This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The Federal Agency for Education MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY Sociology and Social Anthropology
MODERNIZATION OF RUSSIA: POST-IMPERIAL TRANSIT MONOGRAPH MOSCOW MGUDT
UDC 321:323:329:82.091 G 99 Editor - Doctor of History, Professor. MG Kotovskaya Reviewers: Ph.D., prof. AY Bout Doctor of Philosophy., prof. AA Pelipenko Gavrov Sergey Modernization of Russia: the post-imperial Transit: Monograph / Foreword LS Perepelkina. - Moscow: MGUDT, 2010. - 297 pp. ISBN 978-5-87055-116-6 New book Professor, social anthropologist, political scientist Sergey Gavrov devoted to problems of Russia's modernization and post-imperial transit. The author tries to find answers to key questions: what distinguishes us in the cultural and institutional sense, from the "old" Europe? Why, in spite of any social revolution and change the surrounding world, after a while we still come back to the familiar imperial or kvaziimpersky way? The book is intended for political scientists, cultural scientists, historians, sociologists and all those interested in the processes of modernization in conditions of Russia's transformation of state and society. UDC 314.04:314.146:314.186 ISBN 978-5-87055-116-6 © Gavrov Sergey, 2010 © Moscow State University of Design and Technology, 2010
Preface. The book, which is interesting bet.......................................................5
Chapter I. Modernization...............................................................................................................10
1.1. What is the modernization........................................................................10 1.2. Imperial and the liberal model of Russia's modernization.......................20 2. Political culture: from traditional society to modern...................................23 3. Russia's State: yesterday, today and tomorrow...........................................31 4. Conservative rollback: from modernization to the restoration....................38
Chapter II. Empire: pro et contra...................................................................................................44
1. Empire: contra. History of Russia and the USSR from A. Akhiezer, IA Klyamkin, IA Yakovenko and E. Gaidar........................................................44 1.1. The death of the Soviet empire. Look Yegor Gaidar...............................55 2. Post-imperial transit.....................................................................................58 3. Russia in the post-imperial space................................................................69 3.1. Post-Soviet Kazakhstan............................................................................77 3.2. Moldova and Prednistrove........................................................................79 3.3. Toward Georgia........................................................................................81 4. Empire: pro. Reintegration nationwide imperial world...............................83
Chapter III. Russia between East and West...................................................................................88
1. Intercultural communication and national identity......................................88 2. European integration and solution of problems of displaced cultural values .........................................................................................................................93
Afterword. Civil society and power: from confrontation to dialogue...........................................95 Applications. Dialogues with actors Russia's science and policy................................................100
Dialogue with Alexander Itshokinym...........................................................100 Dialogue with Moses Kagan.........................................................................104 Dialogue with Alexander Akhiezer...............................................................107 Dialogues with Irina Hakamada....................................................................110 Dialogue I. On Literature and Life................................................................110 Dialogue II. On the "New Social Course - 2008"..........................................115 Dialogue III. On the life and success in the big city.....................................118 Dialogue on the "March of Dissent"..............................................................123 Dialogue with Vladislav Surkov on politproekte "Our"................................125 Dialogues with Alexander Melikhovo...........................................................131 Dialogue I. Berdichev Cossacks in the service of the fatherland..................131 Dialogue II. On the national tolerance..........................................................138 Remembering the XX Congress....................................................................142 Russia after empire........................................................................................144 Literature.......................................................................................................152
Preface. The book, which is interesting bet We are pleased to introduce the reader to a new book "Modernization of Russia: the post-imperial transit" Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Social Anthropology MGUDT Sergey Nazipovich Gavrova. I am particularly interested in this book stems from the fact that it is dedicated not only to consider the theoretical problems of modernization and post-imperial transit, but also issues that were and are "day". The author interprets and analyzes current events on the basis of prevailing in previous studies [eg.: Gavrov, 2004] worldview. It discusses topics such as characteristics of the modernization process in Russia, the imperial past of our country and wish for her future, internal and external policy of Russia, including developments in neighboring countries ("democratic revolution"). Discussed in the book and more specific problems. Analysis of the texts provided a good opportunity to express doubts, objections, comments. And of course in order to highlight successful conclusions and interpretations At least, this is a good opportunity to arrange their own thoughts. The winning side in this book, as well as other works by S. Gavrova is the ultimate integrity of the author. It is not disingenuous - he writes what he thinks. The purpose of this preface - to highlight the author's system of coordinates. It seems that the author belongs to a certain and quite influential Russia's scientific school in the area of Social Studies, which advocates the following principles. The most important of them - it is liberalism as a political ideology. The following system of positive ("democracy") and negative ("State", "Empire") values. In this coordinate system, look at the world purely evolutionary, that is, it assumes that all societies will evolve within certain social models. This view is characterized by what I would call "finalism. It is a representation according to which some modern societies embody the "final" characteristics throughout human history. Once this "sin" GF Hegel, who considered him a modern Prussia apex of human organization. Now the most striking "finalist" can be considered American sociologist Francis Fukuyama [Fukuyama, 2004]. In our country, "finalism" manifested in "zapadotsentrizme", in which it is believed that Russia - not "this country", it "wrong", it must be "transformed" on the other templates. With these views, I absolutely do not agree that going to discuss further. Liberalism. This is quite a solid ideological doctrine, suggesting that private initiative is always effective initiatives of public, state. But like any ideology, liberal has its limits in the practice of public life. Least because the maximization of private profit is not the same as maximizing the public benefit [see the example of modern Russia's petroleum industry: Simonov, 2006, pp. 75-98]. No society is built exclusively on the liberal or any other ideological prescription: the proportion of private and public initiatives are always consistent with the current circumstances. Freedom of the individual is always limited: either the laws or his own ideas (which is much more reliable). Speaking of liberalism in Russia, it
should be borne in mind that in the early 1990's we have a benign form of liberalism and moved to its pathological variant in the form of social Darwinism, "... which is characteristic of the reduction patterns of development of human society to the laws of biological evolution and the introduction of the principles of natural selection, the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest as determinants of social life "[Philosophical ff., 1983, pp. 639]. This opinion I formed in the early 1990's, when I first heard the idea that "let them die 20-30 million elderly women, but the reforms will go well. I think that would agree with my opinion and many modern Russia's liberals - judging from the article Yevgeny Gontmakher [Gontmakher, 2007, pp. 10]. State empire. Wonderfully anarchic world view is described here: it rebels against the state government. I myself do not like any authority, but still understand that the state is a special form of self-organization of complex societies based on the anonymity of citizens, the professionalization of labor, allocation of management functions. Modern society can not exist without government. Clearly, it is very difficult to establish a universal principle of governance, state authority. But if you please: a sense of legitimacy, that is, fairness and effectiveness of this power is shared by residents of the country, has a mandate to the subsequent management. And in this context, it does not matter how this government is formed: the laws of succession of monarchical, aristocratic consensus or democratic elections. It added that the Manichean dichotomy between state and civil society has quite a local character: it appeared in the XVII century. in Britain during the Civil War. Make this the basis of generalization is hardly productive. Here is more entertaining: continuing ideological squabbles around the notion of "empire". In the modern, say, the American imperial discourse problems often emerge as the preferred [eg.: Utkin, 2006]. The author also uses the word only in a negative context. This is certainly subject to debate. The notion of empire dates back to European, and especially ancient Roman cultural tradition. Imperator (Latin: "master") - a title given to Octavian Augustus himself instead unpopular rex, that is king. In fact, speaking of the empire, we are not dealing with a universal phenomenon, but with the local European tradition. This is well reflected in the terminology. Russian term king ascends to the name of Julius Caesar, as well as the German concept of the Kaiser - the emperor. Concept most August personage, August family goes back to the name of Octavian Augustus ( "August" - aggrandized gods). There are some common features the concept of "empire" as a purely European phenomenon. First, we should talk about the empire as a special type of social system in the sense that given by T. Parsons. American sociologist, defines social systems as "a system formed by the states and processes of social interaction between the protagonists, and he believed that society - that" this type of social system which has the highest degree of self-sufficiency on their environment, including other social systems "[Parsons, 1997, pp. 18, 20]. Following these ideas, we can assume the empire social system of political (state) type, but not society, and community - the countries, peoples and lands. This is, in fact, says English term imperial federation.
Special role played by the imperial idea, that is ideological shell of the imperial community. In ancient Rome, this idea was the introduction of civilization and order in the land of other nations. The case of the British Empire can be said about the "white man's burden" - infusing elements of progress in non-European part of the ecumene. Russia empire a hundred years after the fall of Constantinople originated with the idea of "Moscow - the Third Rome," ie, with the idea of preservation and dissemination of Orthodoxy (Russia was then the world's only independent Orthodox state). The imperial idea gives people additional imperial power, some passionarnost for gains control of the occupied territories and their integration into the imperial space. This is also due to the colonization of newly annexed territories. (It should be noted that for today's former colonial characteristic opposite process - pulling residents of the former colonial possessions.) As is obvious from the above, the imperial social organism must solve a very difficult task: to reconcile universalism with particularism, different cultures and areas with different levels of development - in a single political entity. The difficulty of this task lies in the fact that it has no single means of resolution, it could only be determined empirically unique, by trial and error, by the accumulation of both successes and mistakes. Moreover, worked out for one epoch or territory management techniques in other cases may be completely unacceptable. The art of keeping a balance between particularism and universalism in the political community can be considered an Imperial version of the national policy. Its aim - to maintain the hegemony of the metropolis, and the main tool - a combination of direct and indirect control. It is in imperial social formations are high surge, "imperial" culture. One should add that the "empire" and "imperialism" - is not related concepts. With light hand Hilferding, and then Lenin, imperialism is understood by the foreign policy activities related to obtaining economic benefits from the dependent position of other countries and peoples. For example, what about this wrote contemporary Dutch economic historian Herman Van der Vee: "After World War II commodity in the third world was largely in the hands of the private sector. Control this production colonial and postcolonial European companies, as well as American multinationals. The latter, differing dynamics and using the political naivete of the new states, were able to extract profits from the process of decolonization, establishing control over the global trade in raw materials "[Van der Vee, 1994, pp. 78; more detail this question is contained in the book: Simonov, 2006]. Russia, serving as the city in the Soviet Union, a benefit not received. The same can be said about the Soviet Union, who played the role of the metropolis for the Soviet empire as a whole. Therefore, the Soviet Union can be called the social system of imperial but not imperialist type. It should be added and the following considerations. The author in one paragraph of this monograph favorably having related to the statements of prominent economist Yasin that imperial policy is tantamount to violence. Actually it is not. M. Weber, for example, considered the right to legitimate violence is a generic feature of any state, but as perpetrators of the right to allocate
the institutions of the court and the police. According to my data [Mastyugina, Perepelkin, 1997], national (for example) politics Russia Empire was based not on violence. And about the USSR and in general about the XX century must go a particular conversation. For example, I still do not understand why in the past century saw an unprecedented surge of violence, culminating in the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Democracy. This term, unfortunately, has lost its contents because of the frequent use in various contexts. For example, I refuse to call democracy promotion of homosexuality in a gay pride parades. And I absolutely do not care about "right" some "minorities", especially if they threaten to become more than I have, the "majority". Derivation of the term "democracy" from the sphere of political science in cultural studies is very dangerous. In fact, in politics, this phenomenon is assessed ambiguously positive: to understand this, and bright enough to read the controversial book American political scientist and journalist Walter Lippmann "public philosophy" [Lipman, 2004]. Democracy is the power of people's representatives, on the basis of their mandates, to organize the life of a modern country. But if you look closely, you'll democracy - a form of management elites: Is five generations of ancestors of President Bush has not studied at the universities of "Ivy League"? I must say that representative government in its present form has a very short history. If not mistaken, only in 1913, the world's first in New Zealand was proclaimed universal suffrage. The next case - Russia in 1917, and in most countries, universal suffrage was adopted only after the Second World War. Only in 1960 was abolished in the United States system of racial segregation. And it is quite controversial achievement of "democracy" is the practice of manipulating public consciousness, which originated in the United States in 1950. Its founders were the American psychologist Skinner, who wrote: "We can achieve this level of government in which administered, although they follow the procedure much more accurate than the old system, nevertheless, feel free. They do what they want to do rather than what they are made. Here are a source of great power of positive reinforcement - no resistance, no indignation. Through careful scientific study, we did not manage the outcome behavior, and intention to behave - the motives, desires and inclinations. Interestingly, in this case never arises the question of freedom "[op. By: Rimashevskaya, 2007, pp. 228; italics BF Skinner]. Personally for me this sort of "democracy" is much worse than a simple falsification of the election: it is better to know that you are deceiving. Frankly, I see no other fate for the concept of "democracy", how to be pure ideologeme, and not a "guide to action." In addition, the current state, call themselves "democratic", differ so greatly that the very notion is out of operationalization. Recently I read that George Bush wanted to V. Putin that Russia had the same democracy as in today's Iraq. Looking for comments? Modernization. This concept, as far as I know, was introduced into scientific circulation Israeli researcher C. Eisenstadt [Eisenstadt, 1999] and was subsequently replicated by numerous experts, including the conduct of international case studies (eg, the American sociologist Alex Inkeles). I must admit
that in a period of "scientific maturity" of this kind are "fascinating": they begin to believe. But later this effect passes - you begin to understand that the author has chosen not relevant level of generality. The theory of modernization, without doubt, the theory of evolutionary type. It is well understood (and studied), that the cultural transformation in a small region of Western Europe were the local "mutations", which has resulted in the XVII-XVIII centuries. to the "cultural revolution" in the creation of experimental science and industrial production. On this basis, appeared a special type of social organization, called "capitalism". Its peculiarity is that any "production manager" had to withdraw funds from the consumer, putting it into investments in the expansion of their businesses. And in fact, have not the slightest difference, makes it a businessman or a State It soon became clear that the costs of their own activities and can be taken outside the country (see above about imperialism). In this combination of scientific creativity, technical savvy and business ethics can see the essence of modernization. Furthermore, this phenomenon is clearly manifested itself in the field of demography. But I would in no case was seen as a universal phenomenon "culture of modernity", and in particular the part that concerns the political organization of society. The point is that in the history of mankind had a lot of "upgrades", for example, Neolithic Revolution. But "last" does not mean "final". In fact, for human groups tend ekvifinalnosti quality, that is, to achieve some objectives in different ways. But who knows what is in these tasks? In this context, "vesternizm" looks like "vkusovschina. Political culture is not nourished on the beds, as the culture of agriculture. When (and this all goes) in 20-30 years China will become the ruler of the world, would probably be a lot of books about the virtues of Confucianism, especially the creative talents of the Mongoloid race, world-historical significance of the uprising "boxers". *** Frankly, I have a lot of things would like to discuss here. For example, such a plot. The author, like much of Russian writing brethren, criticized in the first place the two sides of modern life of Russia: the presidency and the Orthodox Church. But if we turn to sociological studies, these two institutions are most trusted in the community. Moreover, it seems almost certain that no other social institutions do not enjoy public confidence [Rimashevskaya, 2007, pp. 164-165]. Strange criticism. Emphasize that such disregard for the life of the country - is not an isolated case. Here's a great example - to become an employee of the Institute of Europe Dmitry Furman [Furman, 2007, pp. 10]. He begins with some unfortunate statements of V. Putin. He further wrote that, over time political leader loses touch with reality. In conclusion, results quite unbelievable comparison: of course, writes D. Furman, George W. Bush made far more stupid things, but he goes through a democratic process. And Putin that - do not go away? And do not understand that the main issue of this comparison is exactly why the American voter is allowed to involve themselves in the Iraqi adventure, with no end in sight.
It seemed to me that the book S. Gavrova - a good example of a certain "hangs" (in the pure sense of the word computer), which demonstrates a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia. This is sad, but the fix. I think that the situation can change only within the broad - and having a public outcry - debates. There is a discussion on the ideas of Vladimir Surkov about "sovereign democracy". But I would say that it looks very sorry. It seems that what we think and write, very soon there will be of interest to anyone - even ourselves. That's why I decided to write this preface in the genre of criticism - perhaps someone else will understand that it is time to think and argue, that is, to do their job, not just to earn a living.
Head of Department of Applied Cultural Studies and Cultural Policy Rossiyskogo Institute for Cultural Studies, and the board. Mr. LS Perepelkin.
