8 answers
I tried to figure it all out... It turns out who knows what! In general, we have a very funny political system; you can defend a dissertation on Russian political science.
We have liberals in power (according to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Khazin, etc.), but they do not consider themselves liberals, at the same time, they call those who belong to the non-systemic opposition liberals, while the power liberals use the word “liberals” as an insult , and non-systemic liberals are proud to be liberals and call on people who hate liberals to support them. Sometimes another group of liberals appears who sigh and regret that there is no liberal patriotic party (Borshchevsky, Dorenko, etc.). And then there is the LDPR, which are liberals, but at the same time, they hate all other liberals and are trying to bring back Soviet Union, taking away the initiative from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, who are 100% not liberals, but socialists, who for some reason in Russia are right, not left. And if I understand correctly, those who vote for liberals in the United States are very reminiscent of those whom Ukrainian pro-European nationalists call vatniks because they are not liberals. This is a madhouse after all)
Maybe Nolan's chart will help you:
There are two key parameters: economic freedoms and personal freedoms. For liberals, in theory, both are important, although this term itself is interpreted differently, in some places this is what they call the right, in others, on the contrary, in the left. If both parameters are at their maximum, you get libertarianism. The right has a maximum of economic freedoms, a minimum of personal freedoms; the left has, on the contrary, if all freedoms are at a minimum, the result is totalitarianism.
If we take some specific examples in Russia, then Maxim Katz can be considered a liberal in both respects - he is for the expansion of personal and political freedoms, and against totalitarianism, and at the same time for market mechanisms everywhere - his love for paid parking, for example, respect for Chubais and Gaidar. Well, in general, big businessmen in this value system are great.
Navalny and his associates will clearly be to the left, closer to the center. On the one hand, they are for capitalism, but at the same time they pay a lot of attention to inequality. Here Chubais with his privatization and Rusnano is not such a great guy, not to mention all of Putin’s rich friends.
Apple will be even further to the left of Navalny. Well, they themselves say that they have a left-liberal ideology. They raise the topic of social injustice even more, and accordingly, personal freedoms are more important than economic ones; the latter require more restrictions.
Our communists are generally kind of strange. They are clearly in favor of limiting economic freedoms, progressive taxes, everything cheap or free, high pensions (which are not very clear where to get them from). This, of course, contains more populism and speculation on the Soviet theme. At the same time, they certainly do not fight for any personal freedoms, and therefore it is difficult to call them leftists. You can ask for fun what they think, for example, about gays :)
“Systemic liberals” who are in and around the government, such as Gref, Nabiullina, Kudrin, Ulyukaev, are clearly for economic freedoms. Livanov is also included there, he is in favor of ensuring that everything in education is regulated to hell by the invisible hand of the market. At the same time, as far as political freedoms are concerned, all these dudes are silent. Because if they had said anything about this topic, they would have been kicked out of the government for nothing.
In general, our regime turns out to be right-wing totalitarian, and with a lot of ideological manipulations. Therefore, liberals call everyone who says something about political and personal freedoms, and those who can be made scapegoats in the government.
Well, the Republicans in America are just Right-wing. Behind big business, private property and against all hippies and Muslims.
To understand who the real liberals are in Russia, you need to decide who the real liberals are in general. If under the criterion of “authenticity” we use loyalty to the ideals of classical liberalism, then libertarians will be closest to them. Of these, I can only remember Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s former economic adviser and the person thanks to whom we have a flat income tax. Kasyanov and his party declare loyalty to similar values. They differ little from the ideological core of the moderate Republican Party, which is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” that is, for moderate taxation, a small role for the state in the economy and for the freedom of individuals to do everything that does not contradict the freedom of others.
I don’t quite understand about the rightness of our socialists, but there are very few left socialists, that is, those who are in favor of a planned or at least nationalized economy in the West, and if they exist, they are perceived as outright populists (see, for example, Labor led by Jeremy Corbin)
There are a lot of answers, and there will be more. I'll try to participate. and alas, it won’t work out as briefly as I like.
The fact is that the classical concept of liberals dates back to the beginning of the 19th century, when they opposed the ideology of royalist conservatism. There are two forces: the big bourgeoisie on one side, and representatives of the old aristocracy on the other. In today's world, liberalism is no longer an independent ideology, but, in general, part of basic human rights, inalienable for most countries, at least on paper.
In Russia, the concept of “liberal” is closely related to the concept of “democrat”, and most people perceive them as synonymous, but this is by no means the case. So, the majority of the Russian so-called. The “non-system opposition” is democrats, not liberals. I will try to explain the difference using the example of the Great French Revolution. After the events of 1789, two main political groups emerged in the struggle for power - the Girondins and the Montagnards. The Girondins were bourgeois of different stripes, their program boiled down to the fact that we will give the people more freedoms, but we will not give them power. The Montagnards were more radical, they demanded power from the people first of all, and of course the radical faction of the Montagnards - the Jacobins - showed in practice what this was. Here is the key difference - a liberal is for freedom for all, and a democrat is for power for all, and these things can either be combined or not.
After the evolutionary victory of the liberals in 19 in the advanced European countries, another problem surfaced. Liberalism in its pure form is not a powerful enough support to maintain social balance. The liberals won and broke the foundations class society, defended first of all themselves, that is, the bourgeoisie. They gave freedom to everyone, but not everyone could put it into practice. The masses were subjected to severe exploitation, and this provoked the birth of a new political movement - the socialists.
