state, because the state is necessary for the liberal world. Because man is sinful, he is bad, he will do evil, and by giving him freedom, you are giving him freedom to do evil, so there must be government institutions that will limit the freedom of evil of this evil man. Makeeva: Which will determine what is good and what is evil. This is a terrible philosophy. Sokolov: No, they will act according to certain rules. Makeeva: According to the law. Sokolov: According to the law. Makeeva: That is, liberals also have rules. Sokolov: The main pillar of liberal teaching is the need for the rule of law. Makeeva: At what point and how exactly, and why did the concept of “liberal”, “liberalism” begin to change its meaning? This is simply the current ignorance of citizens who are not in the know at all. Someone said that liberal is a dirty word, and they come on... Or is it a transformation? Sokolov: The thing is that, due to the peculiarities of Russian history, there has never been a strictly liberal party in Russia; we call Zhirinovsky a liberal. This is generally a laughing matter; Zhirinovsky and liberalism are not close at all. Russian liberalism enters the historical stage a little later than European liberalism, and therefore is forced to build a relationship with the world, responding not only to classical conservatives, like European liberalism, but also to democratic socialism. Because of this, from the very beginning of its birth, Russian liberalism has adopted social-democratic features. The first skirmish is known to everyone, but no one understands that this is a clash between liberals and socialists, this is a dispute between the Decembrists Pestel and Muravyov. Pestel says: “According to the rule, according to this rule, we will now carry out a revolution in the country.” Muravyov says: “No, we will convene a constituent assembly and invite it to discuss these things. We will act as it decides.” “No, we will act according to the rules,” says Pestel, “we will put everyone within the necessary framework, and we will expel the Jews.” This is a purely socialist thing. Makeeva: Maybe in general these concepts, which were born so long ago, and since then so much has changed, are generally a little outdated. Don’t you think that, in principle, a lot of things are mixed up: right-left, liberals-conservatives? Sokolov: But that’s all historical concepts. IN different countries they have different meanings. What is called a liberal in Europe is not at all what is called a liberal in the USA; these terms have completely different meanings. In Russia, for example, in the mid-19th century, during the era of Alexander’s great reforms, supporters of the liberation of the peasants were called a liberal and nothing more; in other respects he could be completely illiberal. But he was a liberal because he stood for peasant freedom. Makeeva: That is, those who are against liberals on Twitter, keep in mind that, firstly, you are against Zhirinovsky, and secondly, you are against the liberation of the peasants. Sokolov: I would quite seriously like to offer our Federal Assembly discuss the legality of the liberation of peasants in Russia. How to release this? We ban everything, and then we release it. It’s wrong, it’s a mess, the legitimacy needs to be checked. Makeeva: Regarding the crisis of the liberal idea or even the death of liberalism in Russia. I understand that you are categorically against this opinion. Sokolov: I am categorically against it, because among the general public in Russia, liberalism as a doctrine is very poorly known, it has almost no practical applications to Russian realities, so no one has seen real liberalism in Russia. In Russia, a liberal is called either the funny Zhirinovsky, who is no joke, no liberalism, or he is called a neoliberal economic doctrine, and this is completely different. Unlike the philosophy of liberalism, neoliberal political economy is completely specialSomehow, imperceptibly, the realization has come into our everyday life that 2019 and 2020 will be lost for us for development. Again, as in previous years, we will target inflation and catch the ruble exchange rate. These will be years of adaptation of the population and the economy to the deafening and shocking impacts of the so-called “unpopular” decisions of the economic bloc of the Russian government.
This refers to another increase in prices and excise taxes, taxes, retirement age, bank credit interest and measures of external sanction pressure. A drop in incomes of the population and enterprises, leading to a drop in demand and, accordingly, the rate of economic development, is an inevitable consequence of government economic prescriptions on the advice of the IMF. And government forecasts tell us that the situation will begin to level off only at the beginning of 2021.
That is, if in 2017 people believed that after the 2018 elections vigorous actions in the economy would begin, which simply did not begin due to the pre-election situation, and at the beginning of 2019 everyone would already see changes that would take shape in 2020 growth, and the guarantee of this is the May Presidential Decrees, then after the shock of the pension reform we are already being told that now there will be a series of shock impacts that are necessary due to a lack of money in the budget, and the negative consequences caused by this will gradually pass by the end of 2020. And then that same growth will begin, the need for which ministers so often spoke about.
“I’ll wear myself out, I’ll become the best, just wait for that occasion,” was such a perky song in the mid-60s. Our ministers sing something similar to us, while torturing us, not themselves. Because there is no guarantee that in 2021 we will not have to raise prices and taxes again and ask for another two years to target inflation and stabilize against a negative wave.
And the reason is ironclad - there is no money in the budget. Unfavorable trends, evil machinations of enemies, infrastructure projects in the middle of readiness, poor demographics, oil fluctuations, election results in the United States - a lot of reasons in favor of the fact that everything will happen again in 2021, and practically no reason that it will begin in 2021 Finally, growth. Everyone understands that if in the last 10 years the trend has been exactly this, falling, despite all the growth forecasts and promises, then, undoubtedly, in the next two years there is an almost one hundred percent probability that the trend will extend to this period. In the science of forecasting, this method is called the extrapolation method, transferring trends of the past to the period of the near future.