Chapter I. Modernization
1.1. What is the modernization
Modernization - large-scale process of transition from traditional to modern society - modern elements. Today, the notion of modernization is viewed primarily in three different meanings: 1) as the internal development of the countries of Western Europe and North America, referring to the New European time, 2) catch-up modernization, which the practice of the country that do not belong to the countries of the first group, but who want to catch up, 3 ) processes of evolution of the most modernized societies (Western Europe and North America), ie modernization as a sort of permanent process, carried out through reforms and innovations that today marks a transition to a postindustrial society. We know that there was cultural anthropology, studying the traditional, archaic forms of human coexistence. Suffice it to recall the work of the classics of cultural anthropology A. Kroeber, L. White, M. Herskovitsa, E. Taylor. In cultural anthropology, evolution of many traditional local cultures seen mainly in two forms: 1) as a linear evolution of stages of the progressive nature of relatively simple societies to more complex. This understanding is correlated with the classical understanding of the modernization process. These views are more or less shared in England - G. Spencer, J. McLennan, J. Lebok, E. Taylor, J. Frazier,
Germany - A. Bastian, T. Weitz, Yu Lippert, France - C. Letourneau, in the U.S. LG Morgan 2) as a multiserver development of different types of cultures. In the latter case, greater emphasis was placed on the originality of modernization processes and options for Art Nouveau, which consequently arise. Modernization is considered rather as the realization of various types of historically conditioned. Thus, a renowned expert in the field of modernization of transformations S. Eisenstadt believes that "currently exists and develops in many civilizations. The problem lies precisely in the fact that these civilizations, with many similar components, and constantly finding intersection points between them, continue to evolve, creating new versions of various aspects of modernism, each offering its own program of cultural development. All this contributes to the diversification of approaches to the understanding of modernism and to the evaluation of cultural programs, put forward by different parts of modern societies. Speaking about the genealogy of the word «modern», the German philosopher Habermas notes that it was first used in Europe in the end of V. to distinguish received the official status of this Christian and pagan Roman past. In the subsequent era of the content of this concept has changed, but only the Enlightenment and romanticism, then filled it with meaning that refers to the modern. Modern, modern since then is what contributes to the objective expression of spontaneously renewed relevance of the spirit of time. As a result of acceleration of the immanent development during modern times in Europe has developed a special civilization of modern, differs radically from traditional society. Modernity arose in Western Europe due to the formation of the Protestant work ethic, market economy, bureaucracy and legal system. In Western Europe, large-scale process of modernization - the transition from the traditional (pre-industrial) society to Modernity has taken several centuries (the industrial revolution in England, the strengthening of the bourgeoisie, and it gained political power in the British 1640-1642 gg., An American in 1776 and the French 1789 . revolutions). Usually distinguished three periods of modernization: I period - the end of XVIII - beginning of XX century.; II period - 20-60-ies of XX century.; III period 70-90-ies of XX century. Several authors, in particular, Habermas and A. Giddens, believe that the Art Nouveau style continues today as it continues the process of modernization. Some authors believe that the Modern (modern) can not be completed in principle. For example, S. Amin, a Senegalese sociologist, argues that "modernity (modernity) complete, it opens the door to the unknown. Modernity nezavershaema in essence, but it involves a sequence of forms, which are very diverse overcome the contradictions of society in every moment of its history. " Genealogical Modernity back to Western civilization, modern times, in different regions of the world subject to its inherent institutional environment and the elements of value-regulatory system. Modernization as a process and Modernity as a consequence, having arisen in the western world in the XX century. have spread globally. A. Giddens believes that "no other, more traditional forms of
society can not resist it, while maintaining complete isolation from global trends. Is modernity exclusively Western phenomenon in terms of lifestyle, fostered by these two great transformative power? The direct answer to this question must be yes. According to the well-known Israeli sociologist C. Eisenstadt, "historically modernization is a process of change, leading to two types of social, economic and political systems that have evolved in Western Europe and North America in the period between the XVII and XIX centuries and spread to other countries and continents" . Modern society is divided into four basic institutions: a competitive democracy, market economy, the welfare state and mass communication. Market economy - the basis of an autonomous civil society, transcends borders and creates an open society. In contrast to the much-studied in detail in the cultural anthropology of traditional society a society built on the principles of Modernity: suffrage, rule of law, universal rights of citizens: the institutionalization of social change, secular culture and the secularization of society, urbanization, the autonomy of subsystems; rationalization; domination of a market economy, bureaucracy, professionalization ; mass literacy and mass media, the growth of social and professional mobility. Community Modernity consists of citizens with inalienable rights: civil, political and social. The scientific revolution of the XVII century. and technological advances have transformed the local community to the citizens "imagined community" - the national state. The distinctive Art Nouveau are: in the political sphere - a democratic constitutional state, in state-building - go to the nation-state, in the fields of science and education - the formation of an autonomous science; in the economic sphere - the transition to capitalism. Universal package modernization transformations characteristic of the XX century., Considered Russia's cultural anthropologist, EA Orlova. At the level of socio-cultural organization of society is reflected in the modernization movement from industrialism to post-industrialism in the economic sphere, in politics as a movement from authoritarian to democratic regimes, legal as a transition from conventional to a legal right. "These correspond to changes in the field of socially significant knowledge and outlook: in the religious sphere is noticeable shift from the sacred to a secular world order validation, and in philosophy - from monistic to a pluralistic understanding of the world, in art - from the desire for stylistic unity to polistilistike; in science - from objectivism to the anthropic principle. Taken together, the overall socio-cultural trends is called modernization. According to the definition of well-known British expert in the field of modernization transformation B. Moore, modernization "is a total transformation of the traditional pre-modern society in a social organization, which is typical for" advanced, economically prosperous and politically stable nations on the West. " Professor of Sociology, University of Munich U. Beck believes that "modernization is not only to the formation of centralized state power, the concentration of capital and increasingly sophisticated interweaving of the division of labor and market relations, mobility, mass consumption, etc., but also - and here we come to a generalized model - a triple "individualization": freedom from
historically prescribed social forms and relations in the traditional sense of the circumstances of domination and software ( "aspect of Liberation"), the loss of traditional stability in terms of effective knowledge, beliefs and accepted norms ( "aspect razvolshebstvleniya ") and - as it inverts the meaning of the concept - a new type of socio-cultural integration (" aspect of monitoring and reintegration). The second meaning of modernization for understanding various processes in a catch-up development of less developed or developing societies, modernization as a response to the challenge of Western civilization, modernity, in which each society makes or does not respond in accordance with its principles, structures and symbols embedded in a lengthy development . In this sense, the term "modernization" refers to the underdeveloped societies, and describes their efforts to have to catch up with the leading, most developed countries, which coexist with them in a historical time, within a unified global society. In this case, the notion of "modernization" describes the movement from the periphery to the center of modern society. Theories of modernization and convergence neomodernizatsii use the term "modernization" in this narrow sense. On the differences and interactions between dosovremennymi (pre-industrial) and modern societies of modernism in the XIX century. wrote Herbert Spencer, Comte, G. Meng, F. Tennis, E. Durkheim. Finally, the third meaning of modernization is understood as a process of transformation of innovation the most developed countries in Europe and North America, which first began the process of modernization and long-rooted in modern elements. On the theme of transition to a postindustrial society, there is a body of work, in particular D. Bell, JK Galbraith, R. Iglegarta, Francis Fukuyama, Charles Handy, L. Thurow, VL Inozemtseva. Modernization of the socio-cultural large-scale process has its theoretical justification. His present modernization theory on the formation of which was influenced by evolutionism, functionalism and diffusionism. The fundamental contribution to the formation of scientific concepts to explain the large-scale process of modernization, ie transition from traditional to modern society, have made Comte, Charles Spencer, Marx, M. Weber, E. Durkheim, F. Tennis, Charles Cooley, G. Maine. Modernization theory in its classical form, received scientific and public recognition in the 50's - mid 60-ies of XX century. When the most widely known work of M. Levy, E. Hagen, T. Parsons, N. Smelser, D. Lerner, D. Apter, S. Eisenstadt, P. Berger, Walt Rostow. Among the noteworthy functionalist studies of the classics of American and world sociology T. Parsons, examines the process of segregation of the imported sociocultural experience in countries undergoing modernization. T. Parsons believes that the constant attempts to divide imported inokulturny experience on acceptable and unacceptable tendency to preserve the cultural values of "higher level, opening at the same time, the way a radical change to the next level of the value specification, ie at the level of major functional subsystems. Evolutionists, notably Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) - English philosopher, biologist, psychologist and sociologist, the main focus of their theoretical constructions made on the analysis of how the society. The most complete H.
Spencer expressed his views on the evolution of society in the fundamental work "Fundamentals of Sociology. He and his followers to pay close attention to the sustainable social change, progressive and positive results of the evolutionary process, the evolutionary nature of the modernization process. They believed that the modernization of the transformation of single-line: the less developed countries should take the same path that developed countries have passed modern, changes are gradual, cumulative and peaceful. They emphasized the importance of exogenous, immanent causes and describe the driving forces for change the terms "structural" and "functional differentiation", "adaptive improvement" and similar evolutionary concepts. Professor of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, P. Sztompka notes that from the standpoint of evolutionists - supporters of modernization theory, it would bring universal improvement of social life and the human condition. Modernization and convergence were seen as necessary, irreversible, endogenous and beneficial processes. The path of the modernization of transformations consists of successive phases, segments, or stages, for example, "Traditional - Transitional - Contemporary, Traditional - Stage achieve the preconditions for the beginning of change - the beginning of sustained growth maturity - achieving the level of mass consumption." Classical modernization theory focused on the contrast between the "first" and "third" worlds. Authors who gravitated to the classical theories of modernization, in general, converge in the following. The ideology of progress, becoming increasingly secular content, throughout the period of Modernity determined the Eurocentrism of the historical process, assuming the movement of various peoples in the ascending stairs to the rationalism and ekonomikotsentrizmu. Well-known American political scientist Robert Nisbet, summarizing the views of the classics of social and political thought in progress, said that in general the classical concept can be viewed as the idea of gradual liberation of humanity from fear and ignorance, along the path to ever higher levels of civilization. In this case, the theory of modernization is a particular expression of the paradigm of progress. Diffuzionisty (F. Ratzel, L. Frobenius, F. Graebner) treated the processes of development, and some of their followers and the processes of modernization, as a predominantly diffusion, rather than endogenously-evolutionary in nature. In contrast to the interpretation of modernization as the spontaneous tendencies of evolution, self-developing "bottom", diffuzionisty believed that it begins and is controlled from "above" the intellectual and political elite that seeks to overcome the backwardness of their country through planned, purposeful action. Diffusion acts as a mechanism of the modernization changes. The interaction between the more developed, modernized and less developed, modernizing society is a crucial factor in modernization. In transforming countries as the desired goal of modernization are considered developed countries of Western civilization. Hence, modernization - is not just a spontaneous development in a progressive direction. In this understanding, modernization is a direct and preferably more accurate transfer inokulturnyh norms, values, institutions, patterns of work and leisure from the reference group in their own. Modernization is not a self-sustaining,
samoprogressiruyuschim process. Rather, it is transferring the samples, models, and the achievements of developed countries to their own. Modernization processes in non-Western societies can be explained using evolutionary and diffusionist theories. Given the interaction of endogenous (evolutionary) and exogenous (diffusionist) components of the modernization process, we represent their author's classification. Endogenous type of modernization - a process deterministic endogenous socio-cultural dynamics. Modernization, the set of internal reasons, selfdevelopment, samotransformatsiey society. An example of this type of modernization, from New Era is the development of Western Europe and North America. Adaptive (catching up) kind of modernization. Practiced in countries other than the Western pioneers of modernization, beginning as an adaptation reaction to the processes of rapid socio-cultural dynamics in Western civilization, modern, passing through the circuit challenge - response. It is subdivided into two subspecies. 1. Modernization as samovesternizatsiya. Initiated in order to achieve internal goals, which include the need to bridge the technological gap with Western civilization, modernity and preserve national independence. This type of modernization, in turn, is divided into two subspecies: a) defense modernization. Is mainly to strengthen the military-political potential of the state, the change of the society serves more as a side process of technical and technological borrowing. In this model, strengthening the modernization of the state is the absolute goal, but the man only an auxiliary means to an end. An example is the modernization of Russia's reforms of Peter I to the end of the Soviet period, except for the reforms of Alexander II and sociocultural transformation of post-Soviet period. R. Bendix noted that only the "first modernizing the nation has a chance to follow their own way independently, without external pressure. All other nations are influenced by the struggle between the vanguard and the rearguard of modernization. The threat of military defeat makes lagging countries (Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Japan) to reform the bureaucracy and the army. Such modernization is described by the notion of "defensive modernization". This extensive modernization, based on attribution and the development of foreign cultural achievements, borrowing the results of innovation without acquiring the ability to innovate itself, which can not borrow; b) liberal modernization. A change for society and the liberation of human perception, not only the technical and technological tools of Western civilization, modern, but also the processes that led to the creation of this toolkit, the Western perception of their genealogy, institutions, norms, values and behaviors. A classic example is the reform of Alexander II, as well as the modernization process in Russia and the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe in the 90-ies of XX century. 2. Modernization under foreign tutelage. It is a transformation of the national socio-cultural system, carried out with the direct or indirect participation by the State or a number of states belonging to Western civilization, Modernity. Geo15
political sovereignty, as a rule, not conserved. This type of modernization, in turn, is divided into two subspecies: a) modernization in the form of partial responsibility. Carried out in the colonial and semi-colonial politics, when one or more branches of the colonial economy serve the interests of the metropolitan economy, and other industries do not receive significant impetus to development. Modernization of the colonies, usually not considered and is not formulated as a problem of policy. The development of socio-cultural spheres of the state is controlled by-product of the colonial administration. As an example, British colonial rule in India, which was formed westernized Indian elite, which began the struggle for liberation from colonial dependence; b) Improvement in the form of systemic involvement, one or more states initiate and assume full responsibility for the modernization processes in the wards territories. Examples are Germany and Japan after the Second World War. This scheme is fairly conventional, in practice, the interweaving of internal and external factors that determine the processes of modernization, while the diffusion component dominates in the process of modernization transforming nonWestern societies. In the 70's - mid 80-ies of XX century. concept of progress in general and the theory of modernization in particular have been subjected to considerable overestimation. In the framework of scientific discourse and public awareness was questioned as a model of evolutionary livable world, its modernization, and the very concept of progress. Critics of modernization theory pointed to the low efficiency of transformation of the modernization in third world countries, their partial or total exclusion. It was recognized that persists and, in all likelihood, continue to remain a significant country diversity of Modernity. Thus, C. Eisenstadt noted that "the contradiction - between the uniqueness of the West and what he was like a model for the rest of the world, but on the other hand, the specific dynamics of other civilizations, it was not obvious at the time of Marx and Weber, as the spread of capitalism and modernization outside of Europe were in the early stages. But it has become much more apparent at later stages of modernization after the Second World War. As a result, the spread of modernization process in different regions of the world turned out that the process of modernization and the results are influenced by socio-cultural traditions of the recipient countries. Transformed society perceive inokulturnye innovation, changing them, getting the output of hybrid design, which combine elements of the imported material inokulturnogo and local socio-cultural traditions. Authenticity in relation to initial samples and practical efficiency of the hybrid structures are usually not high. As observed in the XX century. global spread of modernization processes and the institutional environment of modernity, the picture that emerges macroprocesses way. Until the second half of XX century. real superiority of Western civilization, in the geographic ranges of which originated and modern, over the rest of the world was dominant, if not absolute. As an alternative project for most of the last century advocated a socialist project is, above all in the USSR,
a desperate attempt to reach quantitative economic indicators of Modernity. Socialist modernization options practiced during the XX century. around the world, especially in the USSR, were, despite ideological differences, only one of the branches of the overall modernization process, the adaptive response of nonWestern societies. It is no coincidence that, outside the traditional range Modernity was received it is the socialist modernization option, since it is correlated with the collectivist mentality of non-Western societies. How socialism close collectivism of Asia, so far as individualistic Euro-Atlantic civilization, where his chances are negligible. Revolutionary situation that had developed in Germany and Hungary after the October Revolution in Russia, as in the case of Russia were the result of defeat in World War I, due mainly autochthonous development. Second alternative draft, is not universal, was the project of national socialism. Should be remembered that modernization processes are a synthesis of the translational and inverse dynamics, progress and regression, though, when considering a sufficiently long diachronic context, dominated by the translational dynamic processes. As a dialectical combination of Multiple-dynamic processes, an example of a negative adaptive response to the challenge of the Euro-Atlantic civilization Modernity can be considered the experience of totalitarian regimes of the XX century. Including, notably, the experience of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The use of technological advances Modernity combined with the negation of democratic forms of organization of society, human rights, severe regimentation of creative potency of the individual. Because rooting totalitarianism was the most difficult development of culture and society, have inherent capability of self-organization properties of the open and nonequilibrium systems. Totalitarian regimes of the XX century. retain the outer shell of modern society and deprive of its essential, ontological foundation. Countries in the second wave of modernization is Germany of the last century, has lagged behind politically and economically more developed countries. German National Socialists tried to adapt modern technology of an open society to the goals of the totalitarian, closed society. Fascism in Germany was a reaction to the rise in domestic socio-cultural crisis and foreign policy defeat. In this case, rather, the use of potency of modernization in the instrumental field, its applications in technology, military construction, partly in the economy. Totalitarian regimes sought to adapt some of these developments for the restoration of a closed society, whose ideology is a mixture of rationality and irrationality, relying on science and at the same time, the most archaic, syncretic of sociocultural traditions. In the second half of XX century. situation has changed radically, Germany, from its western part, has become an integral and, subsequently, a key element of European modern designs. It is enough hard way done in this direction and some other countries of the European continent, including Italy and Spain and later Poland, Hungary and other former socialist countries, are gradually integrating into the Euro-Atlantic civilization of modern elements. The rest of humanity, defined in the years after World War II as a country "third world", not only failed to offer a universal alternative project, but also
effective local development options for the non-Western states. The situation changed in the second half of XX century. When modernization has led to the spread of Modernity far beyond the Western civilization. One example of this - a vibrant, economically and socially successful group of Asian States, the modernization processes within the Islamic civilization, including the attempt to build the economy, reflected in their practice religious establishment (the ban on vzymanie lending rate of the Koranic tradition). Western civilization period Modernity mainly develops in the horizontal plane, Leaving their increasingly shrinking, the vertical dimension. Note that under the vertical direction, we understand the value of sacral-transcendent dimension, and under the horizontal direction - the value of the earth's material life. This departure from the sacral-transcendent values manifested, in particular, in transforming and enriching, the secular content of the Christian in his genealogy structures. Non-Western civilizations for a long time could not respond to the challenge of Western Modernity period, largely because of their civilization priority is their dominance of vertical over the horizontal dimension. As part of the modernization process desire to "catch up and overtake" the state modern, without losing, or at least not radically transforming the traditional civilizational identity, is problematic. In the case of practical implementation of these transformational projects, which is achieved, usually at the cost of extreme tension forces of society and the state, received a Multiple-direction system can not operate effectively in any of these planes. Continues today and infantilism mifologizm mass consciousness, and not only in Russia, continues to focus on the possibility of achieving the full range of benefits of civilization and living standards, nothing meaningful while not sacrificing. Thus, the Arab-Muslim religious thinker S. Qutb described the ideal Muslim society, which in their material life would be consistent with the level of modern (Western) civilization, but "in spirit, ideology - religious beliefs, ideas about life, the goals of human existence and man's place in the universe, of its specific properties, rights and responsibilities - was based on a providential. Attempts to modernize in a planar civilizational dimension, which includes the economy, forms of organization of society, technology, etc., while maintaining the priority of the vertical dimension of civilization, its spiritual, religious component - is unattainable utopia. However, the desire to preserve the civilizational identity leads to an individual each time the ratio of local (civilization) and universal (by stages). This relationship in the context of the local civilization, in turn, is not something static, but is determined by the intensity experienced by its endogenous historical and sociocultural dynamics of adaptation in nature with respect to the dynamics of exogenous produced in the framework of Western civilization, the period of Modernity. In the second half of last century modernization processes have a global character. Modernization of the previous era of globalization has created. Globalization becomes a source and resource upgrading, initiating dramatic changes in the life of the world in which western societies were pioneers. This is a
long historical process, which includes a number of defining elements of the cultural and human emancipation. Today, one can argue that globalization is the modern stage of deploying a single and universal "modern project". Globalization is manifested in the movement towards an integrated economic, legal, informational, educational and ultimately cultural space, is the present stage of modernization. This is a solid piece, the vector flow modernization / globalization of change, representing a movement towards the interrelated, mutually supportive world, based on the institutions and values of Western civilization, Modernity. Globalization is the product of the acceleration of socio-cultural dynamics in the wide world, that leads to a location geographically, socially, culturally remote locality in a single space-time continuum, into a single cause-effect relationships. Globalization is the spread of large-scale process of institutional and valuenormative environment of western civilization, Modernity on a global scale, which leads to greater porosity of the borders of nation-states and a significant weakening of national sovereignty, when a number of government functions are transferred to the transnational level. This process is due to various reasons, primarily the emerging reduction, note the functions of the national state to the functions of local government (postal services, part of the education system, police powers, etc.). The most important of them - the fullness of geopolitical sovereignty on its territory - subject to reconsideration, the evolution occurs in the direction of reducing the powers of the national state. During the Late Modernity fewer states can seriously talk about national security with military forces, economic, educational, fiscal space is increasingly becoming a supranational character, less controlled at the national level. In the process of globalization, identity modernized rights transcend national borders, a transnational forms of identity. This increases the level of freedom, transforming the national community and cultural traditions. Forms of social prestige, the reference model of behavior, norms and values are modeled and are broadcast within the emerging global information and cultural space. Now you can identify with the global transcultural manifestations of social solidarity, which largely replaces an earlier identification with the world's religions and nations, nation-states. Today is the vector of historical and sociocultural dynamics shifted from institutionalized, vertically integrated forms of social solidarity to the network forms (R. Castells), social movements, global, ie Western in its genealogy, norms, values, behaviors. Man of the Late Modernity can identify themselves with transnational movements, including anti-globalization activists, environmentalists (Greenpeace), sexual minorities, youth movements, non-conformist types, with the owners of cars, washing machines, shampoo, with consumers of certain brands of reference products and services. A person can act as the owner of a house built for a specific project, a certain car model, make a choice between the huge consumer communities lovers Pepsi or Coca-cola, root for the football team, often representing the nation state of which he is in solidarity with the fans of this club ,
etc. Moreover, new forms of identity and solidarity are the identification with the cultural products produced by the media globally. A person may perceive itself as part of a prestigious social groups that are created and reproduced by means of advertisements in various forms.