Naturally, nothing is clear yet, so I will try to break down the spectrum of political trends characteristic of the first half of the 20th century. Liberals are for complete freedom, the strongest must win, if you want something in life, get it for yourself, no one owes you anything, the state is the army, the police and the court. Democrats - the state is obliged to regulate class relations, the state is obliged to provide a decent standard of living to all residents of the country, so that everyone has the opportunity to realize themselves, the state is the people who delegate their representatives to it through elections. Socialists - the state ensures complete equality of classes, is the highest dictate of social justice, taking upon itself all management of society as a whole, in all spheres of life. Anarchists - the state is the main form of exploitation, even if it eliminates the exploitation of man by man, he still remains not free, therefore society must consist of fragmented communes that resolve all issues of their existence within themselves by direct democratic methods. It’s very primitive, but in general it’s true.
In their pure form, these ideologies did not exist. Liberalism was different, democrats and socialists too. In each country, based on its current characteristics, these ideas were mixed and transformed. Therefore, an American liberal, a French liberal and an English liberal are slightly different things. Ideologists also formed their own schools. There were liberals for whom the ideal was almost Darwinian conditions of competition, other liberals advocated that the state should still be an arbiter, others advocated that the state should largely control the economy and social life, support antitrust laws, maintain healthy competition in society, and protect it from social explosions, revolutions and crises.
Parties were formed at the intersection of ideologies. The average spectrum looked like this. The liberal parties of large industrial and financial capital are liberals. Parties of medium and small businesses, intellectuals - democrats. The parties of the working masses are socialists.
I’ll say something about conservatism. Conservatives began to be considered supporters of evolutionary development, without forced and radical reforms. For example, a liberal in the USA in the mid-20th century, in relation to a socialist, was a conservative. And a socialist in the Russian Federation in the early 90s was a conservative in relation to a liberal. Here, I hope it became clearer?)
All three branches have pros and cons. Liberalism is the ideal of a person who works for himself and who depends on himself; this is the position of a strong personality. And here a billionaire tycoon and the driver of his own tractor, who turns the steering wheel himself, can find a common language. They seem to be different layers, but often the programs of the liberals, with low tax burdens, are closer to both of them equally, and here they are allies. At the same time, the state limits medical care for the population, educational and scientific programs, and here teachers and low-skilled workers can become allies, giving a vote to the Democrats. Socialists in most countries have merged with democrats, abandoning their radical goals, and each country has its own social democrats who advocate the development of public institutions and the maintenance of broad social programs, naturally at the expense of taxes. Separately, no party can be effective, some give an economic breakthrough, but the standard of living of the masses falls, others, on the contrary, pull the standard of living up due to a decrease in economic indicators. A system of checks and balances is being formed, which underlies the political systems of all advanced countries. In other words, no party or ideology can monopolize power in the country and dictate living conditions. Again, I’m not giving examples, this is a diagram.
Now I’ll move on from the diagram to specifics. Republicans in the USA are a party that is based on liberal values. There was no conflict between liberals and conservatives in the 19th century in the United States; it was founded by liberals. Therefore, when the Social Democrats became stronger, the liberals looked like conservatives in relation to them. I hope you're not confused. A new breath of liberalism occurred during the structural crisis of the 70s. In the post-war world, in the second half of the 20th century, social democrats became stronger, and in advanced countries the process of establishing social states was underway. The following appeared and became an integral norm: an 8-hour working day, old-age and disability pensions, free medicine and education, and unemployment benefits. The state went further and began to support even unprofitable industries (a classic example is miners in England), defending the right to work for all citizens, fearing unemployment. The result was a sharp decline in advanced economies, and a serious crisis occurred. Here the ideology of neoliberalism appears, which breathed new strength into the parties of liberals and conservatives that had faded into the background (which was almost the same thing in the 70s). They set a course for tough and effective reforms. Margaret Thatcher, by a strong-willed decision in the UK, closed unprofitable mines and threw thousands and thousands of workers onto the streets, but organized retraining courses. The state now strictly controlled social spending, created conditions for business development, and a breakthrough in new technologies for the market, which led to a dramatic modernization of all spheres of life. In the United States, a similar course was pursued by the icon of all Republicans, R. Reagan, whose policy was even nicknamed Reagonomics.
Now let's finally move on to Russia. In our country, after the fall of the socialist regime, reforms began according to a similar scheme, that is, neoliberal ones. However, on our soil, the population turned out to be completely unprepared for such changes in life, and the name of the program “shock therapy” fully justified itself. The result was not so favorable, but here, however, well-known political changes intervened, which used rising energy prices to maintain living standards, and almost replaced the real economy, and almost abandoned further liberal reforms in this economy, the result of which we experienced firsthand we feel it today.
Now let’s look at who our liberal is - a systemic liberal, for example, Kudrin. Outside the system, for example, Khodorkovsky. The democrats have it the hardest of all; the non-systemic democrat today is, of course, Navalny, and Yashin. Liberals, as a rule, are more economists, for them politics is a kind of background, for democrats it plays higher value, because it prevents big business from detaching itself from the problems of the entire population (they say you feed on our labor, so don’t forget about your obligations). Socialists are more comfortable with internal confrontation with systemic liberals, they defend their ideal of the dominant state, here the bright representative is Putin, while we have the historical experience of a socialist empire, which makes socialists imperials at the same time (which is complete game for Europeans), which is why they have ideologically somewhat right-wing. It’s easiest to call Udaltsov a non-systemic socialist, but here we need to make allowances for history, we have different shades, and our socialists are most often called communists, which is not entirely correct.
Given that there is a deficit of liberalism and democracy in Russia, liberals cannot declare their program without significant democratic changes, and democrats, without significant liberal ones. This causes a confusion of concepts, and the difference between such a system and the system in the United States (that is, Republicans advocate democracy, and Democrats have nothing against liberalism, they just put emphasis in different places).