Everything is simple there. If everything went this way for 10 years, then for the next 2 years the probability of trends continuing is almost 80-90%. Businesses build their forecasts and business plans on precisely these principles. If the forecast is for the next 5 years, the probability of current trends continuing is 50-60%. If for the next 7 years, then 30%. And if there is a 70% probability of a change in trends, then, taking it as 100%, 70% of this probability is a change for the worse and 30% for the better. This is how business works, and it cannot be fooled by propaganda campaigns in the media. Businesses have their own analysts and indicators. Business cannot afford to be mistaken.
Both business and government operate on the same forecasting principles - this is the rule of forecast conservatism. That is, they assume that the most likely are the most negative scenarios. The budget is being prepared for the most negative scenario. It will be better - good, it will be worse - we are ready for it. Both the country's budget and the company's budget are compiled using this method. Those who work differently go bankrupt and leave the market.
But the government cannot explain its actions to the people by saying that it is guided by the rule: “Everything will be bad and will never end.” From the times of Gaidar to the times of Siluanov-Medvedev-Kudrin-Nabiullina, we are led through life precisely by the assurances that if we endure today, then tomorrow will be better than yesterday. As long as the West didn’t run out of pressure and one could live by clinging to its source of credit, everyone was happy with everything. When the West had problems and decided to use force, Russia had to resist. The Crimean referendum - and the West turned off the credit valve. And everything collapsed.
Russia's problem is not that it is unable to obtain the necessary technologies under sanctions. She'll get them. The problem for Russia is that the existing economic system, which relies on world capital, is not suitable for financing investments, that, they say, “the master will come, the master will build for us.” And, accordingly, the political system that ensures the functioning of this economic system is not suitable. Figuratively speaking, everything that we have built over 28 years is unsuitable in the current conditions and must be urgently dismantled and replaced. Can you imagine the challenge?
That is, the president must gather all the elites and announce to them that since it is no longer possible to live like this, a revolution will begin in the country from Monday at eight in the morning. All the rules change. Money will be taken from other places, for this purpose other organizations will be created and other people will work there. Thanks to everybody, you're free.
The elite in Russia, as elsewhere, resemble spiders in a jar. Scientifically it is called this - it has a high conflict potential according to the property criterion. However, it so happens that there is also a regional conflict among the elite. Traditionally, Moscow was ruled by the “Moscow people”, who always traditionally did not like the “St. Petersburg people”. The St. Petersburg people paid them in full reciprocity. This conflict is well reflected in statements and memoirs former head Yeltsin's security services Alexander Korzhakov.
He does not mince words and says what the “Moscow” people who have been pushed aside by them think about the “St. Petersburg people”. And, of course, with the coming change of power, the “Moscow ones” will make every effort to take revenge, and the “St. Petersburg” ones will make every effort to preserve all their acquisitions and prevent the “Moscow ones” from taking revenge. The “American” and “British” are actively playing between the “Moscow” and “St. Petersburg”.
If you do not describe the components of the conflict, then you may not see its sources and, accordingly, will not be able to localize it. Or not understanding where it will develop and failing to prepare.
Points of conflict in Russia are multiplying and overlapping each other, creating the effect of a draft fanning the flames. To the conflict of the elite within itself on property and regional grounds was added the conflict between the elite and society on prices, taxes and pension issue. And in general on inequality. Plus the conflict between Russia and the West over the issue of choosing one’s destiny. And this led to a local crisis in Ingushetia, which was actually caused by the ulterior motives of the participants and was not warned in a timely manner. The intra-elite crisis of local elites threatens to grow and tighten its vortex both the Center and its neighbors - if someone there makes a mistake.
This concentration of conflicts indicates that the existing management system is not able to deal with conflicts correctly. It is reactive, not proactive, and sometimes even inappropriately reactive. Gradually, from a series of isolated conflicts as problems unresolved in time, a general principle- inability of the management system to manage and cope with tasks.
In such a situation, the system is subjected to an increasing number of shocks. And the more blows, the more silent the system goes into defense. Whereas salvation in this case is precisely the opposite - a more active struggle to seize the initiative. But when there is no strength for activity, dull defense arises. Where the defender is ultimately finished off. The judo and aikido techniques just don’t work here - you can intercept and parry only the first one or two blows, but when they come in series, the “defensive” strategy loses to the attack. Salvation lies only in an immediate counterattack. Reactivity loses to proactivity.
In the conflict between the elites and the conflict between the elite as a whole and the people, the president finds himself in a very difficult position, threatening isolation. He cannot take any side and thereby becomes an irritant to all sides. Whether Putin prevents pension reform or leaves it, he will certainly become the object of discontent on one side or the other.
This happens because the operational management system intervenes in the conflict at its hot stage, at the stage of a war of interests. And in war it is impossible to extinguish the conflict. You can work with a conflict either before or after escalation. Any negotiator-mediator, which in the system of power is the president, trying to stand between the “firing guns” risks coming under fire from both sides and cannot stop them until the ammunition runs out and they become tired and exhausted. But given that in our case the battlefield is our state space, such a war destroys, first of all, the state itself.
No head of state is able to carry out changes when society and the elite are at war, and this is the path to the Cold War. The elite in Russia is liberal or crypto-liberal and, one way or another, it does not like the people, and the people in return do not like the elite. The clinch between them is a stalemate that lasts until a third force appears that can separate the conflicting parties and impose its decision on them.
