Et mitte päevauudiste teemat solkida siis tegin väikse kõrvalteema.
Suured mõtlejad on putini "fenomeni" juba ammu läbi hammustanud. Sattusin lugema ja soovitan ka teil lugeda:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110120040 ... 13/38.html
Firefoxi tõlge allpool:
Boris Strugatsky: "Return to the Soviet Union is the result of Putin's decade"
go to discussion...
A writer whose predictions usually come true is looking for a way out of the stagnation
— Boris Natanovich, 2009 ended with a whole series of disasters: the accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, the Nevsky Express, the fire in Perm… An accident? Or did the myth of “Putin's prosperity” and “Putin's miracle” begin to fall apart?
- There is a long-predicted series of man-made disasters - the result of hopelessly worn out "materiel", repairing which is uninteresting and unprofitable for anyone. "The State will pay." An ugly product of the transition from mature socialism to "red" capitalism: property, the foam from which is removed by the boss (not the owner, but the boss, the appointed bureaucrat), and the state (another bureaucrat) compensates for the losses.
Was it a "miracle"? And how can one evaluate the results of the “Putin decade”?
- There was only one thing: a turn from the democratic revolution of the nineties to the "stability and balance" of the zero. In fact, it is a rejection of the course of political and economic reforms in favor of a course towards sovereignty and stagnation. The result of the “Putin decade” is the return to stability and stagnation of the Brezhnev type. In fact - a return to the scoop.
- Human rights activists are trying to call for state condemnation of Stalin's crimes, but to no avail: the leaders of the state get off with general phrases, and at this time they celebrate the 130th anniversary of Stalin and continue to talk about the "effective manager" in history books. Why is this happening?
- Because the Stalinist regime is, after all, the apotheosis of stability and balance! "Stability controlled by a noose". It has certain costs (the bureaucracy cannot consider itself safe), but these costs, as experience shows, can be safely eliminated: see the regime of stagnation for them. L.I. Brezhnev is an absolute and kind autocrat at the head of a crowd of all-powerful boyars. We are going to this.
- War veterans - heroes or unsympathetic defenders of the Stalinist regime? Is General Vlasov a traitor or a fighter against "godless Bolshevism"?
- The memory of the Great Patriotic War has become a shrine. There is no longer any concept of "the truth about the war", nor the concept of "distortion of historical truth." There is the concept of "insulting the shrine." And they strive to create the same attitude towards the entire history of the Soviet period. It is no longer history, it is, in fact, a religion. From the point of view of a believer, from the point of view of the church, there is no distortion of the "truth of the Bible" - there is an attempt on holiness, an insult to faith, heresy. The Bible of War has been written, and the apocrypha about the traitor General Vlasov has been included in it. All. You can't cut it with an axe. But from the point of view of the "atheist" there is not and cannot be either simplicity or unambiguity. And General Vlasov is a complex phenomenon of history, no simpler than Josephus Flavius or Alexander Nevsky; and veterans - a very special social group, whose members, as a rule, differ from each other to a much greater extent than they are similar.
- Many human rights activists call for the abolition of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - on inciting ethnic hatred and hatred, because it attracts not so much fascists as oppositionists (accusing them of "inciting hatred" against such "social groups" as policemen, officials or employees of the FSB). Your opinion?
“It is ridiculous to count on the reasonableness and nobility of the Criminal Code of an authoritarian country! Human rights activists are doomed to struggle with ugly distortions of the meaning and spirit of quite prudent articles. Anti-fascists in our country easily become instigators of inter-ethnic hatred: critics of violations of the Constitution - "extremists who oppose the socio-political system." The bureaucracy defends itself. The bureaucracy will not tolerate any dissent and any disturbance of stability. Moreover, the broad masses of the people do not like it either.
- There is also such a point of view that in general it is impossible to prosecute anyone for expressing any ideas, even fascist or racist ones: they say that the word must be fought only with the word, and not with state violence. But should society be allowed to preach fascist ideas with impunity?
— This is an extremely complex and delicate question. If we were talking about dissent in science, no questions would arise: freedom of thought, freedom of formulation are limited here only by logic and proven facts. But when we approach the field of ideology, philosophy, sociology, the notorious principle “an idea that has mastered the masses becomes a material force” falls on us “from around the corner” - and then beware! And yet... and yet... Only an idea can and must resist an idea. It is criminal to burn at the stake the bearers of ideas, be they books or prophets. For the abomination is not in words, and not in thoughts, and not in slogans - the abomination is always in fangs, fists and baseball bats. It is unacceptable to punish for “Nazism in the head”, just as it is impossible to punish for a plan to rob a bank. This fundamental principle of justice - "crime is punished, not intent" - cannot be justified logically, but we are forced to accept it, because it is too easily reduced to absurdity. And we come to the conclusion that the only weapon against the word should be the word, against the idea - the idea, against the book - the book. It is too easy to otherwise slide from a dispute to a bloody massacre. Moreover, it is not those who win the dispute, but those who lose it, who usually strive to slide into a bloody massacre.