That is, a liberal who comes to power in the Russian Federation will bring democratic reforms, without which he will not implement the program, but he will take as many of them as he needs, no more, no less. The Democrats will bring liberal reforms to their democratic programs, or their social-democratic programs, because some kind of economy is needed to milk taxes for these programs. In the USA, democracy and liberalism are indisputable dominants, and the conflict of parties concerns a huge mass of details of social and economic life countries, the United States does not require radical reforms, so the change of Democrats and Republicans does not have such a noticeable impact on ordinary life in the United States.
Look like that's it.
Liberal values: personal freedom, private property and unalienable rights. The danger of the concept of “private property” is that it focuses a person’s attention and life goals on the material and individual. It kills the spiritual and creative in him. He exalts his own, the personal, over the general. A person turns into a kind of rodent, whose main task is to carry and carry more grain into his hole. Compete with other rodents, defend their reserves. And nothing more is required from a person
So, in order:
1. A liberal is anyone who considers human life to be the highest value. If we talk about more or less large political parties, then Yabloko is classical liberalism.
2. Republicans are generally not considered liberals in the USA. In a broad sense, democrats are considered liberals; in a narrow sense - progressive socialists. Libertarians, for example, are considered social liberals and economic conservatives. The fact is that philosophical liberal thought in the USA and Europe has been developing towards socialism since the mid-twentieth century.
3. In the post-Soviet tradition, it was believed that communists were leftists, liberals were rightists. A similar division is still sometimes used, but gradually nationalists began to be called right-wing, as in the Western tradition. If we talk about the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, since the nineties they have been playing the nationalist and conservative card, there is essentially no communism there, rather Stalinism - they are, indeed, more right than left. Although, right and left, this is an absolutely conventional designation, and this is why there is confusion.
US Republicans are not liberals - they are staunch conservatives who support the American dream, free enterprise, Protestantism, the right to bear arms, and prohibit abortion and euthanasia. If it weren’t for all the liberals, they would have preserved slavery. In general, we would do everything to preserve the country the way the “founding fathers” created it. Just as one cannot traditionally call socialists right - because socialism is based on completely left-wing ideas of universal equality. Feminism, LGBT rights, freedom of religion, the pension system, trade unions - these are all left-wing ideas that have made their way into the constitution.
Try to separate left-right and liberal-conservative ideas. There are definitely no real liberal parties in our country anymore. If you look at the current members of parliament, everyone is fighting to preserve traditional values. Some even defend values that replaced the current traditional values about 100 years ago. We don’t have right-wing parties either. Even Alexei Navalny is not an ardent supporter of right-wing ideology. He defends the idea of the inviolability of private property, but at the same time is a supporter of decent social guarantees from the state. Which is difficult to implement in reality, unfortunately. In their election programs, absolutely everyone competes on who will pay the largest pensions, who will impose the largest taxes on large businesses (and this is also non-market, since small businesses do not want to become big), who will defeat corruption, etc.
If you really want to figure out where to look for right-wing liberals or right-wing conservatives in our country, then just use Google and look at the difference between the currents, but without mixing them. It lies in how this or that movement answers a certain list of questions. And then look at how parties or individuals do it. The problem with Russian politics is that there are no different views on solving problems, but there are different people who want to solve the same problems in the same way, which is due to the homogeneity of the electorate - grandmothers and state employees go to the polls, and we have very few business representatives and they are not too rich so that they can cooperate and lobby their interests in politics.
Those who do not remember kinship: who were the ancestors of Russian liberals
Here is an incomplete list of famous journalists, politicians, and public figures who made a name for themselves through their categorical rejection of the Soviet past and way of life. In recent years, some of them, contrary to the official line, support projects like "Immortal barracks", criticizing large-scale celebrations of Victory Day and other dates that are associated with the Soviet period of Russian history. Mikhail Shakhov decided to remind about names, positions and merits ancestors modern Russian liberals.
Evgenia Albats
Russian liberal journalist, political scientist, public figure and writer. She became famous during Perestroika as the author of Moscow News. Editor in Chief The New Times. Until May 2016, she was the host of her own program on the Ekho Moskvy radio station.
Father– Mark Efremovich Albats. Soviet intelligence officer, radio operator engineer. In 1941, he underwent training at the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Red Army, acted as an illegal intelligence officer in Nikolaev, living in a safe house according to documents in the name of Grigory Basiliy. After the war, he worked “at the terribly secret Research Institute 10, developing radio systems for ballistic missiles launched from submarines." According to some (for obvious reasons, unconfirmed) data, Albats rose to the rank of intelligence colonel.
Grandfather– Mark Mikhailovich Albats. Candidate member of the CPSU. After studying at the Institute. Bauman was sent to “adopt the experience of building electric railways” in the USA, then to purchase equipment in Italy. Before the arrest and execution in 1937 he managed to achieve a high position at that time as head of the Sverdlovsk railway junction.
Anton Antonov-Ovseenko
Journalist, writer, researcher, author of the collection of poetry “Classics of Russian Erotica”, the revealing book “Bolsheviks: How a bunch of people crushed the Empire”, as well as the monograph “German money in the Bolshevik press”. He worked in the apparatus of the Komsomol, Union ministries of the USSR. Now the head of the public reception office of the Yabloko party in Moscow, he speaks on talk shows on federal channels.
Grandson of the revolutionary Vladimir Aleksandrovich Antonov-Ovseenko (pseudonyms in the party - Bayonet and Nikita).
V. Antonov-Ovseenko- Russian and Ukrainian revolutionary, Menshevik until 1914, in 1917 he joined the Bolshevik Party, after the October Revolution he became a party, state and military figure. It was he who declared the Provisional Government overthrown. In 1937, Antonov-Ovseenko was recalled from Spain, after which he was arrested by the NKVD. February 8, 1938 sentenced to execution for belonging to a Trotskyist terrorist and espionage organization. Before his death, he said the words: “I ask whoever lives to see freedom to tell people that Antonov-Ovseenko was a Bolshevik and remained a Bolshevik until his last day.”