1.2. Imperial and the liberal model of Russia's modernization
Describing the processes of modernization in Russia, a number of authors, notably A. Kara-Murza and A. Wischnewski, resorted to the term "conservative modernization" features to incorporate Russia into a number of countries that are striving for full entry into the modern, focused on maintaining or slow transformation of traditional values, institutions and relations. From our point of view, the use of the term "conservative modernization" in relation to Russia is incorrect at least because the aim of the dominant line of Russian modernization is by no means the transformation of the system quality of Russia's civilization in the direction of modern elements. This dissociation was shown both before and after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 Thus, L. Pellikani believed that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia was "a radical attempt to stop the spread of Western culture. The Soviet system tried to take from Western civilization only science and technology, abandoning the rest. Industrial might of the Bolsheviks used to fight the West and building a society hostile to individualism and secularism, "that is hostile to the very foundations of modern elements. Similar positions shared by the famous English scientist in the field of international relations K. Coker, thinks that "communism has aggravated all the non-western Russia. Lenin was a product of the reaction of Russia against the West, not the catalyst for Westernization of the country. We do not consider entirely correct with regard to Russia and use of the term "catching up", although some authors working in relation to Russian modernization transformation, believe that Russia is developing mainly in the framework of this model of modernization. Despite the fact that a number of historical situations, the direction of Europe (or U.S.) as an advanced and Russia as a catch-up matches, but when considering the situation in the context of the centuries-long history of interaction/ control of Russia and Euro-Atlantic civilization area members of this race was no longer runners, moving in one direction at different, but the unidirectional paths. Differing vectors of historical trajectories, civilizational paradigms, principles of development is quite obvious, so it is difficult to talk about "catching up" in the strict sense of the term. We believe that the task of understanding the nature of the modernization process in Russia requires the introduction of a special term and put in a special typological series. Our key thesis is as follows. As a result of centuries of historical interaction with Western civilization in Russia has developed steadily reproducible ambivalent situation in which Russia's socio-cultural foundation of civilization defined and internally stabilize the pendulum cycle, where the dominant imperial model of modernization alternates with a component of the liberal model. This
modernization process has its own stable dominant - the imperial model of modernization. It seems not only possible but also necessary to address the issue of Russia's modernization is not a self-erecting process occurring by itself as something natural, but as one aspect of macrohistorical interaction with EuroAtlantic civilization of modern elements. What is the imperial modernization? Empire does not aims to evolve in the direction of integration in civilization Art Nouveau, in fact, she's afraid of the liberal degeneration and internal weaknesses, inevitable when taking inokulturnyh democratic political institutions, the capitalist market, the need to commit themselves in any significant amount of respect for human rights. The objectives of imperial modernization does not consist in degeneration, softening of the empire, for it is important to take the enemy, only those elements that allow him to confront (in a soft option - to compete). Imperial modernization does not imply a structural transformation of society, but mostly the changes in these or other areas, primarily related to the needs of military construction. Moreover, the imperial modernization is carried out primarily for the sake of stabilization and preservation of the basic characteristics of the empire, which serve as inokulturnye borrowing, and the achievement of competitiveness of individual elements of the cultural and civilizational system. Thus, with respect to private, but it is a representative case of imperial modernization of the Soviet period, Pellikani believes that if "society of modern Law Society, the communist state in their actions are not bound by any laws. The communist state is not a totalitarian state version of Art Nouveau, as has denied all the basic principles of modernism and borrows only the scientific and technological advances for the rule of the party bureaucracy. Imperial modernization is not associated with deconstruction of the empire, on the contrary, its success contributes to the challenges of empire building and reproduction in the new historical and sociocultural conditions. It is the specificity of the tasks can be considered as a special imperial modernization of historical and cultural phenomenon. We have presented a general model of imperial modernization, of course, that the real historical and socio-cultural processes are not so straightforward and mechanical. Confrontation and conflict are also a form of cultural and civilizational dialogue, and his dialectic does not fit into rigid mechanistic scheme. Deviations from these schemes do not alter the overall logic, built in the context of the historical interaction with Europe, finding expression in the asymmetric and unbalanced combination of imperial and liberal models of Russia's modernization. Under the liberal model, we understand a type of perception of cultural and civilizational experience of the West, which involves the transformation of Russia's society in a liberal direction. According to the point of view of John Burbank, "imaginary" West "has become a model or antimodelyu for imaginary" Russia ", and this binary opposition is snapped to other cultural projects." Thus, the historical dialectic of relations between Russia and the West in the context of modernization acquires another dimension, which is not only an internal dimension of Russia's civilization.
Imperial and the liberal model of modernization in Russia's history are not just in a state of consistent rotation, this sequence is not so linear. How different manifestations of the power trends, they almost always operate in parallel. At a time when the Empire is the next stage of imperial modernization inokulyurnye elements illegitimate in relation to the socio-cultural elements of the imperial system, this system will inevitably penetrate: "The desire to complete the transformation of the most archaic social institutions mingled with negative perceptions of the Western experience of capitalist modernization. The desire to preserve the real or imaginary advantages of the national culture with one or other characteristics of socio-cultural structures be inconsistent with the process, even very limited military and administrative reforms. Penetrating into Russia's socio-cultural space, these elements contribute inokulturnye internal erosion of the imperial grounds the system, thereby preparing the ground for the subsequent surge of liberal modernization trends. In turn, the abundance of inokulturnyh elements, accompanied by the weakening of the imperial grounds of socio-cultural system, causing unrest in society and, as a rule, different in degree of hardness of a repressive reaction from the imperial system. Continuous infiltration of the limits of Russia's socio-cultural system of European influence, infiltration into Russia's socio-cultural systems of Western elements in their genealogy, largely determine the ambivalent feelings of attraction and rejection felt by Russia against the West, which has become "... for both Russian and purpose sought by and the purpose for which shooting .... Which is interesting, for Russia Westerner West - rather, they embodied an idea of the proper state of affairs: "West for" Westerner "- a perfect point of view, rather than the cultural and geographic reality." At the other extreme social and cultural life of the sign of the perception of Western civilization is changed to the opposite: "... from the West to us is evil. This stimulates the fear, the activity of the subject to protect our values, active partitsipatsii to them and our highest Truth, stimulates fear of apostasy, which automatically leads to partitsipatsii evil West. It should be noted that the reflection on the Asian component in Russia's civilization in the public consciousness is expressed much more weakly than the constant debate about our attitude to Europe. It is noted that as part of Russia has its own "inner Asia - Asians and Asian territories, but still it can not swell the ranks of the East, because for many centuries, has upgraded its Eurasian space". Subjects of the empire to liberal civilization have conflicting feelings of attraction and repulsion. On the one hand, the empire seeks to acquire attractive benefits of a liberal civilization - in goods, knowledge, technology, but on the other hand, the imperial consciousness of rejecting the integrated system, which produces these benefits. Faced with an abundance of inokulturnyh borrowing, imperial socio-cultural system is afraid of rebirth, since reaching quantified levels inokulturnye elements begin to organize and play the system entirely. Here it is appropriate to recall T. Parsons, examines the process of segregation of the imported sociocultural experience in countries undergoing modernization, and noting that the constant attempts to divide imported inokulturny experience at an acceptable and not acceptable is a tendency to
preserve the cultural values of "higher level, opening at the same On the way radical changes at the next level of the value specification, ie at the level of major functional subsystems. From our point of view, in Russia these changes on the level of major functional subsystems strictly dose, because borrowed shall operate in narrow, strictly defined limits and under no circumstances "did not take root", otherwise disistemnye elements can be shaped into an alternative system. Therefore, dosing and segregation inokulturnyh elements is a challenge to the decision which the imperial consciousness always taken seriously. The existing mechanism of maintaining internal stability of Russia's sociocultural system, the permanent reproduction of the imperial consciousness hinders innovation processes. The system is protected from the external environment through control and suppression of undesirable from the standpoint of the elite, socio-cultural information. Muscovy, Russia Empire, the Soviet Union sought to perceive inokulturnuyu, primarily Western, information relating to the field of technological and instrumental. Thus, reproduction was achieved by sociocultural and religious identity of slowing down the process of historical and sociocultural dynamics, when the image of their upbringing, strangers to the solid education and citizenship, and recognized them (moskovskimi. - SG) authorities best for their nation and the most consonant their form of government that the people would hardly move was, if I could get some education and a better concept of God, as well as a good device. To this end, the kings of destroying all means to improve it and try not to allow anything foreign, that could change the native customs. In summary, we note that the modernization process in Russia in the external aspect of society is determined teleology of imperial opposition to the West, which is expressed in ambivalent regarding the attraction and repulsion. In the inner aspect of the modernization process is determined by the dynamics of the dominant imperial struggle and serving as components of the liberal model of modernization.
2. Political culture: from traditional society to modern
Political culture - a way for people to participate in political life, which includes norms, values, behaviors, adopted in national policies and manifested in the form of government. Cultural anthropology was originally engaged in primitive, archaic societies, examining, in particular, the method of social organization and political structure. In one way or another to this problem turned cultural anthropologist James Feyblman (Type Culture), Alfred L. Kroeber ("Style and Civilization"), Ruth Benedict (Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Models of Japanese culture "and" Psychological Types in the Cultures Southwestern United States "), Leslie A. White (" The economic structure of the high cultures "), EB Tylor (Primitive Culture "), later M. Salins, M. Harris, S. Tyler, D. Schneider, etc. Naturally, the
very notion of" political culture "in the study of primitive, archaic societies was a long time was not his and in scientific usage. However, since the emergence of the state in one form or another there was a political life, especially which expresses the political culture. The political life of society is a process and result of political activities of various social groups, strata, personalities and they create political institutions. Aristotle wrote that man is by nature a political being (politikon zoon), but those who by their very nature, not due to accidental circumstances, living outside the state - or aborted in the moral sense of being a superman. The inclusion of the political sphere in the space of culture in Germany, and Russia's tradition of cultural studies is quite traditional: the "political and social spheres are part of the human sphere, are a set of humanitarian problems ... spirit must include it in this collection, which, if it lacks the political, social element detects dangerous for the culture gap "- written in 1939 by Thomas Mann in his article" Culture and Politics. Russia already in 1896 in the encyclopaedia Brockhaus and Efron noted that when "considering the cultural history of the culture divide on the material, spiritual and social." We include the political sphere in culture as well as economic, environmental, legal, ie talking about the economic, environmental, legal and political culture. Descriptions of national character and shared this nation's political, religious and other valuables in antiquity are found in books on geography. Interesting in this regard, the "History" of Herodotus, and "Geography" of Strabo, which generalizes the knowledge of the countries and peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa. In the period of modern times can be identified by S. Puffundorfa, D. Vico "Foundations of the new science of the general nature of nations" (1725), Montesquieu The Spirit of Laws "(1748), IG Herder's "Ideas for the philosophy of history of mankind" (1791), GF Hegel's Philosophy of History "(Lecture 1820), etc. The very phrase "political culture" by the German philosopher IG Herder. In "Ideas for the philosophy of history", considering the political life of the ancient Greeks and the Jews, he uses this phrase. But research XVIII and XIX centuries. this term is rarely used and often reduced to the so-called "political culture". The scientific concept of political culture has been developed in the midtwentieth century. in the writings of political philosophers, G. Almond and S. Verba, later, R. Tucker. For the first time the notion of "political culture" in the scientific revolution brought by the American sociologist G. Almond in 1956, in expanded form the concept of political culture has been presented in joint work with S. Verbov 1963 "Civic Culture: political attitudes and democracy in five countries" . G. Almond and S. Verba consider "the term" culture "only in one sense: the psychological orientation of the social objects. When we talk about the political culture of a society, we mean the political system, lessons in mind, feelings, and estimates of the population. " G. Almond uses the concept of "political culture" for the analysis of social consciousness, influencing the emergence and functioning of political institutions on individual and mass political behavior. In 1963 the book
"Civic Culture. Political installation and democracy in five countries, "G. Almond and S. Verba define political culture as a focus for political action. Political culture - a "set of orientations relative to a certain set of social objects and processes ... When we talk about the political culture of a society, we mean the political system, lessons in mind, feelings, and estimates of the population." They identify three types of orientations to political action: "Cognitive (cognitive) orientation", covering the knowledge and views on the political system, its roles and media. "Affective (emotional) orientation", reflecting the feelings experienced in relation to the political system, its roles, effectiveness and involvement in this political system of citizens. "Performance Orientation", containing personal attitude to the political system, its participants and their actions. But there is more expanded definition of the subject "political culture". So, AY Flier suggests that the sphere of political culture include specialized areas of public policy, ideology, managerial work, military and police work, etc.; everyday - the interpersonal relations between people in a private interaction. In the sphere of interests of political culture includes not only the identification of specific forms of power, conflict management, organization of cooperation, but also the analysis of social mythology with their rational and historical grounds. With regard to the typology of political culture, the G. Almond and S. Verba in «The Civic Culture» are three basic types of political culture: patriarchal; poddannicheskaya; participation. Patriarchal political culture (or the political culture of local communities). In these societies, there is no specialized political roles. Leaders, chiefs, shamans - a mixed political-economic-religious role. For members of such societies, political orientation with respect to these roles are inseparable from the religious or social orientations. Patriarchal orientation also include the relative lack of expectations of change, initiated by the political system. Thus, in the central African tribes and principalities of the political culture largely patriarchal, although the development of any of the more specialized political roles in these societies may mean a more differentiated political orientations. Even large-scale and more differentiated political systems can be based on patriarchal culture. But relatively pure patriarchalism more likely in simple traditsionalisticheskih systems, where political specialization is minimal. Patriarchal culture in a more differentiated political systems, rather, affective and normative than cognitive. This means that people in the tribes of Nigeria or Ghana can vaguely aware of the existence of a central political regime. But their feelings about the regime uncertain or negative, and they are not internalized [not cited] forms of relationship with him. Poddannicheskaya political culture. There exist stable orientation relative differentiated political system and respect the fact that the system gives the "exit", but guidance on specific objects "at the entrance" of the system and about ourselves as an active participant is very weak. The subject of such a system (subject) is aware of the existence of governmental power and sensually focused