If liberals seriously hope that they will be able to continue their experiments on the people until 2024, and the people will continue to remain silent, then this fatal mistake. Which has already shown itself in the fact that the management system built by liberals does not see conflicts and does not know how to work with them. The accumulated rage of the masses does not manifest itself outwardly until an incident that instantly explodes the system, and the authorities are always taken by surprise. The masses are always harnessed slowly, but then driven quickly. Let's make up simple map conflict and assess where we are now.
Conflict Detonators Russian society:
1. Information distortion. Society is confident that the information coming from the elite is incomplete and contains distortions, concealments and substitution of facts. If before the pension reform this was the argument of the Orange opposition, now such conviction has begun to penetrate the people. Distrust of the authorities serves as a detonator of conflict.
2. Behavioral inconsistencies. Representatives of the elite behave in such a way (“star parachutes,” the behavior of wives, children, mistresses, etc.) that this further irritates the population. The elites either remain silent where words are expected from them, or they say such words that it would be better for them to remain silent. Behavioral incongruity causes alienation of the masses from the political, administrative and commercial elite.
3. Value inconsistencies. This division becomes more and more glaring at a time when the needs and distress of the people are greater than usual. It seems that the elites and the masses pray to different gods and there is a conflict between them religious war.
4. Coincidence of circumstances. Elections in Primorye, Khabarovsk and other regions showed that the candidates for power are people who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. By the way, counter-elite election winners leave this impression even more so.
5. Self-importance, dominance and selfishness. The government evokes this feeling among the people the greatest number. The elite either ignores the masses or uses the following tools in conversation with them: ultimatums, threats, accusations; ridicule, sarcasm, mockery; boasting, categoricalness, moralizing; inattention, interruption, disrespect.
Remember any speech by any representative of the liberal economic elite. Gaidar, Chubais, Chernomyrdin, Yakunin, Gref, Kudrin, Khristenko, Shuvalov, Dvorkovich, Siluanov, Oreshkin, all former and current representatives of the economic bloc of the current government (meeting of the State Council before the elections in Primorye) - all these people have difficulty feigning respect for Putin and cannot hide all of the above qualities even in a conversation with him, not to mention others. They simply breathe prosperity, serene confidence in the future and incredible material wealth, and people catch this breath even on television. Representatives of the governor's corps exhibit the same qualities.
All these manifestations of the detonators of the conflict have not been extinguished for years, and from the accumulation of tension after the incident, the jump in gasoline prices and pension reform brought the elite and society to the stage of confrontation. At this stage we have successfully passed: 1. Accumulation of negativity. 2. Avoiding dialogue. 3. Small claims. 4. Grumbling. 5. Mockery and sarcasm. and 6. Formation of an image of the enemy. Both the elite and the people already see each other as an enemy. At each of these stages it was necessary to begin to work with the conflict, but this was never done. Item 5 from the list of detonators was interfering. Self-importance, dominance, selfishness.
If we want to know what awaits us at the next next stage, then everything is clear. After the next incident leading to a surge in tension, there will be another escalation, the content of which will be: 1. Mutual accusations, 2. Actions against (increased rally activity, the stage of transition of the confrontation to the street phase, as in Armenia), 3. Political provocations with coverage in the world media, interception of the initiative in domestic propaganda from government media to foreign ones.
Next comes the phase of the conditional “Maidan”. Depersonalization of the enemy, his dehumanization and dehumanization, the desire to cause damage even at the expense of oneself, a war of annihilation (all or nothing). At this phase there is no longer power, there are political adventurers, strike committees and revolutionary expediency. Putsch, coup, revolution, conspiracy - call it what you want. Ukraine before our eyes. At this point there is no longer any government control. Then begins the disintegration of territories, a parade of sovereignties and Civil War with the disunion of the former regions of Russia under the so-called “agiles of the UN”.
The most important thing is that with timely diagnosis of the conflict, it was possible to work with it at many preliminary stages and prevent it from growing into what it has grown into. But the previous team did not do this for reasons of maintaining a balance of power, and the current one is forced to react like a fireman, not having time to build new system work in a calm environment.
Because to properly seize the initiative, actions such as collecting information and auditing conflicts, diagnosing them, drawing up a conflict map and building a conflict management strategy are required. Under conditions of restrictions, such work cannot be done efficiently. What are these restrictions? There are many of them: sometimes you can’t touch someone, sometimes elections are just around the corner and you need to prepare for them, sometimes there’s a fire somewhere and you urgently need to run and put it out. Common hardware problems. But in this case, as it turns out, conflicts get out of control and threaten high political risks.
The most negative scenario for the development of the situation in the country was presented above as one whose implementation must be prevented by all available means. Naturally, we cannot limit ourselves to stating some scenarios, otherwise in this case such a scenario itself will add fuel to the fire. Therefore, below we offer a positive program for exiting such a scenario.
The country needs a new party-political system, which will bear the brunt of the entire reboot of the public administration system. The practice of pouring new wine into old leaky wineskins will not produce results. You can fill United Russia and other parties with young technocrats raised in an incubator as much as you like, but this is a palliative and a complete rebranding of the entire system is needed.
It is very simple: in negotiations between the people and the government, the structures of the party in power are no longer perceived by the people as a party to the negotiations. There will be no more negotiations with United Russia. Considering the general crisis of confidence in all parliamentary parties, people will either ignore the elections en masse, or they will overwhelm all candidates and choose the most ridiculous ones. The point is not that such an expression of protest puts the authorities in an illegitimate position, but that there will simply be no local authorities.