Konstantin Borovoy
Deputy of the Duma of the 2nd convocation, ex-chairman of the Party of Economic Freedom, chairman of the political party “Western Choice”. First president of the Russian Commodity and Raw Materials Exchange (1990). He involved the exchange staff in the confrontation between Yeltsin and the Emergency Committee, organized barricades and street actions. Close associate of Valeria Novodvorskaya. In 1991 - president of the bankrupt investment pyramid "Rinako". Author of numerous scandalous statements addressed to Russia and its leadership, incl. "Vilnius ultimatum to Putin."
The son of the writer, secretary of the Association of Proletarian Writers Nathan Efimovich Borovoy, and the chief special officer of the Zheleznodorozhny District Party Committee, employee of the KGB of the USSR Elena Konstantinovna Borovoy.
Sergey Buntman
First deputy editor-in-chief of the Ekho Moskvy radio station, author of the slogan “Listen to the radio - the rest is appearances.” Came to Echo from the French editorial office of the Soviet Foreign Broadcasting. He claimed that Russia committed aggression in Georgia.
Grandfather Buntman - Petros Artemyevich Bekzadyan. Since February 1921 - Secretary of the Plenipotentiary Mission of the Armenian SSR to the Government of the RSFSR. Since March 1923 - Leningrad representative of the Armenian representative office. He worked as a senior consultant at the representative office of the Georgian SSR in Moscow. Arrested in 1937 and convicted by the Military Collegium Supreme Court USSR for participation in a counter-revolutionary nationalist organization. Shot and rehabilitated.
Alexey Venediktov
Journalist, permanent Chief Editor, co-owner (18% shares) and presenter of the Ekho Moskvy radio station.
On his father's side: grandson of Nikolai Andrianovich Venediktov.
N. Venediktov – military prosecutor, member of the Military tribunal. From the official presentation to the Order of the Red Star:
“Comrade Venediktov [...] directs his punitive policy towards a merciless fight against traitors, spies and traitors to the Motherland. Dozens of traitors were convicted by him and received a well-deserved punishment. He is merciless towards the enemies of the Motherland and teaches this to the workers of peripheral tribunals. The blows to the criminals are sharp. With its judicial punitive policy, it helps to strengthen iron military discipline.”
Maria Gaidar
Russian and Ukrainian political figure. Former member Federal Political Council of the Union of Right Forces. She filled government positions as deputy chairman of the government of the Kirov region (2009-2011) and deputy governor of Saakashvili in the Odessa region.
There is a popular version that this branch of the Gaidarov family is not the blood heirs of the legendary red commander and children's writer. It is known that Arkady Petrovich Gaidar (Golikov) took paternity issues lightly, and adopted at least one child (a girl, Evgenia, in his third marriage). In turn, Gaidar's second wife, Timur's mother and Yegor Gaidar's grandmother, Rakhil Lazarevna Solomyanskaya, broke up with the writer around 1931 to marry the secretary of the Shepetovsky regional committee of the RCP(b) Israel Mikhailovich Razin (later repressed). Officially in the USSR, it was the descendants of Solomyanskaya who were considered “heirs to the name of Gaidar.”
In any case, Maria Gaidar’s grandfather is Timur Arkadyevich Gaidar, head of the military department of the Pravda newspaper, her own correspondent in a number of countries. During his service at the newspaper, he was promoted several times, reaching the rank of rear admiral.
Maria Gaidar's father, Yegor Timurovich Gaidar, managed to make a communist career before the collapse of the USSR - he served as editor and head of the economic policy department in the journal of the CPSU Central Committee "Communist". In addition, following the example of his father, he headed the department of the Pravda newspaper.
Vasily Gatov
In the 90s - producer of television programs for BBC, ABC News, ZDF, press secretary of the Soros Foundation. Since 1996 – Deputy General Director of the REN-TV channel. The author of the statement “the leaders of Service “A” of the PGU of the KGB of the USSR are crying in their special hell, watching the stories of the Russia-1 TV channel.” In his own words, “in the early 90s he investigated the life of his grandfather.” The former deputy head of RIA Novosti during the time of Svetlana Mironyuk, after his dismissal, moved for permanent residence to the United States of America.
Grandfather Gatova - Ivan Samsonovich Sheredega, Soviet statesman and military leader, lieutenant general, 4th commander of the internal troops of the NKVD of the USSR. He held the position of head of the Higher Officer School of the NKVD, then - head of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs Directorate for the Sakhalin Region. Led the resettlement operation Crimean Tatars, participated in repressions in Ukraine and the arrest of Beria.
Second grandfather– Moisey Lvovich Gatov (1902-1939) – awarded the badge “Honored Worker of the Cheka-GPU”, acting head of the 4th department and 5th department of the Main Economic Directorate (GEU) of the NKVD of the USSR, major of state security. Shot in 1939 and was not rehabilitated.
Maria (Masha) Gessen
Russian and American journalist, former director of the Russian service of Radio Liberty, author of books about Stalin, Putin and Pussy Riot, activist of the LGBT movement. Lives in the USA, legally married to Svetlana Generalova (better known to the general public as photographer Svenya Generalova).
Masha’s paternal grandmother, Esther Yakovlevna Goldberg (married Gessen), was a translator and memoirist who worked for the magazine “Soviet Literature.” Her maternal grandmother, Rozalia Moiseevna Solodovnik (born 1920), was a career employee of the MGB, and worked as a telegram censor at the Central Telegraph in Moscow.