on her, perhaps proud of it, may not loving it and appreciating it as legitimate or not. But the attitude to the system in general and to the fact that it gives the "output", ie to the administrative side of the political system, or "downstream" are basically passive - a limited form of knowledge and participation, which corresponds to poddannicheskoy culture. We are talking about pure poddannicheskih orientations that are most likely to occur in societies where there are no mature and differentiated from other parts of the structures "at the entrance. Poddannicheskie orientation in the political system, which has developed democratic institutions, rather, will be affective and normative than cognitive. Thus, a French royalist aware of the existence of democratic institutions, but he does not consider them legitimate. The political culture of participation. Culture, in which members of the community is definitely focused on the system in general, as well as political and administrative structures and processes, in other words, as "input" and the "output" aspects of the political system. Individual members of a political system can be favorably or unfavorably oriented to different classes of political objects. They are inclined to rely on their own active role in politics. Civic culture - a culture of loyal participation. Individuals are not only directed "input" policy, to participate in it, but they also have a positive focus on "input" structure and "input" processes. In other words, using the terms imposed by us, civic culture - a culture of political participation, in which the political culture and political structure are in agreement and consistent with each other. Twentieth century as examples poddannicheskoy political culture gave the ideology and political practices of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, although its elements are present in more developed societies. Generally it should be noted that the patriarchal, poddannicheskaya culture and the culture of participation does not always exist in a pure and holistic form vzaimoperepletayas and complementing each other. From the standpoint of cultural anthropology can be said about the division of political culture on the authoritarian / totalitarian culture of the private and civil society (liberal democratic) culture, characteristic of an open society (as defined by Karl Popper). K. Popper contrasted the earlier forms of social organization, tribal society as a "closed" to modern society as "open". The history of social thought in general and political culture in particular can be interpreted as the history of the struggle of these two opposing ways of social organization. It should be remembered that, originally, historically the company was "closed" - "closed" were tribal culture, the despotism of the Ancient World, the state of the Middle Ages. Political Culture of the "open society", considered from the standpoint of cultural anthropology - is the exception rather the rule than the norm. From the standpoint of historical dynamics of political culture of "open society" is an innovation. Closed society corresponds to a patriarchal or "poddannichesky" type of political culture on the classification of G. Almond, authoritarian or totalitarian
type of political culture on the classification of KS Hajiyev, the political culture of "closed" or "detained" by the classification society Popper. K. Popper analyzed totalitarianism in historical perspective, drawing parallels between different types of closed societies: the tribal organization, fascism, communism, religious fundamentalism. For a closed society is characterized by the normative tradition of collectivism, as expressed in absolutism, conservatism, totalitarianism, and communitarianism. This tradition with all the differences, does not deny the commitment of the various forms of "collectivism", can be traced from J.-J. Rousseau GF Hegel to VI Lenin, K. Schmidt and other conservative revolutionaries, to a lesser extent to Habermas. For the political culture of a closed society is characteristic sharp limitation initiative of society as a whole and certain groups, including professional associations, government areas (restriction of federalism), other actors of the political process. It is characterized by the predominance of vertical over horizontal ties, relations of subordination, rather than cooperation, the monologue of power, rather than a dialogue with society. A man in a political culture is clearly defined place in the social hierarchy, identifying himself with the group, whose interests prevail over its interests. This political culture is not nominalistichna, its protagonist is not the individual, and the people or groups: "Do you - nothing, your people - all" - the slogan of the German National Socialists was the highest expression of its collectivist political culture of the grounds of a closed society. In the tribal society is socially established norms, rules and representations are sacred legitimation. They reflect not members of the society in relation to the action of forces, which they consider to be magical, to the authority of the priests, and later secular authorities. Magic rituals and taboos regulate all aspects of society, including prejudice to the actions of an individual in a particular situation, sparing him from the necessity of choice, the need to make decisions, followed by personal responsibility. Within the political culture of a closed society is widespread idea of the common historical destiny for all individuals, underworld retribution for certain acts committed in the earthly life. The idea of a common destiny, shared salvation or destruction is dominated by the idea of individual destiny and dostizhitelnosti in all segments of sociocultural life. Think of everything as political, to mask all use of the word (along with references to philosophers, from Plato and others), to give everything to the state, appealing to the state under all circumstances, to subordinate issues of identity group issues, believing that each rose to the level of political relations and mature enough to deal with them - are all factors that characterize the politicization of modern man. In the political culture of a closed society articulated the idea of social justice, understood not as a commitment to equal opportunities for competition in different segments of the socio-cultural sphere, but as a fair distribution (eg, in prerevolutionary Russian village land distribution by the number of consumers, rather than the able-bodied peasants). This negative attitude toward the profit motive, the rejection of the capitalist approach to pricing, as the balance between supply and
demand, anything that leads to the individualization of rights and greater autonomy from the state, and local high society. However, today manifests draft rights to the culture of a closed society. Thus, modern German playwright Botou Strauss believes that the country is only as strong as its strong sense of community or spiritual unity. History demands ... rebellion against the total domination of this, which excludes the individual, depriving him of any kind was the presence of unenlightened past, the historical manifestation, mystical time. This thirst for life in a mystical time is not harmless, the fact that, as a theorist, wrote conservative revolution K. Schmitt, "a metaphysical picture of the world, established in a particular period, has the same structure, which has a selfevident characteristic of this era form of political organization . In other words, the actualization of a mystical picture of the world is a threat to the restoration of elements of the political organization of society, another disruption in the archaic, refer to socio-cultural heritage of a closed society. Characteristic in this sense, the long and thorny path of Germany on the political culture of a closed society to the political culture of open society. Even in 1923 a classic of German literature, Thomas Mann said that "to ask the Germans to be committed to .. that the peoples of Europe called freedom, it would be ... tantamount to asking him to commit violence against their nature. As we know, such a breakdown in the archaic, the desire to strike out the results of modern times and the French Revolution happened in Germany 30-40ies of XX century. In its totalitarian variant of this political culture tends to use the achievements of civilization Modernity to recreate obsolete socio-cultural traditions, simultaneous reliance on rationality and irrationality, science and transcendental essence. K. Schmidt: "the substantial uniformity must be installed if necessary - by the removal or destruction of heterogeneous ... The way to liberate the German people from a hundred Troubles bourgeois constitutionalism was indicated by Hitler. In other words, all individuals who for one reason or another do not fit that "the substantial uniformity" must be isolated or destroyed. Theory of the State, the proposed K. Schmitt, is one of many attempts to impose unity and with the help of the so-called absolute values to commit violence against an irreplaceable personality of each individual. Thus, in the political culture of a closed society, the interests of the individual known to be subordinated to the interests of power, the nation state. A person required to live in the regulatory paradigm of service, feel only a small part of the whole that has meaning only insofar as it serves the interests of the whole. In the second half of XX century. situation changed radically. Germany, since its western part, has become an integral and, subsequently, a key element of European modern designs. Suffice it difficult path already done or continue to other countries of the European continent, including Italy and Spain and later Poland, Hungary and other former socialist countries. Today this road rose and some CIS countries, particularly Ukraine. The process of expanding the
geographical boundaries of the political culture of the open society is not finished. The latter extends farther to the south and east. It is important to note that the political culture of modernity, ie open, civil society, secular. Today, in an open public confession of one's religion and adherence to atheism is a purely private affair of the individual, not as a state ideology. Since the French Revolution, the church is separated from the state. In North America, and in most European states to build a society of abundance (or the consumer society), the most comfortable in material terms in relation to man. But atavistic manifestation of the ideology of a closed society are taking place in an open society, which is reflected in particular in relation to consumer society, his critique of secular and religious positions. Thus, John Paul II during his visit to Lviv said that "it is impossible to move from bondage of the communist regime to a captive consumerism, which is another form of materialism, which, though in words does not deny God, but denies him the facts, excluding it from life. But the process of secularization is immanent in the political culture of an open society, gradually spreading not only in place of the Christian world, which today referred to as post-Christian world, but outside this range, for example in Turkey. Ahmet Evin from the speech: "It is difficult to find someone who would be willing to say openly that he does not believe in Allah (in the case, of course, is not about other religions). However, such people with each passing year becomes more and more. Public opinion is to get used to the fact that the question of faith - is the sphere of personal life, uncontrolled by the state and society. Individualism gradually adopted in Turkey. "This is one of many indications that the political culture of an open society is gradually spreading throughout the world, although it is uneven and fraught with failures of large-scale process. And anything with it can not do a group of religious fundamentalists, extremists, bombers, preachers and administrators. Modern democratic societies of Western civilization Modernity are classic open societies, in the terminology of Karl Popper. Open society meets a liberaldemocratic type of political culture (classification KS Gadzhieva) or civic culture (classification G. Almond and S. Palms). You can say that the civic culture - is the political culture of loyalist involvement, characterized by coordination and consistency of political culture and political structures. It represents a synthesis of the political culture of participation with the patriarchal and poddannicheskoy political culture. In becoming parties to the political process, citizens at the same time do not abandon their poddannicheskih or patriarchal orientation, which makes the civic political culture in a sustainable process of reproduction, geographical and temporal translation. Political Culture of the Modern, suggesting institutionalized activity of the free individual, generates a functional mode of the executive branch, where the main branch has become a bureaucratic administration, pragmatic and rationally
organized political management. Institutional order policy here is acquiring a complete system view, which corresponds to a slim hierarchy of legal institutions. Development of civil culture, creating a space free of political selfdetermination of the associated individuals, requires the executive to act not so much the state will support or managerial rationality as a mediator and arbitrator of political communication, without coordinating the efforts which the political order is impossible. The history of mankind can be viewed as accelerating the process of allocating rights of the first natural, and then from the social environment. The most articulate and clearly this process manifested itself in an open society, which arose and was institutionalized central role of the individual instead of the role of the tribe, group, nation. You can talk about modularity rights era modernism, its ability to integrate the various social strata, to choose the profession, to participate in the election of the central and local (regional) authorities. Man is increasingly beginning to define their own actions and their consequences to bear full personal responsibility. The most important reason, which is based on the open society is protoliberalnaya / liberal tradition of normative individualism, central among the "Megatrends", characteristic of the modern era, genealogically traced back to the idea of "social contract", which runs from Hobbes, J.-J. Rousseau. In the history of social thought in this tradition include John Locke, William Bentham, Kant, von Humboldt, Dzh.St. Mill, John Rawls, etc. As a systematic concept of personality, values, society and state, liberalism promotes the emergence and stereotyping of innovation, favoring individualism, antikonstruktivizmu and skepticism. In practical terms, liberalism promotes the development of market economy, which drastically increases the level of welfare of mankind over the past century and a half. The features of civic political culture is its autonomy, rationality, democracy, tolerance and pluralism. Civic political culture is gradually becoming the reference of our political culture, not only in place of Christian / post-Christian civilization. In the political sphere, the planetary expansion of the political culture of the open society leads to the unification and its gradual deconstruction of colorful and heroic, but its anti-human types. For the latest "zero-sum game" is not typical, the problems most often removed in a compromise form, is a balance of interests, none of the participants in the political process is not driven into a desperate situation. Dialogue takes precedence over monologue, there is willingness to compromise with an opponent. "In the Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries there are already elements of the fundamental democratic everyday life, which everyone knows that it is impossible to organize. Political culture needs a good climate - no Prussian. A. Camus, said that in the Mediterranean (western) world "politics is for people, not people for politics." It is distinguished by refusing to sacrifice the present for a higher good, the willingness to tolerate ambiguity and difference, rather than remove them from political life ... This tolerance is not typical of the northern world (we would say a closed society) - the world order, violence and unimaginative tendency to wars,
which differs German people. It is about the Germans before the Second World War, when they have not yet adopted the value of the political culture of open society, not included in the Euro-Atlantic civilization in its genealogy Modernity. Today, globalization is happening in the field of political culture, the cultural influence of modern societies gets into traditional society. Forecast Habermas on the possible direction of further development of the current situation: "In the future, from different national cultures could differentiate between the general political culture." Features of the political culture of the era of globalization naturally determined by the processes of globalization, when the global approach to culture, economics, politics, excludes from consideration of the strategy of individual units or agents, when the old notion of state sovereignty loses its former meaning. Globalization has deprived the nation-state status of stand-alone player in the international arena, the center of decision-making has become international. This leads to lively discussions about world government and a new world order. We can assume that the planetary political culture of global peace could be a culture of civil, open society, if only because they led the globalization process is followed by the State of North America and Europe that show the same pattern of political culture. At the same time, the impact that globalization has on the nonglobal form of civil rights and collective action depends on the position in the social structure and location of the country (region) in the geography of globalization. Globalization processes associated with sub-global trends in different parts of the world and are faced with many kinds of reactions and resistance.