The conflict between government and society is counterproductive for both sides. The responsible government can no longer afford to ignore this. Under any pretext, it is necessary to start a movement in support of reforms with the creation of new parties and social forces. Either the government will do it, or its opponents will do it. The experience of perestroika shows that it would be better if the authorities did this. And in a proactive rather than reactive manner.
Avoidance tactics in a ripe conflict lead to the conflict unfolding in unfavorable conditions. If liberals are not removed from economic and political levers, even at the cost of exacerbating all types of conflicts, then the development of the situation will lead to the death of the management system following the example of the USSR. Liberals will substitute goals for us until there is no more country. It’s time for the patriots to seize the initiative so that the leader of the country sees that he has someone to rely on.
Alexander Khaldey
Follow us
Many quotes talk about the intelligentsia, meaning by this word a special layer of people primarily engaged in non-physical labor. An intellectual is not equal to a liberal. But almost always: a liberal is an intellectual. It is in this aspect that many authors, whose quotes are given here, wrote about the intelligentsia.
There are, of course, worthy intellectuals: patriots of Russia whom we can be proud of and admire.
But this collection of quotes is not about them, but about those who are now called “liberals.”
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin
You illuminated your mind with enlightenment,
You saw the face of truth,
And tenderly loved alien peoples,
And wisely he hated his own.
You rubbed your hands from our failures,
I listened to the news with a sly laugh,
When the regiments ran at a gallop
And the banner of our honor perished.
Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
"Demons":
Our Russian liberal is first and foremost a lackey and is only looking to clean someone's boots.
"Idiot":
- ...according to my numerous observations, our liberal is never able to allow someone to have their own special belief and not immediately respond to your opponent with a curse or even something worse...
Liberalism is not a sin; it is a necessary component of the whole, which without it will disintegrate or die; liberalism has the same right to exist as the most well-behaved conservatism; but I attack Russian liberalism, and again I repeat that, in fact, I attack it because a Russian liberal is not a Russian liberal, but is not a Russian liberal. Give me a Russian liberal, and I’ll kiss him right now in front of you...
-...This fact expresses the whole essence of Russian liberalism of the kind I am talking about. Firstly, what is liberalism, generally speaking, if not an attack (reasonable or erroneous, that’s another question) on the existing order of things? It is so? Well, my fact is that Russian liberalism is not an attack on the existing order of things, but is an attack on the very essence of our things, on the things themselves, and not on the order alone, not on the Russian order, but on Russia itself. My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother. Every unfortunate and unfortunate Russian fact arouses laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. If there is an excuse for him, is it that he does not understand what he is doing, and mistakes his hatred of Russia for the most fruitful liberalism...
critic about Smerdyakov from The Brothers Karamazov:
A lackey will rise up in Russia and in the hour of great danger for our homeland will say: “I hate all of Russia,” “I not only do not want to be a military man, a hussar, but, on the contrary, I want the destruction of all soldiers, sir.” To the question: “and when the enemy comes, who will defend us?”, the rebellious lackey replied: “In the twelfth year there was a great invasion of Emperor Napoleon of France the First, and it would be good if these same French had conquered us then: a smart nation would have conquered a very stupid one.” -s and attached it to herself. There would even be completely different orders.”
Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy
Stepan Arkadyevich did not choose any direction or views, but these directions and views themselves came to him, just as he did not choose the shape of a hat or a frock coat, but took those that were worn. And having views for him, who lived in a certain society, with the need for some activity of thought, which usually develops in the years of maturity, was as necessary as having a hat. If there was a reason why he preferred the liberal direction to the conservative one, which many in his circle also adhered to, it was not because he found the liberal direction more reasonable, but because it came closer to his way of life. The Liberal Party said that everything was bad in Russia, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich had a lot of debts, but there was a decided lack of money. The Liberal Party said that marriage was an outdated institution and that it was necessary to rebuild it, and indeed, family life brought little pleasure to Stepan Arkadyevich and forced him to lie and pretend, which was so contrary to his nature. The liberal party said, or, better, implied, that religion is only a bridle for the barbaric part of the population, and indeed, Stepan Arkadyevich could not endure even a short prayer service without pain in his legs and could not understand why all these terrible and pompous words about that world, when living in this would be very fun. At the same time, Stepan Arkadyevich, who loved funny joke, it was sometimes pleasant to puzzle a humble person with the fact that if you are already proud of the breed, then you should not stop at Rurik and renounce the first ancestor - the monkey. So, the liberal trend became Stepan Arkadyevich’s habit, and he loved his newspaper like a cigar after dinner, for the light fog it produced in his head
Anna Karenina. 1873-1877
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
I don’t believe in our intelligentsia, hypocritical, false, hysterical, ill-mannered, deceitful, I don’t even believe when it suffers and complains, because its oppressors come from its own depths.
"Notebooks":
Moderate liberalism: a dog needs freedom, but still it needs to be kept on a chain.
"Mask":
It was 12 o'clock at night. Non-dancing intellectuals without masks - there were five of them - sat in the reading room at a large table and, with their noses and beards buried in the newspapers, read, dozed and, in the words of a local correspondent for the capital's newspapers, a very liberal gentleman, “thought.”