- Almost a year and a half has passed since the Russian-Georgian war. How do you assess its consequences?
- It was our first, it seems, a show of force, applied to the fundamental problems of the latest foreign policy. And a demonstration of the readiness of the current power elite to go as far as they like in an effort to keep the "rebellious" former fraternal republics in the sphere of Russian influence. It is now clear that the ruling Russian elite will never set free either Georgia or Ukraine (or Belarus, by the way) and will never allow these former “brotherly countries” to leave for the sphere of influence of the West. The war has shown how far we are willing to go in this matter. Very far. Dangerously far. It’s indecently far away for a country that, out of inertia, is still proclaiming the good old slogans: “Peace to the world!”, “No” to war!” etc. And now it is obvious that there is only one reason that does not allow Russia to include itself in the number of unconditionally aggressive powers - the poor state of the army.
- After the scandalous revelations of Major Dymovsky and his followers, it seemed that changes in the police sphere were inevitable. But the steam seems to have gone off the whistle, and, most likely, everything will get by with minor changes. What to do with the police, which citizens fear more than criminals?
— What to do with the power of the bureaucracy in general? Here is the question! All of us, led by the highest authorities, wanted balance and stability. We got them - at the cost of creating a class of omnipotent bureaucracy, which does not need anything at all, except for the very balance and stability. Development, progress, movement is always a violation of balance and stability, always a risk, always uncontrollable inequality. The bureaucracy vigilantly monitors that none of this happens, that each cricket knows its hearth, that rollback follows rollback, and progress ... but burn this progress with fire, who needs it ?! This is the classic situation of stagnation: stability is everything, progress is nothing. And in this situation, the dispersal of anything (except for the picket with posters) is impossible. The bureaucracy will never disperse itself, violating the fundamental principle of balance and stability.
— Can Dmitry Medvedev become an independent figure? Or will it remain in the shadow of Vladimir Putin? And is it worth looking for signs of discrepancies between them?
- So we will decide one way or another, but we will still look for “signs of discrepancy”. It would be strange and unnatural not to look for them. After all, such a divergence is now the only “singularity point” in the ocean of stability surrounding us, and it would seem at this point that we should find the first signs of the decay of stagnation. “Where it is thin, it breaks there…” But, one must think, we are not the only ones who understand this, which means that the ruling elite will take appropriate measures.
— Do you believe in the modernization that the president is talking about? Or is it the same slogan as the Soviet "intensification"? And what kind of modernization do we really need?
“I'm afraid these are just words. It is necessary to modernize political life, without this no modernization of the economy and science is possible (except perhaps militarization, which is not a way out of the impasse, but just a deepening into it). The modernization of political life means a fight between the elites ("power-owners" and "liberals", "ascetics" and "hedonists", "anti-Westernists" and "pro-Westernists"). None of the elites is ready for this fight, the risk is too great, you can destroy the country and lose everything. Therefore, there will be no modernization, but only “obsession and merging”, slow decay without sudden movements until the next crisis will come. And practically - until the appearance of a new Gorbachev or Stalin.
“The more dishonest the elections become, the fewer active citizens attend them and the easier it is to falsify their results and make the elections even more dishonest, and the government even less reflective of the will of the citizens. And one more thing: they don't vote for the opposition because they can't influence anything and solve the problems of citizens, and they can't influence and solve problems because they don't vote for them... How to break this vicious circle?
- "You wanted this, Georges Dandin ..." We wanted peace - we got it. Now it's for a long time. For example, until the next catastrophic drop in oil prices. Or until the financial crisis worsens. Or, God forbid, before an unsuccessful military expedition to Iceland ... We need an explosion of inflation. Deficiency Invasion. The default of Sberbank... (Don't propose rallies and strikes - they are not effective.) That's when the familiar winds of change will blow in our country, stability will suddenly become in our throats, and we will bark (like Saltykov-Shchedrin): “It stinks! Sabbath!
Interviewed
Boris Vishnevsky
08.02.2010
Ettenägelik meelsus Venemaal
-
- Liige
- Postitusi: 3343
- Liitunud: 20 Dets, 2019 13:30
- Kontakt:
Kes on foorumil
Kasutajad foorumit lugemas: Registreeritud kasutajaid pole ja 3 külalist