3. Russia's State: yesterday, today and tomorrow
The scientific and public discussion on the prospects personalistskogo regime in Russia turned out to be topical, sometimes there is a feeling that we are all in the historic area of bifurcation. For more detached position, the expected genre of scientific publication, human feelings of passion, emotion, present and future participants in the events. Naturally, depending on their own world view discussants provide answers, with varying degrees of conventionality gravitating towards two main semantic poles: Yes, inevitable, and not - "escape" or even, we have historically outdated, everything was over the traditional "Russian system. Effect of obsolete ideologemes. I'll start with the article by B. Mezhuev "Russia's state can only be a combination of ideocracy and democracy." The position of the author is not tied to a dominant pole of "patriotism" or "liberalism", it is located somewhere between them. Since my own position rather inclined to the pole of liberalism, something in the text of AB Mezhuev my thinking is quite consonant with, something that comes from "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality, no. I am quite sympathetic arguments of the author of "technical" nature of Russia's state in its traditional
"autocratic-bureaucratic" model of government, when "technical calculation replaces the political choice. When the technical nature acquire virtually all the power of bureaucratic positions, is delegated full political responsibility to the very top, at the level of the president. I agree that this is a fragile political system, totally dependent on energy and other personal properties of the first person in the public administration, this traditional "autocratic-bureaucratic" model of government dysfunctional, it does not have the resources to "samoremonta" and can be destroyed almost overnight, as the experience of the revolutions of 1917 and 1991. I quite agree with the observation B. Mezhuev that today we are in a certain mezheumochnom, inertial position between authoritarianism and free political competition. We have today situational, only reacts to external stimuli governance. We see the desire of power to the avoidance of certainty, short-term response to internal and external stimuli, the reluctance to make a binding choice. This though is not quite a conscious choice makes the action both in domestic and foreign policy into a set of mutually exclusive provisions, declared in an attempt to grasp the immensity, to accommodate the entire range of possible future decisions. However, in recent years there has been quite clearly opted kvaziimperskogo path of development, which, of course, requires a very specific ideology. The traditional way of development is closer, more familiar, instinctive, play as though by itself, gathering the semantics of the new / old ideological mediations. The diagnosis of the current state of Russia's statehood, proposed by B. Mezhuev, to some extent, resonates with my position, but more significant differences begin. Russia is part of European civilization. Of course, every European country has its own personality, in a sense differing from each other. Our uniqueness rather than orthodoxy, and in the amount of occupied territory, geographical deepening in Asia. We no longer Europe than, for example, included in the European Union Orthodox Bulgaria and Romania, where the influence of Eastern culture where more conspicuous than in Russia. Civilization we represent Europe in Asia, expanding to Europe geographically and culturally to North America and Japan. Thanks to Russia, it potentially becomes a small "tip of Asia" in the "Heartland" - the middle ground, the single most significant influence on the development of world events. Our European identity was natural since the founding of the Russian state. Notable features of our historical past is not a "special" than, for example, in Spain. But on the basis of relatively long-standing Arab conquest, and relatively close to the Franco government of Spain, one of European civilization does not rule. Talking about our civilization alone, based only on the unique geographical location and size of the occupied territory, is impossible. They are unique, but claims to justify the particular civilization can not. On a separate Orthodox civilization do not have to talk too. If such allegations were based on reality, towards an alliance with Russia, not the EU, sought to Orthodox states of Europe. But they tend to the European Union and Nato, leaving Russia in the "civilization" alone. A strong movement in this
direction is observed in Ukraine, and the vector of the political attraction of Belarus is unstable now. Russia - part of Europe, even regardless of whether you agree with the Europeans themselves. Their today's willingness or unwillingness to include our country into European structures, the situation does not fundamentally change will include the historic "tomorrow". No need to demand from the European Union and the history of the immediate integration of all in time. For half a century of history and even a century is not something that man. The main thing - to choose the path approaching, but not move away this development. I believe that Russia institutionally integrated into the European structures is inevitable, the only question of time and that the country will for the moment represent geographically. Here be two main options. The first is to strengthen democratic institutions, development of innovation economy and civil society. Then we have all chances to pass the path of convergence, and then the integration with European structures in our present structure and boundaries. And the second option. It is slightly longer and much more painful for the contemporary historical events, devastating for preservation of the territorial state. In the case of motion on the historical path of Russia fairly quickly pass through the third phase of the deconstruction of the empire, and it was so small, truncated form can easily become part of a united Europe, as part of our future politicians and the military are in The Hague. "Barbarians at the Gate Something that needs to be done to implement this second option, described "conservative journalist" D. Volodihin in the article "Russia needs an autocratic monarchy, somewhat softened by a number of representative institutions." It just shows the Orthodox and imperial Russia, a country where "any level of political power, no serious business should not be addressed without consult the spiritual authorities, without the blessing of the patriarch, bishop, priest." I believe that no mentioned D. Volodihin serious or frivolous case will not last long, due to lack of state and territory under its control, which could spread such concerted solutions. Use of Orthodoxy as state ideology, and the Orthodox Church as ideokraticheskogo body will accelerate the third phase of the deconstruction of the empire, when the country will disappear the last inotsivilizatsionnye, inoreligioznye regions. Not the fact that in this, fortunately still hypothetical, the situations they have not been followed by the Far East, Kaliningrad, probably Siberia. I believe that within the borders of Muscovy, the fact that when you use these recipes governance remains of modern Russia's counsel, it is possible to receive a blessing. But do not think that this kind of geopolitical "reset" inokulturnyh, inokonfessionalnyh territories can pass safely to his contemporaries and participants of events, he probably will resemble the classic collapse continental empire. Decay through blood and soil. In other words, the choice is simple. Either a large, multi-religious, a country in its present borders, but without the leadership and "leadership" of Orthodoxy, which has a population with a fair amount of indifference refers to his religious
affiliation, or a small country for a certain, small by the standards of the history of time, with the leadership and all possible priorities in Orthodoxy. D. Volodihin constructs a utopia, developing into anti-Utopia. He sees the national association on the basis of a separatist, ostensibly to anything in history like "fourth way" of Russian conservatism. But history was already a special way of national socialist and fascist regimes in Europe last century. Everything has been designed theoretically and even embodied in the historical practice of totalitarian regimes in Europe, have only to adapt foreign ideas to Russia's reality, a different "pack" them. From the old European "conservative revolutionaries" can recall the work of Moeller van den Bruck, Carl Schmitt, Ernst Young ... matches the old, European, and the new Russia "conservative thought" well-defined and unambiguous. Thus, according to "conservative" A. Moeller van den Bruck, "Third Reich" (state form "germanskogo socialism") is the antithesis of a western liberalism and the "Eastern Bolshevism." And Carl Schmitt believed that only "social unity" unlimited state can provide the most valuable thing a man - his physical existence (survival - in the terminology of D. Volodihin). Finally, the Ernst Jung in 1927 published a very popular in the Third Reich work on the rule of sub-standard. Jung considered and rejected the political order of the Weimar Republic and formulated the basic provisions of his conception of the state. From his point of view, the Weimar State has power to "inferior" is unacceptable individualistic liberals, while suppressing the spiritual and moral elite of Germany. And only "conservative revolution can destroy the" rule of substandard "and" liberalism ". Under the "conservative revolution" Jung understood the "restoration of all those elementary laws and values, without which a person loses touch with nature and God and can not establish the true order. Equality must be replaced by internal values and social beliefs - the belief in the fairness of a hierarchical society, mechanical elections - the organic principle fyurerstva (leaderism), bureaucratic coercion - the internal responsibility of genuine self-government, mass happiness - the right of the people's personality. " So D. Volodihin and other authors of the "patriotic" orientation in their theoretical explorations may well rely on a solid base of reference publication "conservative revolutionaries" who had prepared the ideological ground for the coming to power in Germany's National Socialists. With all possible reservations, Article ID Volodihin timely in the genre of dystopia, a warning. By dreaming the unthinkable "zigzag of history" - the last victory neotraditsionalistov, which may take the form of ethnic fascism, coupled with the authoritarian imperial historical and socio-cultural tradition. The present Russian fascism or national socialism, there can be only a parody, a copy of his Italian and German counterparts. Despite the difference of opinions and assessments made during the discussion, the general feeling of anxiety. He was well expressed renowned historian of Russia, Alexander Yanov: "Barbarians at the Gate. "Barbarians" of his strong faith, a desire for whatever was to embody imagined utopia, a readiness to sacrifice for her sake and others' with their lives. They are strong insensitivity to other people's experience, "barbarians" are ready to repeat and repeat the
authoritarian experiments on himself and on the country until as long as the country has at least something left. With a purely mythological thinking, they do not perceive the historical patterns, each time discovering the story again, considering it as a chaotic conglomeration of coincidences. The experience of the Third Reich, of course, the decree, but twelve years of its existence are perceived as a historical accident, rather than as inevitable. Then why not try to exercise close in spirit to the project in Russia, of course, strictly orthodox and autocratic setting. That they were only twelve years old, and "our" Empire headed by the emperor would exist precisely millennium, it will exist as it were, outside of physical time, in the space-time mythical. But in today's situation far all is not lost, there are different scenarios: from mass anti-fascist movement to gain control of the government itself, the revitalization of its liberal, intellectual power, people in power who can not clearly answer the question of colleagues - "in which regiment served? ". I quite agree with the idea Trenin that can activate "those forces that today are only a liberal regime decor ... fascisation of the country, certainly not in the interests of the majority of them. While these people are slightly aware of the real threat of fascism, but very soon it will understand. " Inconvenient questions The discussion about the prospects personalistskogo regime in Russia can not but note the article VI Yakovenko. In particular, he asks himself and the participants of the discussion questions on the answer to which depends not only on the future character of Russia's statehood, but also our personal future. First of all, what kind of crisis we are experiencing? "This may be one of the crises of development, and then he would be overcome, and may be the last crisis of the historical impasse of which are visible only vista - destruction and removal of the subject. If we interpret the crisis that is going on with us, as the crisis of the historical impasse, it is necessary to adhere to prescriptions on arrangement of Russia, originating from the "orthodox-conservative" camp. By following them, you can repeatedly committing similar historical mistakes in the end skukozhit Rossiyskogo States territory to the borders of Muscovy, in its size and population of convertible-friendly candidate for institutional inclusion into the European Union. Way historically possible, but my enthusiasm is. This is the path through the destruction, through decay, I fully agree with the thesis, Igor Yakovenko, that "Russia's Orthodox Church in principle is compiled with the imperative of dynamization, unable to respond effectively to the challenges of our time. If, however, to interpret what is happening today as a development crisis, this crisis is incomplete changes coupled with present and future attempts at democratic negotiation of regional and ethno-national interests, the construction of an asymmetric federation, the development of democratic institutions, building civil society. Relations between society and government
Another text, which I can not respond, was an article Josef Diskin "Today is the first time in Russia's history there are prerequisites for a competitive market and political democracy." While agreeing with this approach in general, assuming a viable democracy in Russia, I can not agree with some particulars. "In the" new Russia "as wealth becomes the main problem of social justice, equitable division of the national pie" (J. Diskin). How can that be, in fact still quite recent 90-ies, millions of our compatriots have relied exclusively on its own forces, and this strategy has become vital for them "individual rational choice behavior (J. Diskin). They did not expect from the state, moreover, that it did not stop to it in respect of them as would have happened. Naturally, these sentiments were and are predominantly engaged in small business. 90-ies became for millions of people a unique experience of living without a state, where it was not necessarily run in "Belovodie" abroad, when it took itself. In recent years the state has returned. This return of the State, coupled with high commodity prices rekindled Russia's exports to the traditionalists hope to return to state paternalism. That's "earned a law carve-up". I can not understand why successful people are the "new Russia", that is, those 25-30%, opposed themselves to the traditional society, have made the choice purely individualistic, self-reliance, got troubled category of equity "section of the national cake," and the problem of social justice in general? I think that the issue of social justice, concern mainly the losers in the reforms of the traditionalists, and that their aspirations will answer "political force, which put forward the idea of social justice as the main point of a new political agenda." (J. Diskin) Message authorities to traditionalism today the most inefficient, it is a very long time may not be instrumental, technologically capable of achieving the planned objectives. The apparent shift from modern to premodernu based on flirting with the traditional societies that are themselves not only on the mental level, but also in the economic practices of the traditionalists. And ethical support for such action is possible mainly by the "Russia premoderna", rather than those of 25-30% of our fellow citizens (IV Diskin), who were able to effectively adapt to change last year and a half decades. Now as to maintain national control over raw material resources. Yes, this control was maintained, was retained control over the economy as a whole, unlike the former European socialist countries, this control is almost completely lost. This with I. Diskin could not agree more. It is worth noting just the price that Russia paid for the society to preserve national control over the economy. We know that in the 90 years of economic entities by crook tried to minimize tax payments to budgets of all levels, resulting in social support for pensioners, the disabled, mothers and children, medicine and education has been reduced to a minimum. The cost of maintaining the property in the hands of local capitalists and the state the people were children who died before the term of the elderly, millions of homeless and others in the same spirit. We have kept in the "national" hands of the economy, but once again undermined the population. We have retained control over the economy and territory, but it will work and to
maintain the territory of living people, others by language, religion and culture. This is the price issue, and the price already paid. And there, in the Eastern European countries, new foreign owners pay taxes, and such a failure in the financing of social programs was not, there was no less explicit processes of depopulation, such a sharp deterioration in the quality of society. But what's done is done. As for the future, then what prevents further continue to follow the accepted practice today - to Ipoh, to sell minority stakes to foreigners. It is Russia's traditional practice - Russia's mineral wealth, Western technology. Do not harass each other's world of conspiracies and reports of the CIA. Know the real situation must, but do not be afraid to scare themselves and others. No need to help Russia's authorities to exhaust itself "into a corner" in an increasingly narrowing the corridor opportunities - while high prices for the products of our commodity exports, nothing momentous for it not happening. J. Diskin also believes that in the process of transfer of religious property from the Institute for Orthodox Church of the intelligentsia "Russia's state loses in every society and ethical support, meeting with the intellectuals quasi-religious intolerance and unwillingness to cooperate, refusal to dialogue with the government, seen not only as" a betrayal ideals ". Not having the tendency to quasi-religious intolerance, agree with the authors that all of this in our history had been, and rejection of power, the refusal of dialogue, were Populists, Revolutionaries, and in the Soviet era "enemies of the people" and trying to "live not by lies "Human rights ... There were people opposing power in word and deed, but that it was for power, and who is a party to the last closed from dialogue? We know that such non-adaptive power of inertia, shape, lack of decisions and will respond adequately to the challenges of time before the end of the path passed samoischerpaniya. In the Romanov empire, it has exhausted itself without having to go to the coveted society republican form of government, ending its existence by the revolution of 1905-1907 and the participation in the First World War on the side of republican France. Amazing ease revolution of February 1917 was the result of the desire of the revolution, which shares several generations of Russian educated society. It is wrong to prolong the inevitable, a revolution can not let "the door" of domestic policy, it "breaks through" the window of foreign policy, it will still come, if it is its historical time and historical time non-adaptive power - gone. At the root of the rotten and the USSR, rotten to the stage a bloodless, voluntary, desirable participants in the events samoraspada. This is a separate big topic, I note only that past and its historical time. And the dialogue of society and power in the Gorbachev era had nothing could not save - there was too much in the history of the USSR and blood was too inefficient Soviet economy. Today, dialogue between the government and society is needed, and this can not but agree with J. Diskin, but it can only be mutual.
4. Conservative rollback: from modernization to the restoration
Analyzing the country's ongoing political processes, let us assume that the actions of modern Russia's authorities are more pronounced tendency toward great imperial backlash, of course complemented by an atmosphere of fear and conspiracy perception of the world. Today the number of facts confirming and illustrating this hypothesis, increasing exponentially, particularly clearly, these trends are being felt with the fall of 2003 - early 2004. The trend for the imperial revenge seem logical argument on the necessity of building a multipolar world, harping on the possibility of ghostly gathering of economic, political and military resources of Russia, India, China to put pressure on the collective entity of the West. Threats to these utopian, the probability of their implementation - is negligible, but their very appearance is the sign character. And the sign - the message of "hail and peace" - it is indecipherable and interpretation: defend against claims of west primordial right to use imperial (authoritarian and totalitarian) domestic socio-cultural traditions, in which no authority exists for the sake of man, but man for the sake of power. The logic of this tradition in today's geopolitical environment is completely irrational passion for imperial power, manifested in policies aimed at maintaining power in the CIS countries, Moscow-oriented authoritarian and corrupt regimes against democratic / velvet revolutions in former Soviet republics (Georgia, Ukraine ), and-Western forces who came to power as a result of these revolutions. But the increasingly authoritarian and more only to restore its economic potential of Russia can not offer the former Soviet republics of nothing but raw materials and weapons. This is important, but this is absolutely not enough to keep them in its orbit. Such confinement must be cultural, technological superiority, Russia not only the alleged "satellite states", but over the countries of old Europe, the USA, Japan, the ability to export more advanced than those of competitors, technology, carry bulky investments. While this role is difficult. First of all, remember the well-known: Russia's culture in its application, technology, parts do not exceed the technological capabilities of countries belonging to Western civilization. In the long historical perspective, we are not going to equal, but catching up with their current real and virtual counterparts. Nevertheless, the political leadership is trying to claim the restoration of the Soviet superpower status. Experience in the United States, the sole superpower of the modern world, shows that being a superpower well. This status in its militarypolitical embodiment it is possible to convert to the economy, including to support the dollar as world reserve currency, getting through this role supercheap credit, external financing of the U.S. economy. But it is communicating vessels, the American military and political power is primarily a derivative of American economic power. Modern Russia's leadership for some reason thinks that you can claim the role of superpower, competing with the United States for influence and control over territories and resources, without commensurate with their economy,
comparable to the state budget as the basis for the financing of the army and the military industrial complex, comparable resources in many pure military fields. In these circumstances, fantasy (claim?) On the role of a superpower look quite strange, although in this case it is easy to pick up and other, more powerful epithets. But, apparently, this policy is based on emotional grounds, when that which a priori can not be done, but at the same time very much want to do, it becomes possible. You can, of course, not in real life, not on a rational basis, but only in the virtual field, is utopian and self-deception. It is pleasant, perhaps, wishful thinking, dreaming imperial status, both dreamed of after the death of the Western Roman Empire in the west, and then to the east of Europe, but the reality badly to the fantasies. But most important is the cost of such experiments as for society as a whole and for each citizen of the country separately, and the value of these costs - zashkalivayusche high. Speaking of maximum destructiveness of these costs, we note that much better to be a living resident is not very large and ambitious European state than cannon fodder in this virtual kvaziimperii. To paraphrase a famous expression of Bismarck, for instance, that "no guns - instead of butter, but exactly the opposite: -" Hedonism instead of militarism. " We fully stand in solidarity with the old slogan of the European and North American hippies: "We need love, not war", believing that the Russians needed the quiet joys of consumerism - instead of imperial rhetoric and the cultivation of the spirit of service and sacrifice in the name of the empire, needed a private, not "nationalized "neo-imperialist leadership sluggish life. The second strong trend in today's Russia policy, at first glance, the opposite of the first, although in reality they are completely symbiotic and complementary the fear of "external and internal enemies," conspiratorial view of the world. When the political elite of the country begins in earnest hope for the re-establishment of a superpower and empire, as we have seen, involves fairly stiff competition / struggle for a place under the sun, the claimants is not in itself, revive the conscious and unconscious fears, complexes, phobias. Full flower blooms conspiracy everywhere see caricatures alien, hostile and powerful forces that strive to destroy the "emerging" in their fevered imaginations "superpower", any kind liberal, not liberal, but an empire. Here and foreign charitable foundations, bearing, as the Soros Foundation, alien and hostile socio-cultural traditions of the imperial spirit of individualism and consumerism. Hear the cries of the ultra, the contents of which, slightly ironic and simplifying, can be summarized as follows: Behold, supported by Soros in the 90 years the thick literary journals, book publishing and libraries - thereby introduced into our perfectly healthy and loving and superior general, and representatives of security agencies and ministers of the Orthodox Church in particular, the society, the spirit of Western, individualistic life, human rights are alien to the Russian spirit values. The machinations of foreign enemies have become blurry sense of imperial patriotism, not helped, but let Soros preparing new Susanin, Matrosov, Gastello Maresyev. Russia's new government managed over the past few years to evolve in the direction of neo-imperial and authoritarian, realizing their new / old
interests and values. We know that in this coordinate system, the value of human life is quite conventional, and the value of authoritarian and neo-imperial state certainly. Such power and such a state over the centuries were kept in the service and sacrifices of ordinary Russians / Soviet man, his sufferings, deeds and strastoterpii, that he paid for the dreams of the authorities and enthusiasts in uniform and in plainclothes, on military glory and imperial power. In addition, many supported the fund and Russia's liberal intelligentsia, and from it, as you know any devout patriot / state - all the evil comes, it is - the fifth column of corrupt, cozy abode in a situation of permanent systemic crisis in the Western world. And not only he, the non-Russian fund, there are funds and fondiki - and in all, if not enemies, the enemies of the followers, people who "bring grist to their mill." So keep and do not let go, check with the tax authorities to put pressure on landlords to provide them accommodation, to make many times, many times to raise the rent, but does not help, and you can "turn off the gas" - his own hand of the King. Under the policy all the more tangible "podmorazhivaniya" Russia under the direct or indirect state control of television channels are taken, other media, of which squeezed the most talented and masterful manipulations are not inferior to the professionals. Nationwide television channels tamed, but this has little to hold back the power, so creating new channels to ensure the propaganda cover for her upbringing and the old / new man devoted to power not only of fear but for conscience sake. This eternal purpose empire building, maintenance and retention of the physical body of the empire should, conceived as neo-imperialist ideologues, serve as a "military-patriotic" and "Orthodox-patriotic" television channels. But no matter how excel apologists of imperialism and statehood, to more than ordinary remakes on Uvarov triad of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality", their combined creativity is clearly not enough. In defense of consciousness, which, judging by the abundance of direct and indirect evidence, increasingly possessed higher bureaucracy, it is logical to look and vertical alignment of power wherever possible, including in such key areas as politics and economics. In this regard, we note that the rejection of the election of governors and presidents of national republics, despite their very archaic, imperial assumptions may still be subject to more or less serious discussion, but the rejection of the elected leaders of municipal governments (municipalities) throws the country into " Dark Ages of European Middle Ages. In other words, power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of all the larger the bureaucracy, "the power of the bureaucracy, public concern is not so much as self-serving interests. Second power vertical is built (lined up) in a large private, parastatal and government business. For power, it is important to control all substantial cash flows, financial makeup deprive any possible opposition, preemptively cut off funding for any alternative social, political, and economic projects. But if society does not consider such projects if the control of information is comprehensive, if the authorities increasingly rely on administrative resources - the risk of making incorrect management decisions is increasing by orders of magnitude.