Nikolay Semyonovich Leskov
- “If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel!” According to the author of the article “To Study or Not to Study,” this is the slogan of today’s Russian liberals. We completely agree with the author that the above phrase is truly the slogan of our liberals. “If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel!” Adhering to this principle, our liberals order Russian society to immediately renounce everything that it believed in and that has grown into its nature. Reject authorities, do not strive for any ideals, do not have any religion (except for the notebooks of Feuerbach and Buchner), do not be embarrassed by any moral obligations, laugh at marriage, at sympathies, at spiritual purity, otherwise you are a “scoundrel”! If you are offended that they call you a scoundrel, well, in addition, you are also a “stupid fool and a trashy vulgar.” It is with these views that the reputations of many or almost all public figures in our time are formed...
From the article “Despotism of the Liberals,” 1862.
Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev
Wasted work!
No, you can’t reason with them:
The more liberal they are, the more vulgar they are;
Civilization is a fetish for them,
But her idea is inaccessible to them.
Do not bend before her, gentlemen,
You will not gain recognition from Europe:
You will always be in her eyes
Not servants of enlightenment, but slaves.
It would be possible to give an analysis of a modern phenomenon that is becoming increasingly pathological. This is the Russophobia of some Russian people... They used to tell us, and they really thought so, that in Russia they hated the lack of rights, the lack of freedom of the press, etc. etc., that it is precisely the undeniable presence of all this in it that they like Europe... And now what do we see? As Russia, seeking greater freedom, asserts itself more and more, the dislike of these gentlemen towards it only intensifies. They never hated the previous institutions as much as they hate the modern trends of social thought in Russia. As for Europe, then, as we see, no violations in the field of justice, morality and even civilization have in the least diminished their disposition towards it... In a word, in the phenomenon I am talking about, there can be no talk of principles as such; only instincts...
Evgeniy Ivanovich Martynov, major general, military historian
Try asking our intellectuals questions: what is war, patriotism, army, military specialty, military valor? Ninety out of a hundred will answer you: war is a crime, patriotism is a relic of antiquity, the army is main brake progress, military specialty is a shameful craft, military valor is a manifestation of stupidity and atrocity...
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky, historian
There is such a weak-lipped intelligentsia who cannot keep silent about anything, cannot convey anything to the point, and through newspapers they pour out everything that clogs their indiscriminate stomach.
Classification of the intelligentsia:
1) People with a patchwork worldview, sewn from newspaper and magazine scraps.
2) Sectarians with confirmed commandments, but without a way of thinking and even without the ability to think:<...>, Tolstoyans etc.
3) Chips floating with the flow, liberal or conservative opportunists, without beliefs or thoughts, with only words and appetites.
Article from the newspaper “St. Petersburg Gazette”, 1861
To study or not to study? It's funny and sad, but we have to ask this question. Russia needs educated people, and students, instead of listening to lectures, wander around the streets, wasting expensive time. How annoying it is. What kind of demonstrations are these! Why are our liberals confusing young people? Who will benefit from this? Of course, not students, not society, not science. We don’t know whether those Bonapartists who are currently making such a noise will benefit from this... “If you are not with us, then you are a scoundrel” - this is their slogan. “If we recognize something as the truth, admit it too! And if you don’t want to, then you are trashy vulgarities, and we can hardly restrain ourselves from..." No, this is not liberalism, this is... real Tamerlane despotism, and our liberals are worse Turkish pashas; behind their flowery speeches, behind their “freedom” is the future clampdown on the people...
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev, philosopher
In the Russian intelligentsia, the rationalism of consciousness was combined with exceptional emotionality and with the weakness of self-valuable mental life... Science itself and the scientific spirit did not take root among us; they were not accepted by the broad masses of the intelligentsia, but only by a few. Scientists have never enjoyed special respect or popularity among us, and if they were political indifferentists, then their science itself was considered unreal...
The intelligentsia rather resembles a monastic order or a religious sect, with its own special morality, very intolerant, with its own obligatory worldview, with its own special morals and customs... The intelligentsia is characterized by groundlessness, a break with all class life and traditions... the intelligentsia turned out to be divorced from real social affairs, and this greatly contributed to the development of social daydreaming in her...
For a whole century, the Russian intelligentsia lived in denial and undermined the foundations of Russia's existence.
Georgy Petrovich Fedotov, historian, philosopher, religious thinker and publicist
The intelligentsia is a specific group, united by the ideological nature of their tasks and the groundlessness of their ideas.
Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky, writer, philosopher
I have a personal enmity towards these kinds of liberals. These are the enemies of all success. With their impudent nonsense they irritate the government, make it suspicious, ready to see a rebellion where there is nothing...
Letter from Belinsky to Annenkov, 1847.
Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin, Russian philosopher
The Russian liberal theoretically does not recognize any power. He wants to obey only the law that pleases him. The most necessary activity of the state seems to him to be oppression. He... sees a police official or a soldier on the street, and indignation boils within him. The Russian liberal comes out with a few big words: freedom, openness, public opinion..., merging with the people, etc., to which he knows no bounds and which therefore remain commonplaces devoid of any essential content. That is why the most elementary concepts - obedience to the law, the need for police, the need for officials - seem to him to be the product of outrageous despotism...