Dmitry Gudkov
Russian opposition politician, deputy of the State Duma of the sixth convocation on the list of “A Just Russia” (later expelled from the faction for an anti-Russian position and participation in the preparation of sanctions lists). Member of the Coordination Council of the Opposition, co-owner of family businesses - a security holding company and a collection agency.
Father– former deputy Gennady Gudkov. He was deputy secretary of the Komsomol committee of the university. At the age of seventeen, he wrote a letter to Andropov to find out how he could start serving in KGB. Since 1982 he worked in the state security agencies of the USSR. Graduated from the counterintelligence school, KGB Institute named after Andropov. In 1993 he was dismissed without the right to wear military uniform. Reserve Colonel.
D. Gudkov’s great-grandfather (Gennady Gudkov’s grandfather) is Pyotr Yakovlevich Gudkov, one of Nikolai Bukharin’s assistants. During the Civil War, my great-grandmother worked at the headquarters of Army Commander Mikhail Frunze.
Tikhon Dzyadko
Russian television and radio journalist, former deputy editor-in-chief of the Dozhd TV channel. In August 2015, he left the Dozhd TV channel to begin his work on the Ukrainian Inter TV channel in Washington. Has two brothers - Timofey and Philip, who headed the magazines Forbes And " Big city" respectively.
The Dzyadko brothers are the children of Zoya Feliksovna Svetova, a journalist (Radio France, newspaper Liberation, magazine The New Times) and a famous human rights activist.
Dzyadko’s great-grandfather is Grigory (Zvi) Fridland, revolutionary, member of the Central Committee of the Jewish Social Democratic Party “Poalei Zion”. In 1917, he actively worked in the Petrograd Soviet, then was a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Lithuanian-Belarusian Republic. After the revolution, he was a Soviet Marxist historian, studied at the Institute of Red Professorships, and became the first dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University ( shot in 1937).
Victor Erofeev
Contemporary Russian writer, literary critic, radio and television presenter (“Echo of Moscow”, “Radio Liberty”). In January 2014, he took part in the scandalous broadcast of the “Amateurs” program on the Dozhd TV channel, where he stated that Leningrad should have been surrendered to German troops.
Son of the Soviet diplomat Vladimir Ivanovich Erofeev (personal translator of Joseph Stalin into French, assistant to the 1st Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers V. Molotov, assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, deputy head of the 1st European Department of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USSR to Senegal and the Gambia , from 1970 to 1975 – deputy general director UNESCO).
Evgeniy Kiselev
Soviet, Russian and Ukrainian TV presenter. Author of the proposal “kidnap citizens of the Russian Federation” to exchange for Nadezhda Savchenko. In 1981-1984 he taught [Persian language] in High school KGB USSR named after Dzerzhinsky. From 1993 to 2001 he worked for NTV, while the channel remained under the control of media tycoon Gusinsky.
Father - Alexey Alexandrovich Kiselev (1911-1988) - Soviet scientist, laureate of the Stalin Prize of the second degree (1946).
Father-in-law - Geliy Alekseevich Shakhov, was one of the leaders of the USSR State Television and Radio (editor-in-chief of Foreign Broadcasting in the USA and Great Britain; among other things, he supervised Vladimir Posner and interviewed Kerensky in 1966).
Kiselev’s biography includes the great-grandfather of the Dzyadko brothers, Grigory Fridlyand, a revolutionary and the first dean of the Faculty of History at Moscow State University. His granddaughter is Masha Shakhova, the wife of Evgeniy Kiselyov.
Irena Lesnevskaya
Journalist and one of the leading Russian television producers of the 90s. Founder REN-TV, magazine publisher The New Times. In 1991, she was an assistant director in the Kinopanorama program, but “she left television under Swan Lake so as not to work under the State Emergency Committee.” In March 2016, she sent a letter to Vladimir Putin, calling for an amnesty for Nadezhda Savchenko. In his own words, “he considers Putin his ideological enemy.”
Grandfather - Jan Lesniewski. Political prisoner, Bolshevik, friend and associate of Dzerzhinsky, organizer of workers' strikes, member of the strike committee (1903). Shot during the years of repression.
Alexander Nevzorov
Reporter, TV presenter, producer, director, publicist. Author and presenter of the perestroika program “600 Seconds”. Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation of four convocations. A zealous atheist and a regular participant in Echo of Moscow programs.
Nevzorov’s maternal grandfather, MGB officer Georgy Vladimirovich Nevzorov, headed the department for combating banditry on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR in 1946-1955. Mother - Galina Georgievna Nevzorova, journalist of the newspaper "Smena", the printed organ of the Petrograd Provincial Committee of the Komsomol, then - the Leningrad Regional Committee and the City Committee of the Komsomol.
Andrey Piontkovsky
Russian opposition journalist. Former member of the Bureau of the Political Council of the Solidarity movement. Member of the Opposition Coordination Council. book author "Unloved Country", articles “The Kremlin gopnik has beaten the West again” and appeals to NATO calling for the introduction of “limited nuclear attack for the guaranteed destruction of the highest Russian political and military leadership."
Son of Andrei Andreevich Piontkovsky, a Soviet jurist, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (a specialist in the criminal legal views of Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach). A. Piontkovsky – vice-president International Association criminal law, honorary doctor of the University of Warsaw, judge of the Supreme Court of the USSR during the reign of I. Stalin (from 1946 to 1951). He was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery.
Ilya Ponomarev
Entrepreneur, deputy State Duma 5th and 6th convocations, member of the “A Just Russia” faction, member of the “Left Front” Council. Currently wanted in the case of fake lectures for Skolkovo. He is hiding abroad, where he is seeking strengthening of international sanctions against the Russian Federation in various institutions.