In the economic sphere among such catastrophic in its consequences for the country's decision-leader "Yukos affair". And here we voluntaristic approach rests on the government and society to all forms of property, both public and private. In reality Russia's ownership of life - this is not a legally protected institution, but only situational expression of proximity or neblizosti to power through its various groups and representatives. Once the political situation changed, as has just begun a massive rotation of the political elite, then almost immediately it becomes clear that the owner is quite conventionally has a nominal property, he had virtually no functioning legal (legitimate) mechanisms in order to keep this property. In today's Russian realities of owners can probably try to somehow agree with the ordinary / extraordinary new power, bring to the "gifts" to take the permanent funding of a particular socio-political or sports project ... In the end, emerges this "wonderful" and, of course that maximize Russia's lucrative projects, attract prosperity, doubling GDP and so on. painting - every four to eight years of regular (planned!) redistribution of property. Already today we can assume that the government formed in the future by liberal (united?) Opposition can go to the procedure of restitution, the return of Yuganskneftegaz and other excluded assets of Yukos, and / or its current shareholders, although the company itself and will be phased out by the appointed time. Some, albeit a rough analogy, here is the situation with the auction for the Ukrainian "Krivozhstali. Already today, quite easy and natural to assume that at a regular feature of the history of the watershed that separates the past from the future, could become a big trial on the revision of the Yukos affair, as it is today in such a watershed event was the arrest of MB Khodorkovsky and the actual defeat of the best oil company in Russia. Such is the ironic logic of history. The question of whether or not to destroy the new post-Soviet Russia's statehood in the name of the ghostly in the short / medium term, historical goal the capture and retention in the hands of an effective oil company - is at least open. Note that the Yukos affair genetically traced back to Russia's historical traditions, where for centuries the country was held as a focused and planned (epoch IV the Terrible, Lenin, Stalin's) and spontaneous (arson of property and killing of farmers, individual settlers in the Stolypin reforms) negative personal selection. In this process, the selection of strong, independent, cost-effective social strata or are rejected / destroyed physically or enhance their work, abilities and intellect victuals state. After strong harder to manage, they are more independent, which leads to their periodic removal not only of economics but also of life, which occasionally practiced by authoritarian / totalitarian Russia's power. As a result of, albeit with some easing in the centuries of such a policy of strong and effective, irrespective of the social support of the state, has relatively few and weak, counting on this support - rather a lot. But without the people's strong economically, politically, socially Russia will not survive, because they create wealth, generate and implement successful business projects. Liberal reforms 90 years of XX century were no exception to
this rule, the destruction of strong, they were able to free development, the establishment of a business, to achieve not only economic but also social success. Today, clearly it must be noted that the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in August 1991 were not fully resolved. First of all, power is not passed into the hands of the bourgeoisie for the banal reason that in the beginning of reforms in Russia itself almost nebylo. Today, the bourgeoisie in the country is, it finally matures to the awareness of the simple fact that the maintenance, preservation and development of business must be engaged in politics, finance those political forces that are able to express and defend the economic and political interests of the most educated, young and dynamic parts society, because they largely coincide with its own interests. The bitter experience of the last four years not only Russia's capitalists, but also a significant part of the community were convinced that the authority shall not be thrown on the road, it can pick up people who do not share democratic values, believing that society in general and business in particular, should play subordinate role to the bureaucracy. In this system of values place of business exclusively serving, the authority expects a bent posture and the sacramental phrase, "What, sir?". If you please, it's free to seize the business, to send Russia's new capitalist for a beer, put in jail? The relationship of modern Russia's government and its contractors, including business, largely fit into a genre scene from the movie "KinDza-Dza" - "all of Junior Member (in our current business realities. - SG) to wear muzzles, and smile , smile. As we remember, such innovations ended for power chatlan on the distant planet from Earth, it is lamentable. The point here is yet another important fact - the conventional property ownership in Russia, the consideration of "owner" only as a public administrator (the viewer) means the country's lack of material, property foundations of human freedom in general. In this situation, human rights are equally arbitrary, like the right to property, it is absolutely interrelated things. Russia history clearly demonstrates the nature of the inversion characteristic of the country's socio-political processes, where the poles of good and evil in people's minds and the minds of elites, as indeed, these very elite, repeatedly changing - something that yesterday was commendable, adoration and protection then considered almost as a manifestation of absolute evil. Today the authorities only think that it is almost always that the situation is controllable and society susceptible planned and unplanned manipulation on her part. Tomorrow is not determined by a simple extrapolation of the features of the present day in the future. Russia's modern government was able to solve quite a complex task - at the same time to quarrel with the left and right part of Russia's political spectrum. Red Youth Vanguard, NBP (limonovtsy), youth structures Yabloko and SPS, if not go in the same order and not grouped under the general direction, the combined tough enough opponirovaniem power, and this masterful opponent determined not only institutionally, but also on personal level. Sacramental policy issue for Russia against whom we will be friends? - Has ceased to be an issue, but became obvious and somewhat banal answer already. That's around this common understanding of the problem situation, awareness of the necessity of its return to the area of
common sense and there is not yet completely virtual, but its possible implications as a viable association. Russia's modern comforts itself with the support of the power of many "centrists" politically neutral inhabitants. But the fundamental problem of support for this part of society is as follows. Such support is good in stable and predictable political situation, but when it is aggravating the townsfolk are unlikely to protect the government but to defend its people with certain political principles in August 1991, the White House and in October 1993 at the Moscow City Council. In those years helped to live and cautiously optimistic about the future of the feeling that this power of its own, for her many experienced and some internal commitment this power can and should be protected and defended. A surprising sense of social / mental proximity to power was the first time in my life and finally disappeared when changing ideological and political-economic eras in the new century. We believe that in the short / medium-term historical perspective, mainly as a result of a possible sharp decrease in the value of Russia's exports of primary products, it is likely that the government would face the perturbed masses, one on one with people. Note that the support group, no matter how numerous and funded though they are now unlikely to be or how to actively participate in a possible confrontation. In addition, the role of law enforcement agencies in times of national crisis rather ambivalent, as history shows, resulting in Tehran in 1978, Bucharest, other capitals of Eastern European States in the late 80-ies of the last century. Today is not seen any reason to exclude Russia from this textbook series. It's trite, but the army special forces and all security agencies staffed by people from the people, and in post-Soviet Russia there is no hereditary military aristocracy with its clear political interests, such as in modern Turkey. In the stories easy to find and illustrations that characterize the behavior of the various political forces in times of political crises. The centrists, successful ordinary people who remain at home until the last possible, becoming later as the passive victims of the Cheka and the Gestapo, as well as active accomplices in repression. But in times of crisis, the turning points of history creates an absolute minority of the people, protest energy is enough to carry out radical changes. So it was in Russia in February and October 1917, and in August 1991. When permission for a particular political situation unite people left and right views, that is, virtually all cash society political enthusiasts / passionarians, with varying degrees of support from the mass protest electorate - the range of variation of probable crisis sharply narrowed. As part of our socio-cultural and historical tradition to break - not to build, the process of dismantling, deconstruction of the old politico-economic order, thinning, rapid rotation of elites in Russia always been much more successful and was accompanied by much enthusiasm of the masses than the process of creation. Today, one need not be a prophet to predict the next opportunity in our history, the process of deconstruction, burdened by the load of accumulated absurdities and odious system action, but what is new socio-political configuration will replace the old - it is unclear in the short / medium term historical perspective possible to implement both positive and negative versions of social development.
However, in the case of democratic samotransformatsii system, restoring civil liberties, the transition from playing with the "zero-sum game" where winner takes all and loser loses everything, to search for compromise - the need and likelihood of such a restructuring are sharply reduced. We believe that samotransformatsiya systems, evolutionary development, decision, rather than the accumulation of current problems is much more effective and preferable to revolutionary upheaval. In the meantime, the growing authoritarianism in the governance of the country prevents the fullness of life self-realization of the individual, the living generations. Human life is not infinite, we have no time to perezhidanie another stalemate on the expectation of when and where to take out the Russian "maybe". Ability to implement the complete self-realization requires each of us in the beautiful far away "- it is needed today, now. The future starts today, it is time to choose, is nearing the fork between imperial / ideokraticheskim past, still fueling bureaucratic and "patriotic" timelessness of the present, and the bourgeois, wellfed, heroic way, but dynamic European future.
Chapter II. Empire: pro et contra
1. Empire: contra. History of Russia and the USSR from A. Akhiezer, IA Klyamkin, IA Yakovenko and E. Gaidar
In October 2005 the foundation "Liberal Mission" and "New Publishing House published a new book of famous Russian culture experts and political scientists Alexander Akhiezer, Igor Klyamkin and Igor Yakovenko -" History of Russia: the end or new beginning? "Despite the fact that the court readers are philosophical, cultural, and political science mediation of complex historical events of Russia's history is written it is surprisingly simple and straightforward literary language. There is an impression that the book was written in one breath, in one sitting. But this idea is deceptively similar to the ease of writing is achieved only by the labor, work on many of the text. The text itself is very compacted and informative - it is just a rare case when the words closely, and thoughts of room. Finally, the book is simply fascinating, very soon you notice that you can literally start reading from any page, and break away from the text is difficult. Alexander Akhiezer, Igor Klyamkin, Igor Yakovenko, combined their efforts to ensure that the reader could better understand the phenomenon and the evolution of Russia's state and its basic political-ideological and socio-cultural reasons. Authors, and therefore readers are also interesting ways to consolidate political power, the elite and the population used by the state at different historical stages.
Nevertheless, the reader may be quite a fair question: why again appeal to history? - Because historical events have long been described, and many of them included in anthologies on the rate of school history. Rhetorical question, but how many of our fellow citizens were not only building works Richard Pipes, and M. Geller, but also the classics of historical sciences - SM Solovieva, VO Kliuchevskii, GV Vernadsky, MN Intercession ... Thanks to a new book by Alexander Akhiezer, Igor Klyamkin, Igor Yakovenko, the reader can not only refresh and enhance their knowledge of national history, but also an explanation of causes and effects of certain historical events and processes. Building on the work presented is representative of the national history, the authors examined a huge historical material chronologically, covering the period from the origins of the Kievan Rus to the present day - we plunge into the stream of Russia's history, largely determines our present and possible future scenarios. But the main reason for this interest in history is that Russia (Soviet) past does not let go now, and in order to better understand the possible alternatives for present and future of Russia, we need to think about the history of unresolved problems and ununited fractures of socio-cultural divisions. Suppose that in the new form, they are played today - we have to solve them in the name of the free development of Russia's rights and the European choice of the country. Despite the rather fashionable in the 90 years of the last century, the approval of the end of history, this is not about us, we still live in its midst. Note that on many known and even textbook events Russia's history and modernity, Alexander Akhiezer, Igor Klyamkin, Igor Yakovenko, pondering in the context of a liberal approach, which corresponds to the original intention of the book. We fully sympathize with the author's desire to attract the reader's attention to how the Kievan Rus and Muscovy took root in the first axial time and the process long and painful, but not yet completed Russia's entry into the second axial time - the time the rule of law, human rights and property rights - the assimilation the European values. But they do not leave without attention and large-scale process and the gradual replacement of challenging the system of authoritarianism (or so-called "Russian System"). Since it is particularly "Russian System" directly determine the content of our history, and indirectly, and the present, we shall refer to its main features. First of all, "Russian system - a system in which the Russian authorities block subjectivity elite groups, based on a passive or active support to the deprived population of subjectivity" (126). In other words, the subject of politics is power, personified in the characteristic of different historical epochs of the great images of the prince, king, emperor, general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee - and they alone possess the fullness of subjectivity. The people of this subjectivity does not possess, except in periods of serious crises of statehood (Time of Troubles, the major Cossack and peasant revolt, revolution). But the feature of this system is that the subjectivity of elite groups in society is also undergoing the maximum possible in the given historical circumstances, the restriction. Specific, historically conditioned, blocking techniques subjectivity Russia's elites are in a wide range: from massive physical
repression to a relatively mild extrusion of individual members of elite groups from Russia's political and economic fields in the European and North American emigration. As the historical examples of such repression can recall antiboyarskuyu oprichnina IV the Terrible and the destruction of the party elite by Stalin, but there are also intermediate methods, examples of which now can serve the arrest and imprisonment MB Khodorkovsky and PL Lebedev. This "Russian System" is the so-called "paternal" - paternalistic - the matrix, built in the image of power and authority "the highway" in the patriarchal peasant family. For it is characteristic of the military / paramilitary matrix that organizes society and the state, which is especially evident in times of internal crises and disturbances when the system to regenerate itself grassroots movement of people, and in the foreign policy of the state, it manifests itself in an effort to voennoderzhaviyu. Military / paramilitary matrix organizes and Russian authorities: "The Russian authorities - is, of course, power-monosubekt. But only because, and insofar as it is in the limit - Power-militarizator, and this is due to end its historical identity "(153). For its existence and reproduction of this authoritarian system has to seek and find external or internal "enemy," divide the world into "us" and "them". In terms of mental grounds she mobilization and isolationist-defense, and its adherents tend to look for possible causes of lesions in the systemic flaws, but explain them in a spirit of conspiracy and criminal negligence and errors of individual performers. The very "Russian system" is infallible, it just suffers from the machinations of external and internal enemies, as well as errors and negligence performers, from which we can always choose the perpetrators in all. So, intimidating enemies and about punishing the perpetrators, you can continue to adopt a similar policy, to make extraordinary mistakes and absurdities, which, incidentally, from the standpoint of the system itself, are not. Together with the authors of the book "History of Russia: the end or new beginning?" Turn the reader's attention for another source of the formation and reproduction of the "Russian system". This feature of our acceptance and internalization of Christianity. We know that European Christianity emerged as a popular movement within the geographical boundaries of the Roman Empire, with all the excesses of the period of formation of maintaining continuity with the late antique culture. Later, Christianity spread seized and the Margins of European nations where the spread of Christianity came not from below but from above, from the authorities, not having this in any serious domestic premises. By the time the spread of Christianity in Kievan Rus local paganism was still quite viable, for centuries thereafter remain the foundation upon which is built the institutions of the Christian church. This has resulted in shifting the heathen in their genealogy of representations of the emerging institutions, including the institution of power. The people there is the phenomenon of dual faith, when spontaneous rural Pagan takes external (ritual) Christian piety, without changing its internal quality. In government there are similar processes, when the Orthodox advocates direct successor to the king and the embodiment of the pagan totem, of course, framed by the Christian phraseology. Thus, for centuries, Christianity remains the only form,
separated from content, weak and partially penetrating into the thick of people's lives. In summary, it can be argued that the "Russian system" is expressed in the "synthesis" father "cultural matrix, a pagan interpretation of Christianity and military organization of life" (163). With a stable instability, the system is paradoxical, its archaic ratio dogosudarstvennogo beginning and the state contributes to the reproduction of deep socio-cultural division drawn up in accordance with the spirit of time situational disguise. The main reason for the reproduction of the old and the emergence of new lines (cracks) socio-cultural schism in the national history lay in the fact that the 'cultural foundation design remained divided. A split, he stayed because, in a large, state-organized society were transferred locally-based care model tribal, dogosudarstvennyh Worlds (85). It is important to remember that in itself a social and cultural divide is not something unique and singular, through him, "went all the nations on the stage of their transformation into public" (21). We differ from other nations, only a special resistance to the flow split of historical time, its reproduction when the peoples of Western Europe, he was not the only bridged, but became distant past. Naturally, the external appearance and content of specific forms of socio-cultural divisions in each historical epoch corresponds to its unique conditions, and that they are expressed in its basic contradictions. With regard to the intensity of the split, it differs in different periods of Russia's history. Without going into the empirical approach to the numerous historical manifestations, so thoroughly discussed in the book "History of Russia: the end or new beginning?", Will focus only on transformations of socio-cultural divisions in Russia XX century. In pre-Soviet Russia, the situation of sociocultural division was clearly - then the various social groups and subcultures gravitated to one of the two poles of the stable perpetuating a binary opposition. We believe that by the end of XIX - beginning of XX century, with some degree of conditionality can talk on the formed sociocultural dynamics of the pole, around which were grouped the educated and economically successful social groups consumers and creators of the technical achievements of civilization and high (elite) culture, in a sense, the modernists looking to the future. The second pole, conventionally denoted by us as a pole of sociocultural statics, expressed in the archaic, often pre-literate folk culture around it has focused the bulk of the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie of small Russian towns. After coming to power, the Bolsheviks gradually weakened both of these poles, stripped of their former strength and certainty. We understand that as a socio-cultural reality, and its poles can not be played in time without the participation of the living, active man, a contemporary and partner events. Bolsheviks gradually destroyed physically expelled from the country, ousted in a marginal area of the overwhelming majority of educated and economically successful people, often by abolishing the very name they represent social groups. But the pole sociocultural dynamics can not be completely eliminated, because it means the disintegration of society and the loss of the state. Bolsheviks filled
modernist socio-cultural dynamics of a pole, but this was a qualitatively different content, especially after the massive Stalinist purges of party cadres second half of the 30-ies of XX century. With regard to the poles of sociocultural statics, the archaic peasant masses and middle class were crushed and ground Moloch collectivization, industrialization, state repression. Here, the Bolsheviks were not able to make full or preferential destruction of the representatives of these social groups, because they collectively accounted for more than 90% of the population. Therefore, even though their physical destruction was partial - it is millions and millions of our countrymen - the exact number of deliberately killing people we do not know today. As a result of the Soviet period of our history the second expressing the archaic, the pole of a binary opposition, lost the certainty of its quality system, was weakened and partially dismantled. As a result, has eroded the very binary opposition of social and cultural poles, decreased markedly and symbolic distance between them. For a number of historical and cultural factors so happened that in Muscovy, Russia and the USSR was formed comparatively slowly cultural meaning complex, mediating breeding these cosmological poles. Torn country lacked the mediation, dialogue between the poles as the conversation of people and ideas that narrows it expresses the interests of being the median area of culture and social life. However, the formation of such mediating the cultural meanings of the complex has accelerated sharply in Russia / Soviet Union during the past century. Mediation, dialogue of all occurred during the greater part of the XX century in the camp barracks, on the fronts of the world wars and local conflicts in communal flats, steamy "Yesenin" pubs, on trains, in geological expeditions in the development of Siberia and commodity stocks rise Kazakhstan's virgin land. Thus, at the expense of the Beheading of physical and social isolation ordinary people, was previously the basis of socio-cultural dynamics of the poles, on the one hand, and the introduction of universal secondary education - on the other hand, podtyanuvshego to the median level of those from the archaic layers of sociocultural, society, by the end of the Soviet period became much more homogeneously. Returning to the text of the book "History of Russia: the end or new beginning?", Which inspired us in these reflections, we note that it deals with four periods of development of Russia's state, each of which eventually ended in disaster. The book, in fact, consists of the same name this historic period has been divided: Kievan Rus: the first state and the first crash, Russia Moscow: Second state and a second catastrophe, Empire of the Romanovs: the new transformation of Russia's statehood and the third accident, Soviet Russia: the revival of statehood and the fourth crash . And only the last, fifth, part of it called "post-Soviet state in retrospect and prospect", when the current period has not yet been completed and the future is still only probabilistically. But in our modern post-Soviet period in a weakened and reduced form reproduced systemic flaws and defects formed in Muscovy, Russia Empire, USSR, socio-cultural tradition of the "Russian System". And it is
the inheritance of these defects and shortcomings, despite the marked decrease in the depth we have and decrease the intensity of the traditional socio-cultural division, lets talk about the possible opening of a catastrophic series of national history. What, in fact, we see a possible future socio-cultural background of collapse, where trends point to potential instability of the next stage of development of the country? Unfortunately, these trends are already evident today, when historical time is accelerating, and the result from mistakes, not forcing myself to wait too long. We believe that finding recipes for solving new problems and challenges in the era of authoritarian socio-cultural traditions, forced update experience of Muscovy, pre-Petrine period of our history - leads to the recurrence of similar historical mistakes. Now pull the company back to the Middle Ages, not only claiming Orthodoxy as the dominant state religion, but considering it almost as a state ideology - a dangerous misconception. These actions can not consolidate, but to undermine the socio-cultural basis for the existence of post-Soviet state, thereby calling into question and its territorial integrity. Despite such serious implications of such policies, today more and more clearly the voices of today's "rooted in the soil, negating the universal essence of Christianity, in which" neither Hellene nor Jew ", to vote, in which all the semantic emphasis shifted to highlighting the chosen by God, for nothing like the identity of Russia and the self Russian. At the same time Christianity itself is considered merely as a convenient tool for ethnic consolidation and mobilization of the Russian people, a kind of marker, with which you can clearly divide humanity into "us" and "they", "our" and "not ours", righteous and sinful. The idea of such a "privatization" of Christianity and use it for these specific needs is not new, but in pre-Soviet period of our history such plans, to some extent overlap with the sociocultural reality in which the country lived. We fully stand with A. Akhiezer, IA Klyamkin and IV Yakovenko that "... the imperial Sovereignty and orthodox forms of national identity in those days were not as relaxed as after the collapse of the Soviet empire, had time during its existence impose on the country atheism and to deprive the church of its traditional functions: a source of legitimation of the supreme power, it ceased to be and give her the role in a secular constitutional state is not possible "(682). But the erosion of traditional values, and in recent decades as in the late Soviet Union, so in the post-Soviet Russia (in the most explicit form), has led today to the upsurge in conservative traditionalism. Today hear the statement according to which a person can consider themselves Russian only in the case of belonging to the Orthodox faith: "For us Orthodox, Russian, - our matrix, basement of our historical existence." Yes, for many centuries, Russia's history this was so, but after more than seventy years of violent suppression of various faiths such generalizations questionable. Russia Empire was a mainly Orthodox country. But as a result of the atheistic Soviet period and the post-Soviet agnostic, during which maintained the secular nature of education and mass culture - Russia's society has become far less religious.