Where does all this come from? Why is there a cry against you in a certain category of journalism? Because you had the imprudence or the audacity to utter certain words that excite the color in liberal children: state, law, official, centralization. Moreover, you did not even utter the word “centralization”, but they suspect that you could utter it. This is enough: liberal children see nothing more; closing their eyes and biting the bit, they rush forward headlong and victoriously overthrow windmills.
We, long-time liberals, nurtured on the love of freedom, rejoice at the new liberal movement in Russia. But we are far from sympathetic to everything that is said and done in the name of freedom. Sometimes you don’t even recognize her in the faces of her most zealous admirers. Too often violence, intolerance and madness are cloaked in the name of a charming idea, like subterranean forces donning the armor of an Olympian goddess. Liberalism appears in the most diverse forms, and those who value true freedom retreat with horror and disgust from those ugly phenomena that are put forward under its banner.
The second type of liberalism can be called oppositional liberalism. But, my God! What a motley mixture of people there seems to be! How many different motives, how many different types - from Sobakevich, who assures that one prosecutor is a decent person, and that he is a pig, to the landowner, indignant for the taking away of serfdom, to the nobleman, who fell out of favor and therefore rushed into the opposition until he shines above him is a smile that will turn him back to power!
In practical life, oppositional liberalism adheres to the same negative rules. The first and necessary condition is not to have the slightest contact with power, to stay as far away from it as possible. This does not mean, however, that one should refuse lucrative places and ranks. For the nature of Russian people, such a demand would be too difficult. Many, many opposition liberals sit in cushy jobs, put on a court uniform, make an excellent career, and nevertheless consider it their duty, at every opportunity, to scold the government they serve and the order they enjoy. But for an independent person to dare to say a word in favor of the authorities, God forbid! There will be such a hubbub that you won’t even recognize your own people. This is sycophancy, ambition, corruption. It is known that every decent person must certainly stand in opposition and swear.
"Different Types of Liberalism". 1861
John of Kronstadt, priest, theologian
Democracy is in hell, but the Kingdom is in heaven.
Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev
The Russian liberal is a meaningless midge milling about sunbeam; the sun is the sun of the West.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Yazykov, poet. 1844
To not ours
O you who want
Transform us, spoil us
And Germanize Rus', listen
My simple-hearted cry!
Whoever you are, fellow tribesman
And my brother: is the old man pitiful,
Her solemn traitor,
Her arrogant slanderer;
Or you, sweet-tongued scribe,
Oracle of ignorant youths
You frivolous companion
Distracted thoughts and hopes;
And you, innocent and amiable,
A fan of dark books and words,
A tearful perceiver
Other people's judgments and sins;
You, arrogant and impudent people,
You reckless stronghold
The teachings of the godless school,
You all are not Russian people!
You don't like sacred things
And the glory of our antiquity;
It doesn’t live in you, it’s dead in you
Native feeling. Are you full
Not the tall and beautiful one
Love for the motherland, not the same
The purest fire, the clear flame
lifts you up; lives in you
Love is not for truth, not for good!
The people's voice is God's voice, -
It is not he who gives birth to courage in you:
He is alien, he is strange, he is wild for you.
Our best legends to you
They sound funny and meaningless;
Mighty great-grandfathers' deeds
They don't tell you anything;
Your pride despises them.
Shrine of the ancient Kremlin,
Hope, strength, our fortress -
Nothing for you! Russian land
I will not receive enlightenment from you,
You are scary to her: you are in love
In your treacherous opinions
And sacrilegious dreams!
Blasphemy and flattery
It's not up to you to transform it,
You who don't know how to deal with her
Neither live, nor sing, nor speak!
Your empty anger will fall silent,
Your unfaithful tongue will freeze:
Holy Rus' is strong and reliable,
Political life on our planet is becoming increasingly tense. After the introduction of sanctions, it affects almost every person in the country. Involuntarily, you begin to become interested in what is happening in ruling circles. And you are immediately faced with the question of who liberals are. It arises as soon as you look at a few articles or programs related to Russia’s internal politics. Some liberals are praised in every way, while others criticize them no less loudly. It’s hard to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Surely it is necessary to begin, no matter how unpleasant it may be, with clarification of the essence of philosophy. Namely: what ideas they defend, where they came from, how they see the future, then it will become clear who the liberals are. Let's try to figure it out briefly.
From the history
It is clear that the reader is interested in Russian liberals.
After all, they are the ones who influence his life. However, we will have to rewind time and look at the root of the emergence of this ideology. Otherwise, the essence of what follows will simply be incomprehensible. The fact is that at the moment humanity has given birth to three different ideologies, competing with each other, if not fighting. Their bearers are trying to introduce their own views in various states and build their own system. Let us name the adherents of these three ideas. These are liberals, conservatives and socialists. In a democratic society, parties are created that promote certain ideas. However, each of them adheres to one of the above-mentioned ideologies. Each movement has many subtleties, expressed in the nuances of the proclaimed principles or goals. Some parties are, so to speak, hybrid. That is, they combine the principles of various ideologies in their programs. But this is not particularly important. To understand how Russian liberals influence the situation in the country, the fact that they have ideological opponents is enough. Their confrontation is what shapes internal political life, which certainly affects the well-being of citizens.