Step-nephew of the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, hero of socialist labor, academician Boris Nikolaevich Ponomarev. In 1934-37 Ponomarev was the director of the Institute of Party History at the Moscow Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, then an assistant to the head of the Executive Committee of the Comintern Georgiy Dimitrov, from 1955 until Perestroika - the permanent head of the Department for Relations with Foreign Communist Parties - the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee.
Also worthy of attention is the grandfather of Ilya Ponomarev - Nikolai Pavlovich Ponomarev, a Komsomol and party worker, an honorary railway worker, a diplomat, in the late 70s - the first secretary of the USSR Embassy in Poland, an honorary citizen of this country, who mediated negotiations with the Solidarity trade union.
Vyacheslav (Slava) Rabinovich
Executive Director of the management company Diamond Age Capital Advisors, former employee Hermitage Capital Bill Browder, liberal Facebook blogger, Ukrainian media expert on the collapse of the Russian economy, its domestic politics and the issues of overthrowing Putin.
Grandfather - musicologist David Abramovich Rabinovich. In 1919 in Kharkov he was among the first Komsomol members. Served in Cheka. He moved to Moscow and by 1930 graduated from the Moscow Conservatory, while teaching political economy there. He was an editor, then a manager. book editor and deputy manager of the state publishing house "Muzgiz". From 1933 - consultant, later - head of the music sector of the All-Union Radio. In 1937 - head. performing department of the newspaper "Music", in 1938 - music department of the newspaper "Soviet Art". In 1945-1947, art consultant at the Sovinformburo.
Excerpts from the speeches of Comrade David Rabinovich in the 30s have been preserved:
“Comrade Blum in his letter accuses the Association of Proletarian Musicians of allegedly preaching the ingrowth of bourgeois music into socialism. This is nonsense. But what does Comrade propose? Bloom? He preaches the growth of socialist proletarian music from the depths of capitalism. Completely groundlessly, he accuses the Association of “shameless Menshevism.” And what is this if not the most shameless Menshevism, if not the most open McDonaldism? I ask whether the thesis of Comrade. Bloom from McDonald's? – It’s no different. This is the most shameless Menshevism, the most shameless social-fascism on the musical front...”
In 1948, during processes that logically followed from similar “ideological disputes” of the late 30s, Rabinovich was arrested. Upon returning from the camp in 1955, he no longer held official positions, but quickly restored his reputation as one of the leading music critics. In 1958, he received an apartment in the famous “Composer’s House”, and actively hosted students there - inviting them “to get acquainted with some record received from abroad.” At the end of his life, Rabinovich became one of the largest philophonists in Moscow, heading the corresponding section at the Union of Composers; he promoted collecting and studying recordings.
Nikolai Svanidze
Named after grandfather - shot in 1937, party leader Nikolai Samsonovich Svanidze, head of the Abkhaz city committee of the Party, brother of Joseph Stalin’s first wife - Kato Svanidze.
Father - Karl Nikolaevich Svanidze, despite his repressed father, made a career, becoming deputy director of Politizdat under the CPSU Central Committee. He was one of the compilers of the collection “The Goals and Methods of Militant Zionism.”
Mark Feigin
Zhirinovsky about the plans of Hasidic Jews in Russia
Liberals in power - the main problem Russia
All the liberal scum gathered in Lithuania to discuss how to make things worse in Russia
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite those who are waking up and interested...
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. 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 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, 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 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 construction new Russia Such facts were perceived as “learning from experience,” but 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 questions 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 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 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, 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 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 contrary. 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.
Modern Russian liberalism is carefully nurtured by Russia's traditional enemies - the governments of Great Britain and the USA. Not only fed and educated, but also diligently supported. At the same time, modern Russian liberalism is based on the basest properties of human nature: greed, impunity, irresponsibility, selfishness, and even basic stupidity.
Naturally, if they rely on the listed qualities, then their methods of promoting their ideas are appropriate: lies, hysteria, illogicality, emotionality. Russian liberals are pleased with any fact that causes annoyance in normal people and a desire to correct the situation. Any problem in Russian society, in the economy, in politics, in any sphere of life in the country.
What are they trying to achieve? If any normal and adequate person, having heard about problems, tries to do something to solve these problems, a modern Russian liberal rejoices at this problem like a child enjoys a toy. The task of liberals is not at all to improve life in the country. The task of a modern Russian liberal is to sow panic and distrust in power, to “shaken” the social situation in the country, to create scandals and unrest.
For what? Yes, very simple. In conditions of instability and nervousness, people think little about the causes of problems and therefore follow not those leaders who are really capable of leading society out of the crisis, but those who shout louder about these problems, but do not offer real actions to correct the situation and get rid of problems , proposing to replace the leaders with “our own”.
This happens in all “revolutions” and “coups”. So, for example, in the first period of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the most reactionary terrorist leaders of the revolution, for example Trotsky and his supporters, came to power. By “confusing” the crowd with slogans about the “world revolution”, giving the crowd an excuse for robbery and violence, Trotsky thereby encouraged the most heinous crimes that caused the civil war in Russia. In the initial period of the revolution, many swindlers came to power, whose goal was not to change the political and social system in Russia, but to take advantage of the confusion for personal enrichment. But subsequently, the Bolshevik leadership managed to remove the most radical circles from power. What these circles were very unhappy with.
It is not difficult to draw an analogy with the current social situation. See what they say about problems and how they say them Russian society liberals? Their only argument is a change of power and leaders. For what? Yes, in order to “bring in” “our own” in their place. Kasparov’s reservation that: “...Because they are fighting for their right. For the right to shamelessly plunder the country and endlessly enrich themselves ( it's about power - author's note). And Putin’s gang of thieves will not give us this right so easily...( they are already talking about themselves - approx. author)" - this is not a random clause. It is for " the right" to plunder the country and enrich themselves endlessly"The modern Russian liberal opposition is actually fighting.