Probably does not need further explanation of why today, after the Soviet period of our history, we live in a fundamentally different reality. We give only the results of surveys conducted in 2004, the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center, where only slightly more than half (51.7%) of respondents belonging to a wide variety of ethnic groups in Russia, said that they believe in God. At the same time, more than half of them (57.5%) in parallel, as it were "just in case", believe in such supernatural forces and phenomena of witchcraft and magic, reincarnation, destiny, horoscope, signs, UFOs and extraterrestrials. Furthermore, the majority (48.8%) positive attitude of Russians to the spread of holidays in Russia, who came to us from abroad, such as the Catholic Christmas, Valentine's Day, etc., without showing any desire to defend traditional for the country's religious values. These statistics also show that about any antiWestern sentiment, supposedly characteristic of age-old Russian man, can not speak. But the main thing still is that these polls indicate the dominant society in Russia's indifference with regard to matters of faith. Today inchurched Orthodox people is not much in common among those who in one way or another identify with orthodox religion. In other words, all attempts to rely on Orthodoxy as state ideology have little instrumental potential, because a few percent of Russian citizens constitute an absolute minority of the population. In addition, an appeal to orthodoxy as the dominant state religion and the only true ideology is not only government but also the proper ecclesiastical dimension. We know how to Marxism in the Soviet Union was responsible for the horrors of the Leninist-Stalinist period in our history, although the inherent prerequisites for this in Marxism itself was not so much. The Orthodox Church, putting the burden of state ideology, thus assumes the burden and responsibility for the secular, by definition, public policy decisions which are not always popular. As an example, is enough to recall caused so much public interest law on monetization of benefits. And if "My kingdom is not of this world, but human hands to build the kingdom of God on earth is impossible, whether in favor of pseudo-and lzhepravoslavnym succumb to worldly temptations next? And here it seems appropriate to recall the warning of the Russian philosopher Ε.Η. Trubetskoy, noting the dangerous tendencies of his time, quite distinctly, and reproduce in the day today: "The thugs, lzhepravoslavnye, lzhepatrioty, and with them the new prophets will prepare a new and more terrible than it is today, an explosion of Bolshevism" - in our present realities may pave the way for new, fifth in a row, Russia's disaster. In modern Russia are increasingly visible and manifestations of ideological innovation "patriots"-rooted in the soil, consisting in reliance on Russian ethnic nationalism. This special-wing nationalism, it aims rather than on building a national state, but the revival of the empire. Another thing that meant the construction of ethno-national - Russian, but not the world - ideokraticheskoy empire. Suppose that in varying degrees, but the empire of Russia and the USSR were the striving for universality ideokraticheskimi empires. The trouble is that coming from the aforesaid category of our fellow citizens innovation, as well as an
appeal to the sociocultural archaic, leads exactly to the same tragic for the country and contemporaries events consequences. And here the author of these notes is difficult to resist some ernicheskogo retreat. If it is a "patriotic"-pochvennicheskom spirit of fantasy on the theme of the World (zhidomasonskogo) conspiracy against the Holy Russia, Empire Russia, Soviet Union, the picture emerges as follows. Imagine some powerful and insidious forces that not only Russia's plan to destroy the holy state, and allocate these Godless for the purposes of certain funds, carry out information and support of the "project", shuffling the deck of cash in its political forces, choosing - who able to speak in such an unseemly role pogubitelya? The answer, at first sight paradoxical, but on closer examination, everything falls into place. In multi-ethnic and multi-confessional state reliance on Russian nationalism and nationalists can only lead to a radical increase in the nationalism of "small" nations, to strengthen the country does not centripetal, but the centrifugal force. In multi-ethnic and multi-confessional society, Russia is very dangerous to play on ethno-national sentiments - the emphasis on ethnic and religious identity to anything except increase the likelihood of collapse of the state, can not result. Unfortunately, the vestiges of the "Russian system" present in the mentality of Russia's political elite and of society, functioning as an interlocking set, presented in a broad set of historical variation. For Russia's social consciousness was not in vain long "selection" of authorities, when "any personal" want "is gradually deprived of its identity and moved to the category profane in comparison with the impersonal and also personified the public" need. " Moreover, it "should" ought not be construed as something imposed and prescribed from outside, but as the ultimate manifestation of personal "want". In other words, the person ordered to desire only the conscious and unconditionally obey the sovereign's will, seeing in it the highest virtue "(163). We fully recognize that "Society in the majority rejects the attitude toward himself as a passive object of state administration and trusteeship. "Russian system" it has grown even during the communist regime, which was the main cause of the fall of the latter. Further improvement of the locks is not the mentality of the population, and Russia's elite is not ready and not able to control the free people ". However, Russia's elite is also part of society, and its unwillingness to control the free people, coupled with a latent persistence of the mental elements of the "Russian System", even in parts of society, with a particular confluence of historical circumstances may lead to an effort of institutional reproduction. The fact that any such attempt will fail - it is clear already today, we are completely in solidarity with the authors that the "life stage, feeding such projects, XX century left in the past" (694). However, obviously a failure of such searchlights does not reduce the degree of their danger to man, society and state. Recall that the nationalsocialist project in Germany, too, was unsuccessful, but how was tragic attempt to implement it for the Germans and other European nations. To paraphrase Chekhov, one can say that all of us, regardless of our shared scientific concepts and professed political views, to one degree or another are
forced to squeeze a drop of a residual mindset dogosudarstvennogo rights and superpower / imperial servant. Note that the residual mentality dogosudarstvennogo man down to the archaic doosevomu time, and the superpower / imperial servant - by the time it has taken root in the first axial time. The process of healing, accompanied by assimilation of norms and values of the second axial age, difficult and painful, but without it the unenviable prospect of Russia society and individuals - and this helps cure a lot of book by A. Akhiezer, IA Klyamkin, I. Yakovenko, "History of Russia: the end or a new beginning? " So, for the very existence of post-Soviet Russia's state is not only inefficient, but extremely dangerous as the reliance on ethnic nationalism and neo-imperial policies and attempt to transform Orthodoxy into a national ideology. Today, citizens of Russia are in front of another historic choice, but a clear answer on what kind of Russia we intended to build - there is not the political elite, nor the society. It is clear that the main options for such construction are grouped around two fundamentally different alternative projects. Or we build a democratic, rational, successful and high-tech post-industrial Russia, or try to reproduce the spiritual, and even the institutional elements of the "Russian System". Today in society there are both heterogeneous and opposite tendencies. But their desire for a simultaneous translation of not only leads to the maximum inefficiency, but also to deliberate the draft is not feasible to build a new Russia, incidentally contributing to the mass splitting of consciousness and bringing a certain element of society schizophrenia. We, as the authors believe that the dominant strategic development of the country can not be simultaneously in the opposite direction, sooner or later will have to make a historic choice. As Russia's political elite and society at large enough to flirt and hide from history - Russia is Europe, political will is needed to determine the strategic direction of development of the country: "Giving Russia the European identity and its integration into Western civilization the whole consistent with its strategic interests are not less than the interests of the West "(700). In keeping with the firm conviction that the strategic vector can and should be aimed at Russia's integration into Euro-Atlantic civilization to its genealogy, Art Nouveau, we note that such integration can not be a Single-is long and complex large-scale process. Recall, for example, that Turkey seeks to Europe since Mustafa (Kemal) Ataturk. Yes, this is a long time, but today the Europeans seriously discussing the issue of institutional integration of Turkey into the European Community. But Russia, with far more reason applies to Europe, not only a clear political choice and patience, and then the tactical failures of the scale of a few years - not decades - forced political elites to shy from side to side, eskeypistski turn away from the present and future in the name of a distant past. It should be noted that the main problem of Russia is the need to transition to organic intensive self-development can not be solved in the framework of the Russian System ", as it has always used an extensive model of development. It is obvious that "extensive development - the development by appropriating other people's resources. Resources may be natural (land, people) and cultural (knowledge, technology). But in either case they are assigned in finished form ...
Extensive modernization, ie appropriation and assimilation of foreign cultural achievements, is different from intensive that involves borrowing the results of innovation without acquiring the ability to innovate itself, which can not borrow "(264). With regard to the limits of the use of extensive modernization, the process of transition to a postindustrial economy, inefficient methods of the period of accelerated industrialization. Today slave labor uncompetitive, it is impossible to return to this state of affairs in which non-free scientist and engineer to achieve the military-technical parity with the most developed countries of Europe and North America. From the recollections of witnesses, historical documents and artistic works, we know what price to pay for scientific discoveries and technological inventions were relatively affordable compared to the rest of the gulag system, the conditions of life - beds with linen and plenty of bread with some modicum of oil. The success of modernization in the post-Soviet Russia determine the presence of a free man, and openness to the world, producing the formation of innovative socio-cultural space. Need modernization is not in the name of a permanent increase of military and political power of the empire, but for the sake of society and man. Need the air of freedom, which is so little in the socio-cultural space, crossed by emanations "of the Russian System". In the post-Soviet Russia extensive type of development is ineffective, to keep it there the previous basic resources. But we now live mainly in the extensive paradigm, using the last resource of extensive development - the abundance of oil, gas and other natural resources. The presence of abundant natural resources extends the possibility of extensive development, pushing into the unknown far the transition to intensive innovation development based on revolutionary technologies. Living through the use of natural resource rent can skip the next scientific and technological revolution, smoothly and abruptly increasing their gap with the regions, using the paradigm of intensive development. With regard to the limitations of the resource base of extensive development, it is now almost impossible to territorial expansion of Russia's state, it is difficult to establish political and economic control over the neighboring territories. While here, all is not lost, remember at least a project to create a "liberal empire". For a relatively new restrictions that prevent extensive development, is reducing manpower and dissemination of the European model of demographic reproduction of population. Note that this is not only the most important internal constraints for extensive development, but also for the institutional reproduction of "Russian System", including its dominant / imperial incarnation. The most serious internal limit, which carries searchlights to restore the imperial grandeur and power in a purely ideokraticheskuyu plane belongs to the sphere of demography. Without going into detailed discussion of this issue, we only note that rooted in modern Russia model of the nuclear family with one child, fails to provide not only increased, but the simple reproduction of the population. But the more valuable each human life, the less opportunities for conducting largescale military action, koimi so rich was Russia's history. In the stories were the
words of Field Marshal BP Sheremetev addressed to the depressed huge losses at Narva Emperor Peter the Great: "Do not grieve, master-king, the women still narozhayut. In the post-Soviet Russia - no longer narozhayut can be as many dream of imperial power and majestic grandeur - without the patriarchal family with many children, these dreams will remain in the field of utopia. The end of the patriarchal family in Russia, the transition to predominantly nuclear family with one child - a synonym for this condition and the end of Russia's imperialism. No masses of young people - there is no physical possibility to hold, much less restore the empire nor in the boundaries of 1991, much less in 1913. For the political elite of Russia's authoritarian-conservative and neo-imperial policy of the most serious external constraint is the institutional expansion of the European Union and the Euro-Atlantic defense alliance. Today Russia is in direct contact with NATO in the north-west, and indirectly, through Ukraine and Belarus, almost throughout its western borders. We are witnessing unprecedented in its scale and speed of ongoing expansion of a united Europe, has seized and "brother Slavs" that make absolutely unequivocal choice in favor of the West rather than East, European integration, rather than a union with Russia. For example, most Orthodox peoples today are oriented toward integration into Western civilization and the leadership of Russia and guardianship from her needs are not experiencing "(682), and" ... (the Ukrainian people. - SG) shows a distinct willingness to sell the birthright of the imperial mess of pottage membership in NATO and the EEC. But "if there is" Square Ukraine ", then there can be complete (rossiyskoy. SG) empire. If there is a Ukrainian nation, there is no imperial Russian people, which includes large-, small and belarosov. Ukrainians in our eyes betraying the great principle of otherness Russia toward Europe, a great deal of confrontation, fear and hatred of the West, we still have the legacy of Alexander Nevsky. A large seen from a distance, and more or less adequate awareness of the importance of what happened in the autumn / winter of 2004/2005 in Ukraine will be realized both the people and historians somewhat later in its more distant outcomes. We believe that as a result of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine suffered not local, and easily remedied, but the final and irrevocable defeat of the draft of the new Russia of imperialism, before it started, failed attempt to forming an anti-Western bloc of the CIS states. Thus, Russia's society and political elite are concerned not just with the expansion of European and Euro-Atlantic structures to the east of Europe, but with active participation in this process, the closest Russians Slavic peoples. Today is an independent Ukraine, tomorrow, with a high degree of probability, the Republic of Belarus. We believe that the pro-European choice of the Slavic peoples sharply narrows the possibility for any form of imperial restoration, this can only dream, but such projects are notoriously untranslatable into the language of practical politics. Thus, all the neo-imperial searchlights of this sort are doomed to maintain its farcical nature of simulation, for that matter, and other attempts to recreate certain elements "of the Russian System". We fully agree with the authors that "... integration into the European (western) civilization unit involves merely consistent zhiznevovoploschenie those
legal principles which are recorded in the current Constitution of Russia" (696). But from the Soviet history, we know well and that the declaration of democratic principles does not mean their practical implementation. It is enough to recall the Stalin-Bukharin's constitution in 1936, and hel Russian Europeans should not be complacent and complacent: playing in the great power rhetoric, the country's political elite is able to play too long under the influence of their own propaganda to go beyond the boundaries of common sense, against their will to be drawn into the situational logic of neo-imperialist process. Following disastrous neo-imperial practical politics is inevitably fraught with human suffering and the territorial disintegration of Russia's state, the destruction of its geographical integrity. Today we are all contemporaries and involuntary witnesses / participants of events in the country. We know that in the post-Soviet Russia the spoken word has little influence on changing socio-cultural reality, but it can cause a scientific and public interest. We also know that the role of personality in history is open today, as we remain contemporaries of the events we have left at least a theoretical chance to change something, try to avoid the implementation of the most negative scenarios of the future of Russia. Tomorrow, when the regular historical events already occur, it will be impossible, so we, like the authors of the book "History of Russia: the end or new beginning?", Trying to catch today. This desire to catch and explained our desire to not only respond to the analytical discourse, Alexander Akhiezer, Igor Klyamkin, Igor Yakovenko, but also to identify their academic and civic position in relation to the changing interpretations of our past, our hope for historic European choice of our present and future.