Liberal views
We will start with pure theory. That is, let’s consider purely ideology. Then compare it with its competitors to understand more deeply. It must be taken into account that all three ideologies are not just fighting in the minds. The field of their practical implementation is the state structure. That's it, in general. That is, each ideology gives birth to its own social movement. Liberals and conservatives, for example, form political parties that fight desperately for power. Naturally, they need to present their ideas to the electorate in the most advantageous light. What attracts liberals? Their main value is freedom. It extends to all spheres of society. In economics, it is expressed by competition with equal rights. Everyone has heard about this. There is a so-called free market. Liberal citizens are attracted to the rule of law. That is, ideally all people are equal to each other. Everyone has the right to their thoughts and values. In addition, they are offered to be broadcast to the public completely freely. Liberals consider restrictions unacceptable, except in special cases. Namely crimes. Otherwise, a citizen, according to their concepts, has every right to everything he wants. That is, we can answer the question of who liberals are as follows. This is a political movement fighting for full civil liberties. The theory is quite attractive, don’t you think?
Compare with conservatives
The eternal “enemies” of liberals base their ideology on “protection.” Conservatives believe that there should be, even dominate, something unshakable in society. It forms the ideological basis on which everything else develops. For example, today's Russian conservatives talk about family values. This means that this social institution cannot be changed to suit newfangled trends. He is unshakable. To spite them, the LGBT community is being created, a social movement that denies the traditional institution of the family. Liberals and conservatives build their debate around this issue. That is, they try to prove to people the attractiveness of their views, which, we note, in this case are mutually exclusive. The same is observed in the field of organization of the state economy. Liberals stand for complete freedom. Conservatives believe that it is necessary to preserve a certain “established way of life.” For example, neocons talk about the inviolability of private property. By the way, liberals do not contradict them on this. However, they believe that freedom of enterprise cannot be limited by strict rules. That is, any citizen should be able to compete with others on equal terms. It turns out that the liberal movement, in principle, is quite democratic and flexible. In theory, it may well coexist with competitors and find consensus. However, in practice it turns out differently.
Shades of liberalism
Ideology is a rather complex topic. The fact is that the development and embodiment of any thought is impossible instantly. It takes a lot of time to introduce it into society. Fruits, as is commonly believed, appear after years, or even decades. But party supporters are instantly attracted by beautiful slogans or interesting projects. People don't often delve into where a particular idea can lead society. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the shades and nuances of liberal ideology. To do this, let us again turn to history. Thus, in the nineteenth century a special movement arose - the liberal socialists. Its ideology was based on the fact that the working class as a whole became more literate and acquired the right to vote. A typical liberal socialist of that time proposed to fight against child and dangerous labor and for increased earnings. All this was proposed to be enshrined in law. For the nineteenth century, the ideas were quite progressive. Representatives of a different direction, the liberal democrats, believed that the development of civil society could only be hampered by government intervention. He was accused of restricting civil liberties. Both of these liberal movements are in conflict with each other. Socialists believe that democracy cannot coexist with private property. Their opponents talk about the priority of individual freedom, regardless of property status.
Let us specify the differences between liberals and other ideologies
There are several points that will help you understand the essence of the proposed material. Namely, the attitude of representatives of the described ideologies to the fundamental foundations of the state structure. For clarity, socialists, conservatives and liberals are taken. The table contains brief characteristics of their fundamental positions, according to the theory.
From the table above it is clear that liberals defend complete freedom of the individual, even when it is not guaranteed by the state. That is, a person has the right to any self-expression and is burdened with responsibility for its use.
Why and when to study differences in ideologies
In the global world, there are practically no countries where information is censored. It is clear that ideas spread very widely. Any person can choose for himself those that best suit his worldview. In a sense, this state of affairs may pose a threat to statehood. Modern technologies are such that representatives of certain movements try to “recruit” supporters even before they acquire the right to vote. That is, children are already subject to information attacks from adherents of certain movements. This is probably why the school curriculum deals with questions about who liberals and conservatives are (8th grade). The younger generation needs to be prepared to participate in public life. Young citizens must approach it consciously and creatively.
After all, after a while they will have to take over the “reins of government” and begin to make independent decisions. However, the school curriculum does not guarantee that students fully understand who liberals are. The question is very broad and covers a huge period of human history, perhaps the most dynamic. Ideology itself cannot be static. It grows out of the needs of a society that is constantly changing and developing, consistently creating and solving problems. Representatives of one or another ideological direction need to be at the center of these changes, to develop together with countries and peoples.
Liberals of Russia
Only the lazy do not provide a list of people promoting such an ideology in the modern Russian Federation in critical articles. The current confrontation with the West has led to some imbalances in domestic politics. Since it is built on liberal ideas (officially), all shortcomings are usually attributed to them. Here experts lump together economic and social problems, without particularly trying to substantiate their claims with ideological shortcomings. Let's see what the liberals of Russia actually created. The list of their names usually begins with Yegor Gaidar. Is it so? Did this statesman adhere to liberal ideas? This is debatable. Rather, this character, who influenced the formation of modern Russia, professed conservatism. For him, private property was an immutable thing. But the freedom of a citizen is a secondary matter. His phrase about people “who do not fit into the market” is well known. She is cruel in her outright essence, as she treated socially vulnerable citizens. A society for which justice is not an empty phrase, but a real value, could not accept such ideas. The figure of E. Gaidar is recognized by the expert community as the most striking among domestic liberals. This man was not engaged in theory, but in its practical implementation.