To solve Russia's problems, what is currently needed is not a change of leaders, not a change of president. In his annual address, the president outlined very specific and very important measures to solve Russia’s economic problems. But can modern Russian liberals suggest something similar? No. They cannot and do not offer. And they will never offer it. Because liberals need problems in Russia precisely in order to get this very thing" ...the right to rob the country themselves and endlessly enrich themselves".
Proving the true goal of modern Russian liberals is also very simple. Let's take a close look at the leaders of the modern opposition, liberals, and at the supporters of modern Russian liberalism and opponents of the Russian President.
NAVALNY is a person who claims theft and corruption of the authorities (which, admittedly, does occur), while he himself has been convicted of fraud and theft more than once. There is a lot of material about this on the Internet and you can easily find it.
NEMTSOV Boris Efimovich - more than once held quite high positions in the government and in power. Why, while in these positions, did this man never leave a good memory of himself and positive reviews about the period of his leadership, either while in the government or as governor of the Nizhny Novgorod region? And this man is striving for power again? For what? He was already in power and what did he do there?
And here are the propagandists of modern Russian liberalism.
I'm not even talking about the fact that Ms. Novodvorskaya, who is the leader of modern Russian liberalism and liberals, who has many supporters in Russia, infinite number once expressed her unequivocal hatred and contempt for the Russian people.
It’s no wonder that supporters of liberalism constantly resort to outright lies in their messages. For example, someone under the nickname “Defender of the Motherland” writes in a thread about the fall of the MIG-31:
"For a whole year, the loss of only two F-16s is quite tolerable, although sad
for the Israelis, a loss. The fact is that the F-16 is, in fact, the main combat
Israeli Air Force plane. And these planes fly quite often. But the Russian ones
Airplanes spend almost all their time on the ground. According to some reports, before
80 percent of Russian aircraft require some kind of repair or replacement
anything. And in Russia, MiG-31s probably fly only when they are
preparing for combat duty. So any loss of an interceptor
The MiG-31 is a great tragedy for the Russian Air Force. " .
There is no need to think too much about the fact that this is just a lie. Where did this “defender of the homeland” get such information? That's right - from your dirty finger. And that in itself is strange: two F-16s that fell in Israel are nonsense, but a MIG-31 that fell is " a great tragedy for the Russian Air Force."... It is clear that this is designed for the ultimate idiot, incapable of even primitive text analysis.
Well, the fact that supporters of liberalism constantly resort to “emergency situations” at Maxpark is the strongest evidence that liberals are very afraid of discussions and are not at all supporters of free expression of will. By publicly proclaiming their commitment to “freedom of speech,” liberals and their supporters do not hesitate to deprive those who object to them of the opportunity to speak and express their point of view. And is it really possible after this not to call liberals liars and hypocrites?
How to assess the support that the most odious political figures in the US government - Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Senator McCain so actively provide to our liberals?... These are by no means friends of the Russian people and Russian state... So why are Russian liberals “friends” with those who are clearly direct and open enemies of the people of Russia?
In general, the true essence of a person is contained in his deeds. But the deeds of the supporters and followers of modern Russian liberalism are very vile, and their words are completely false...
The paradox of liberals is that they fight against power, but they themselves will never become power. Even if a miracle happened, they could not agree among themselves. Attempts at any kind of unification have been failing for many years - everyone wants to be the boss. This is the liberals' biggest internal problem.
But even if the opportunity arose to take part in the elections, the result would be modest. And this is obvious to everyone who understands politics. Including the liberals themselves.
Why then fight if the goal is unattainable?
Because struggle is for the sake of struggle. Because this is a job for money. Rock, shout, provoke. There are various works, and this also happens and exists.
All that liberals are truly strong at is dispersing topics and provocations in the information space. Liberals use tragedies, emergencies and scandals for information gain. Therefore, they can be classified as heroes of the negative information field.
The liberals' technology is simple: they create media reality and modify it to suit their goals. With cross-support from each other, topics are stirred up in the blogosphere and loyal media, and the waves then spill out into the larger media agenda. After p the acceleration of the media agenda keeps the event “life” until the audience’s interest is exhausted, and they take on a new acceleration.
The contribution of every serious liberal to the acceleration of the agenda is its own information weight.
It is noteworthy that the harvest in the elections from the crackdown by the liberals among the electorate is being reaped by the completely pro-government communists, Zhirinovites and Socialist-Revolutionaries. They have their own job.
In the end, everyone is happy. Everyone gets paid for what they can do better than others.
Rating of the influence of liberals on the political and information agenda "13 of the very best."
1. Alexey Venediktov (Dandelion). Media soldier.
At Venediktov's long story fame, which has very few dirty spots. The advantage over others is the presence of the main liberal media resource in the form of radio "Echo of Moscow". Venediktov is very influential among liberals because he can steer the agenda of Echo and the presence of people from the liberal camp on air and in mentions.
2. Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Khodor). Politician.
The main source of support for liberals in Russia. At the same time, he is the biggest disappointment of the liberals. Supporters expected more from Khodorkovsky in events, but they did not receive it. In 7 years, Khodorkovsky’s story has ceased to bring even PR dividends. But liberals cannot write off Khodorkovsky - there are not many symbols, they must be preserved. Not to mention the sponsors. Advantage - money, name
3. Ilya Yashin (Jackal). Politician.
Very noticeable and active among liberal politicians. Able to somehow advance in public policy, despite opposition. The disadvantage of Yashin is his youth and the image of a pure politician (separated from the economy and serious spheres of the state structure). The advantage is the shortage of liberal politicians.