Anatoly Chubais, who is well known to everyone, also belongs to the liberals. Naturally, the list of liberals is not limited to two names. One can recall former Russian Finance Minister Boris Fedorov, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and others. Former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is also called a great professional liberal. In general, we can continue to list for a very long time the names of famous people who, unfortunately, often only cause indignation among the population of our country.
Well, nowadays it is customary to include in the social movement “liberals” anyone who criticizes the policies of the President of the Russian Federation. This is not entirely correct, but it is historically justified.
A liberal is one who looks to the West
The point is this. After the destruction of the USSR, society faced a difficult question: “What next?” It just so happened since the century before last that the elite “copied” scenarios from European countries. They believed that the snow was whiter there and the gold glittered brighter. That's what we decided. We will build such a society. During this period, only the communists could give battle to the liberals. There was simply no other force. It should be noted that the communists were one step away from revenge. Zyuganov had excellent chances in the Russian presidential elections. It was not so easy for the people of a huge country, brought up on socialist values, to turn towards perceiving reality in a capitalist worldview. For more than twenty years, they tried to introduce other ideas into society. About equality and freedom of enterprise, about equal opportunities and so on. Only the mouthpieces of this ideology were mostly based on Western examples and principles. In addition, it is known that they did not receive their salaries in the Russian Federation. And for many this looked like a betrayal. And if at the beginning of the construction of the new Russia such facts were perceived as “learning from experience,” then after the Ukrainian crisis the attitude towards dollar salaries changed somewhat. And it's not that the liberal movement did anything bad for people. Rather, historical memory played a role here. The people have not forgotten that Russia had to fight many times. And all the invaders came from exactly the same direction from which they are now trying to teach us.
Economic field of activity
Let's delve a little deeper into the practical side of implementing liberal ideology. Namely, how representatives of the movement represent the country’s economy. It should be noted that they do not detail purely practical issues. Declaratively, liberals proclaim such things as the need for a market economy, with the mandatory removal of the state from its regulation. They strongly oppose any form of administration. That is, the entrepreneur must gain complete freedom in the area of economic activity. Here they are opposed by conservatives who express thoughts about the need, for example, for state intervention in the social sphere. That is, in their opinion, laws are needed to regulate the activities of all enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership. Conservatives and liberals of the Russian Federation have a consensus on only one issue. Namely: they agree that private property should become a paramount value in society. This is an interesting topic. In fact, historically this cannot happen in Russia. That is, private property periodically changed its owner. Even in tsarist times, there were periods when land was owned by those who served the state. With the loss of his place, such a person was deprived of his property. Next everyone remembers the October Revolution and expropriation. That is, for the introduction of the sacredness of the concept of private property into society (as exists in the West), more time must pass than the life of one generation. In addition, a very important point is the practical implementation of freedom of enterprise. Purely, this requires a high educational level of the people. However, liberals in their political struggle focus on opposing government regulation. They give the example of the USA, where a person can open a business in a matter of hours. This is considered a special achievement of liberal democracy. Only they lose sight of the fact that after a year, 95% of new entrepreneurs go bankrupt. And of those who survived, half leave the arena within a few years. Liberals call it competition. But in fact, this phenomenon looks like a way to enrich the banks that issue loans to these hapless entrepreneurs.
Why people in Russia “don’t like” liberals
We have not touched upon another important topic. Namely, the attitude of representatives of liberal ideology to issues of social protection and cultural development of the population. And this is the reason for the people’s antagonistic attitude towards them. The fact is that liberals, calling for complete freedom, allow serious distortions in the social manifestations of their policies. Take the LGBT community for example. There is nothing wrong with the fact that any person has every right to live the way he wants. This is a personal matter! However, why highlight non-existent problems of minorities? Do they concern the entire society that professes traditional values? It just so happens that patient and kind people live in Russia. By the way, liberals call this quality tolerance. The point is not in the term. It’s just common among people to feel sorry for outcasts and apostates (not traitors). You have your own vision of how to love - no one will throw stones for it. It's a different matter if you shout to the whole country about your preferences. Until it affects the majority of the population, no one will say a word. As soon as society begins to feel threatened, things take a different turn. For example, today many people ask the question: “If liberals defend the minority so loudly, then who will stand up for the majority?” There is a clear imbalance in political pressure on the people. The latter begins to resist. Well, values don’t take root in it, just like any values in the West. The statements of liberals, especially recently, only aggravate the situation, which is unfavorable for them. For example, Khodorkovsky’s phrase “it’s a shame not to steal from such a state” cannot be perceived as the slogan of a person worthy of trust. Or K. Sobchak’s statement that Russia is “a country of genetic scum.” This is humiliating both for the people and for this representative of the “elites”. Therefore, it is so natural to treat liberals as traitors. Carried away by Western values, these people have completely lost touch with the people for whom they should live, think and work. After all, this is precisely the purpose of the elites.
conclusions
We will not argue that liberal ideas are as bad as they seem today. Not everything in this ideology is aimed at destroying society. Quite the opposite. Many of the ideas that have already been implemented were promising and humane. For example, the fight to ban child labor. However, ideas have their own “lifespan”. They must either transform to meet the needs of society or fade into oblivion. And the first sign of the need for such changes is their hypertrophied, even grotesque, manifestation. This is exactly what we are seeing today. What happens next? Can liberalism survive and change? Time will tell.