4. Garry Kasparov (Kasparych). Politician.
Big question for liberals. Kasparov's problem is that he was overestimated by his colleagues in terms of financial and organizational abilities.Advantage - it has taken a key place in the liberal space and does not give it away to anyone
5. Yulia Latynina (Lata). Media soldier.
One of the most boisterous liberal media soldiers. The advantage is access to media resources" New Newspaper" and "Echo of Moscow".
6. Demyan Kudryavtsev. Ideologist.
A rare example of a wise “senior comrade” in ideology for many young liberals.
7. Alexander Minkin (Cough, cough). Media soldier.
Minkin writes well and figuratively. Unlike most other soldiers, he can also be read by his opponents.The advantage is the presence of a powerful media resource in the form of the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper.
8. Alexey Navalny (Sledgehammer). Media soldier.
The most likable media soldier character for young audiences and even opponents. It does not cause categorical rejection from patriots because of the format of its activity: on its blog it is quite interesting to engage in revelations. The advantage is a successful image.
9. Boris Nemtsov (Borya). Politician.
He could have been the most attractive among liberal politicians, if not for the trail of the past from the 90s. The image of a glamorous opposition figure has exhausted itself, but in the niche of liberal politicians there is no one to replace Nemtsov. This is Nemtsov's only advantage.
10.Oleg Kozlovsky. Media soldier. Street Fighter.
A rare example of organizational skills, media soldier and street fighter. A promising politician in a liberal environment.
11. Artemy Lebedev (Topic). Media soldier.
The famous designer and scandalous blogger Lebedev does not position himself as a liberal, but he successfully is one. With the help of his blog, he successfully and funnyly attacks the authorities, infecting a large audience with a similar mood. The advantage is a large audience for a personal blog and connections through Tatyana Tolstaya (mother) with the liberal environment.
12. Leonid Nevzlin (Nevzlin). Politician.
In conjunction with Khodorkovsky, he provides great support to the liberal opposition, but he cannot be a political leader. This suits liberals very much, who need support, but are absolutely not ready to share their place in the rays of glory.
13. Mikhail Kasyanov (Misha 2 percent). Politician.
A big disappointment and source of irritation for liberals. For so many years they have been waiting for money and some kind of action from Kasyanov that they could have given up a long time ago. But they don’t give a damn, they still hope. The advantage is that high expectations remain.
Eduard Limonov (Grandfather). Politician.
Still visible and interesting to the media. But he personally cannot attract a new audience for himself. The advantage is the name.
Lyudmila Alekseeva (Grandmother). Politician.
When it is necessary to close a status hole in some event, they always remember Alekseeva. Old man, who himself can no longer realize his influence, but is an instrument in the hands of his colleagues. The advantage is the name.
Alexey Dymovsky (Smoke). Media soldier.
Policeman Dymovsky became mega-famous, but failed to take advantage of this fame correctly. His last video message against the backdrop of a sheet caused laughter from the audience. Nevertheless, Dymovsky retains the potential to disperse some topic or scandal if asked. The advantage is the name.
Blogger Tekhnomad - teh-nomad.livejournal.com (presumably Vladimir Goryachev). Media soldier.
One of the most successful specialists in stuffing and promoting topics in the negative news agenda.
Anton Nosik (Nosik). Media soldier.
Potential head of the united liberal media headquarters during the events of the 2011-2012 elections. Advantage - experience in media as a process organizer.
Alexander Ryklin. Media soldier.
Competitor of Anton Nosik for the post of head of the united liberal media headquarters during the events of the 2011-2012 elections. The advantage is access to the media resource "Daily Journal".
Matvey Ganapolsky (Gapon). Media soldier.
He still writes well, but he has ceased to be the author of vivid images.
Valeria Novodvorskaya. Glamorous character.
It's funny, but Novodvorskaya remains among the leaders of mentions. Simply because she is highly recognizable among the mass electorate, although she has had neither weight nor influence for a long time. Like Alekseeva, she is invited to events as a “glamorous star”.
Vladimir Milov (Gypsy). Media soldier.
Unknown to a wide audience, and does not have much weight among liberals. Although, it would seem, he managed to make revelations.The advantage is growth potential (a new name among tired names).
Alexander Podrabinek (Bastard). Media soldier.
The success of the provocation with veterans was one-time. I can't play more than one episode. The advantage is in the past.
Victor Shenderovich (Vitya mattress). Media soldier.
He was a bright media soldier before the story with the porn video and Katya Mumu. He came out of this story ugly, thereby burying himself as a respected public figure. The advantage is in the past.
Evgenia Albats.Media soldier.
The train left, but she remained.
Stanislav Belkovsky (Stas). Media soldier.
A victim of your own strategy. Belkovsky's loud announcements and forecasts ended in nothing. Because of this, Belkovsky's usefulness as a carrier of information became a big question. And, as they say, I’ve lost my sense of smell lately. The recent articles and spin-offs look like an envious rehash of articles by more talented colleagues. The advantage is the name.
Marina Litvinovich (Marinka). Media soldier.
As a political strategist, she has perfectly mastered the art of media provocations. Arouses suspicion among liberals due to the uncertainty of “who he works for.” The work style is not much different from the approaches of Grigory Grabovoi. The advantage is the experience of a political strategist.
Andrey Malgin (Analgin). Media soldier.
The difference from all other liberals is that Galkovsky does his job for the sake of art, not money. It turns out interesting.
Experts also mentioned other people, but due to their little fame outside their circle, no significant influence they cannot provide.
And what?
I’m still a bit of a political strategist http://www.og.ru/articles/2009/12/30/30903.shtml