1.1. The death of the Soviet empire. Look Yegor Gaidar.
The death of the Roman Empire, Byzantium, the empire of the Romanovs place heroically, rapidly, presenting a bright, invoices material for future generations of historians, poets, musicians. This material for the ancient tragedy, epic, for Wagner, finally. Not the death of the Soviet Empire - this story is not for Shakespeare, not for the romantic poet and not even for Prokhanov. This story is for an economist - and now the book under economist Yegor Gaidar, the death of the Soviet empire. This is a story about the time that it still lost, the crazy organization of the national economy, massive grain imports, saving and deadly spike in oil prices. The Soviet empire had not collapsed under the blows of foreign enemies, but wore out the inside, its economy has not been able to not only enter the Soviet man in the consumer society, but just feed him. It seems that the loss of empire has happened so recently, but over the decade and a half has had time to grow up and socialize a new generation of Russians for whom the empire was left to the tender memories of a happy childhood, Pioneer, Piglet by Metro and other small, but so sweet joys of the Soviet era. For them, there remained childhood, and no matter how it is now well their financial position and high level occupied in the social hierarchy - is still in
his childhood there, in the Soviet era, it was better. Just believe and many of their more mature fellow, for whom "beautiful" far left the Soviet youth, hiking, singing around the campfire, endless conversations in kitchens. Property of human memory is such that all the bad with time spent on the second or third place, and the good, even if it was just a bit, I remember how important, as the basic content of the epoch. "We had a beautiful era", we are ahead of the entire planet, we are respected and feared - we had a great empire. And there was allegedly no compelling reasons for its collapse, so that evil will of geopolitical competition but "sold" his "fifth column" - the Democrats. That such attitudes and evaluation in evidence in the mass consciousness, so is born so well described by Gaidar postimperial syndrome. But if we are talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union, where Russia is here, what sort of lessons can be for modern Russia's? After all, not so long ago the 90-ies new Russia's State has tried to turn off the well-trodden by centuries of imperial gauge, it seemed that we permanently renounced imperial ambitions. The Soviet experience shows that the imperial way of leading the country to disaster. Nevertheless, today "the risk of movement in this direction is high." Gaidar compares the post-Soviet Russia with the Weimar Republic, citing nearverbatim matches out of the spirit and symbolism of the democratic nation-state in favor of the imperial past - "imperial national symbols was restored in Germany, 8 years after the collapse of the empire - in 1926, in Russia - through 9 years - in 2000. But the post-imperial syndrome in Russia is inextricably linked with the syndrome of the authoritarian, in fact for power is so great a temptation to avoid the long and sometimes painful procedure of approvals in a democratic system, the various economic, political, social, and ethnic and religious interests. Gaidar formed by this system called "closed (controlled) democracy or soft authoritarianism". Indeed, it is difficult, and sometimes painfully difficult in the mode of negotiation, public dialogue to harmonize interests of different social groups, territories, so far from each other, both geographically and culturally, such as the North Caucasus and the Far East. Much easier to build power vertical, penetrating being from top to bottom that extends to every social, professional and ethnic groups, business entities, political parties and nonprofit organizations - to pass them on the power chain, orders and instructions of superiors. But if the ease of authoritarian solutions unconditional, then their effectiveness is quite conventional, in fact, they can bring only the current, shortterm gains. Winning in tactics by raising the current level of controllability, authoritarian government loses in the strategy, compromising the future of the country, our personal future. Gaidar believes that "the appointment of presidents of autonomous republics of the federal government gives a strong trump card in the hands of the nationalists, they can easily prove that Moscow perceives residents autonomy is not as full citizens, as well as conquered subjects. The best gift is difficult to think of the separatists. Authoritarian politics in the spirit of Russia's socio-cultural traditions lead to the destruction of self-reproduction, as evidenced by repeated failures can serve as
our history, revolutionary rather than evolutionary path of development, when each successive stage of denying the previous one, the break of the historical and cultural continuity. Only in the twentieth century the country experienced two such break with the past, the first - the tragic rupture of the first decades of Soviet power and the second - purgatory is surprisingly mild, in the period of social revolution, 90-ies. Introducing the reader to specific figures, excerpts from a strictly secret and then the letters memos of various levels of the Soviet nomenklatura, Yegor Gaidar shows how nonadaptive authoritarian system was to his self-destruction. In the last period of its existence, the Soviet empire no longer respond to the challenges of time, in fact solve the accumulated problems. Even under Stalin, their decision to deliberately replaced by the elimination of human and social (ethnic) groups that these problems are articulated. But even after the disappearance of man, transforming it into camp dust, not articulated a problem remains, gradually destroying the system when the inside is nothing, all decayed to the ground, and there was only one outer envelope. Gaidar believes that it was Stalin who is largely responsible and for the collapse of the Soviet economy, because it was he who laid its foundations: "I. Stalin, by selecting the model of industrialization, the opposite of Bukharin, laid the foundation of economic and political system, which eventually began to form large cracks, creating the risk of its destruction with relatively modest external effects. But the Soviet empire collapsed not only because of defective economic foundation, insufficient funds for maintenance of grain imports, a sharp drop in oil prices and amazing intellectual weakness and conservatism of the ruling bureaucracy. All this with the arguments and facts, with the involvement of multiple and obscure archival materials, academic, and strictly told the reader Yegor Gaidar. There is another important reason - when there is no democracy, but there is authoritarianism, then the probability of self-destruction system increases dramatically. To him, do not need an external conspiracy, it is part of an authoritarian system, and therefore inevitable, not known in advance only to a specific time frame. And these dates are not known to the poet, but well-known economist. Today both Russia and the USSR seventies-eighties, dependent on developments in world commodity markets, primarily hydrocarbons, dependent on food imports. And if we add to this economic crisis, a possible component of the rejection of democracy - the harmonization of interests within the country and overt and covert imperial expansion outside - then repeat the fate of the Soviet Union is becoming more likely. But far from clear that history has yet another variant of this amazingly soft dismantling of the continental empire, as was the case with the collapse of the Soviet Union. So do not tempt fate tendency toward authoritarianism and empire, repeatedly making the same mistakes, you must learn the lessons taught in the Soviet Union, the lessons which are so vividly and brutally reminded us all Yegor Gaidar.
2. Post-imperial transit
Consider the advantages and disadvantages of the historic choice between the re-establishment of the imperial state and the formation of a national state in Russia is a contradiction between imperial politics and policies of modernization. Since the era of Ivan the Terrible, when there was adherence to the Muscovy and Kazan Khanate of Astrakhan, and continuing until the end of the XIX century Russia empire was expanding, absorbing the small and large contiguous and even quite distant peoples. Since the defeat of the Russian-Japanese war, and later with the Russian Revolution of 1917 - Megatrend gathering more and more of the surrounding land was completed, the process has been reversed, with the influx of territorial expansion, followed by its ebb. Russia empire started to leave with the will and unwillingly annexed territories, and this process is no less lengthy than the process of "gathering" of large and small land. During the XX century Russia empire went through two stages of deconstruction - in 1917-1921 and 1991. Two previous phase - this is not the end, ahead clearly discerned, and the third stage of the deconstruction of the empire, where the most likely candidates for independence and statehood are the North Caucasus republics. Well-known paradox of Russia's socio-cultural system is that its individual parts (subsystems) closer, complementarity, with respect to Western civilization than others. The historical period of rapid socio-cultural dynamics of lead, as a rule, to the disintegration process, since the rate of change acceptable to the various territorial, ethnic and cultural entities, much different. In different periods of the existence of Russia's state into the orbit of its military, economic, political and cultural influence of the adjacent territory fell within the long historical period, with varying degrees of intensity there was a process of institutional integration into the empire. Russia Empire came out to his "natural geographic boundaries, sometimes crossing them, exemplified by the territorial expansion in North America, the colonization of Alaska. But the problem facing any imperial state, is that enough to include the territory of the State, it, figuratively speaking, it is necessary to digest, obzhit, equip, ie included in the integrated economic, political and cultural space. To solve this problem could not be in any empire, of course, that did not do so either in Russia Empire or the Soviet Union, or his successor - Russia. Inorganic part of the fall from Rossiyskogo States in 1917 and in 1991 the XX century. Russia's state at different stages of their development resembles a kind of incubator, where the stage of a national, government willingness to ripen and protonatsii protogosudarstva. Then, usually in a period of rapid institutional transformation Russia's state of the organism, is more or less painful process of separation, secession from Russia's state ripe for the beginning of an independent nation-state living entities. During the entire XX century, and in the first half of the XXI century is likely to continue the painful process of searching for national borders, the rejection inotsivilizatsionnyh, inokulturnyh entities sufficiently mature and
okrepnuvshih for initiation as an independent public entities. Some regions can find consensus on the chosen direction of the country, its identity, either as a democratic nation state, either as a neo-imperialist education. Another part, did not support the choices of Russia, but at the same time is not ready for an independent state, and will be, although for different reasons, to develop in Russia. Russia's state differs from other countries, not only the size of territory, but also fundamentally different levels of development of their regions. Russia is divided into regions, which are at various stages of modernization. It includes a post-industrial regions, such as: Moscow, near Moscow, St. Petersburg Industrial: Norilsk, the Urals, Nizhny Novgorod and the pre-industrial, represented mainly by the national republics, in particular, Tuva, Altai Mountains, Chechnya, Kalmykia . The country can not simply be divided into different in their social and economic development areas, but this division is quite clearly related to the ethnic composition of the population lives in them that is most evident with regard to preindustrial regions. Russia has developed quite a long time for imperial type, tending to a certain harmonization of legal, economic, socio-cultural space that is not always coincide with the aspirations of ethnic minorities. Modernization processes in such varied socio-cultural space, would inevitably lose yourself homogeneity, internal coherence. Regions, which for some reason can not develop in post-industrial area, will likely contribute dezitegratsionnym processes. Russia's modernization is largely doomed to hybridization and enclave development. The processes of hybridization most likely in pre-industrial regions, where modernization projects can be reduced to local conditions, losing their semantic content, the depth and authenticity. In contrast, hybridization, enclave development in more typical for the most advanced in their post-industrial modernization regions surrounded by regions of Russia, located generally at earlier stages of the modernization development. Creation of interregional transport, information communications, linking the country "horizontal", the achievement of the economic basis of the greater interregional personal mobility can, to some extent, mitigate the impact of the enclave, ie, uneven modernization. It should also be noted that the process of gaining national and state independence is not Single-, small to declare independence, and even get her confirmation by the international recognition - it must still reach actually reach some guarantees from the reversal, wittingly or unwittingly reintegration of the former metropolis. At the same time, post-imperial status of our country's troubles. Russia today is not a full nation-state, but crippled, lost in time and space of post-imperial education, what is left of the empire. In the public mind there is no consensus on the legitimacy of the state borders - very difficult to clearly answer the question about why in the state includes some regions, and why others are not included. The country still has "imperial body" (EA Pain), we inherited from the imperial phase of territorial expansion. So far, the majority of society and political elites perceive the imperial territorial heritage as a kind of almost sacramental value, what can not waive under
any circumstances, regardless of socio-cultural proximity and foreignness "disputed" territories. But the most unpleasant for his contemporaries and associates of events is that Russia has not yet become a nation state, and the threat of the third stage of the collapse of Russia as a state entity, the remainder of the empire, remains. The legacy of the empire fell to us and Ethnic and socio-cultural "blossoming complexity" (K. Leontiev), Russian regions in the three civilizations, the three world religions, in different stages of economic development: preindustrial, industrial and postindustrial. In addition, Russia has not formed any nation in its ethnic, or postetnicheskom, civic sense. Traditional is the question - when immature nation reconcile such disparate regional interests, the more so in some cases, these differences are cultural, civilizational, religious foundation. But it is not only the cultural and civilizational differences. Because of its geo-economic situation and the difference by stages of development have different interests and Russia's own regions dominated by ethnic Russian, Striking differences in living standards, income and social security. The marginal regions of Russia today tend rather than to Moscow, but to the world's centers of economic power. In western countries, in Königsberg / Kaliningrad, is the economic attraction of stages to the more developed EU piling on the historical and cultural attraction. In the east, the source of strong economic attraction of becoming Asia-Pacific countries, especially China. In this case it is not yet talking about the actual cultural and civilizational reorientation of Siberia and the Far East, but rather on the absolute economic integration in the economy of this part of Asia. But, as we know from history, as economic integration is often followed political integration. This is largely a matter of time, perhaps a distant, but this danger should not be underestimated. Although we are dealing with processes that have not only subjective, but objective component, the strength of their human accelerate or slow down, choosing appropriate policies. We believe that we should not contribute, but in every way hinder the process of disintegration of the country, choosing for this purpose policies. Maintaining state within its present borders is only possible through balancing the interests of regions, but not constructing them into a coherent "whole" means an order of neoimperskokoy policy. Despite the apparent effectiveness of today it is totally defeat not only in the long term, but in the medium-historical perspective, dramatically increasing the likelihood of future decay. We once again draw attention to these well-known things in order to emphasize the difference between the interests of Russian regions to apply again to the question of how to reconcile such divergent interests of regions within the outgoing, but not yet gone before the end of Russia's imperial state? World historical experience provides two main solutions, individually designed under the influence of different historical and sociocultural contexts. The first option involves alignment etnofederativnyh relations, procedures, harmonization of regional interests, a clear division and delegation of authority. This is a long, often agonizing process for Russia's power. Too great a temptation
to revert to the traditional, though historically anachronistic forms of governance, facilitate the harmonization of interests, abandon them, to manage the order, the de facto authoritarian governance and the unitary state. This is the second path. In the framework of the interests of the regions agreed minimum, the main decisions taken in the center, the process of "matching" takes place in the tradition of a unitary imperial state, what actually were the USSR and the empire of the Romanovs. Although the Tsarist Empire were known exception to the autonomy of Finland, the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland ... The construction involves the use of violence against dissenters, does not imply harmonization of regional interests, but to impose its decisions "of the federal center." This is precisely the legacy that unites today's Russia the state with the imperial state. I close the definition of the key properties of the empire, this Yasin: "Empire is impossible without violence, no matter how soft or have its shape. This is the main identifier of the empire. Subject empire and post-imperial development includes another dimension. I mean the problem of international leadership. The problem today, as, indeed, in other historical periods, did not have and can not be easy and voluntaristic solutions. Attempt to achieve leading positions must be backed by significant social and cultural superiority over the alleged contractors, local expression of which are available innovative technologies and investment potential. The desire for formal and informal leadership is inseparable from the formation of a field of attraction and affection, positioning itself as a reference, the model sample for the world in general and / or specific regions of the sample desired state of the state and society. It is the achievement of such leading and attractive for other positions can broadcast far and near people its norms, values, models of everyday behavior. Such a collective leadership of the country demonstrate the old Europe, with their successes by creating role models, causing a desire to join these successes, integration into the interstate system, capable of promoting the development of less developed countries. Largely on this basis is constructed as a rational and informed, and the subconscious desire for European integration in the second half of XX - beginning of the XXI century. Today we see more and more institutional expansion in Europe, where European Union enlargement to the east covering more and more new regions, including those who have never belonged to the "traditional" Europe. The observed expansion of European borders is unprecedented, but even more curious about the possible future transformation of the EU. I mean the persistence with which seeks a united Europe the Turkish Republic. Strives against the fashionable concept of clash of civilizations and cultures. Strives, despite their confessional past and present, and its imperial tradition, with which so consistently and convincingly fought Turkey's pro-Western reformer, K. Mustafa (Atatürk). Matches in the modernization of the two post-imperial states, probably more similarities than differences, but these coincidences are likely to imperial period of the existence of Russia and Turkey. Only Turkey imperial tradition was interrupted in the early 20-ies of the last century, and in Russia Empire lasted around 70 more years.
The main difference between Russia and Turkey's political and cultural elites, despite some similarity of socio-cultural tradition, which includes long periods of authoritarianism and empire, is as follows. Turkish elite since Ataturk's sincere desire for the West to Europe. For several generations of the Turkish elite, not only civil but also military, got a full Western education, passing a full course of study at leading universities and military academies of Europe. The duration of this process over many decades has led to the progressive Europeanization of the Turkish elite. Today a European identity - is largely her own identity, rooted so deeply that it is ready to defend it by all possible means, including use of military force. We know from history that at the slightest threat from the Islamists, based on the traditionalist-oriented part of the Turkish people, in the case have always entered the Turkish army, which for decades has been and remains a bastion of Turkish Westerners by force guarantees the western, secular way of development. So changing attitude elite, and it is usually the first changes its cultural and even religious identity. In Russia's case is easily traced reproduced in different historical and sociocultural circumstances, the desire to preserve its special, self, search for some mythical "third way", striving to remain competitive with the collective subject of the Western powers. Imperial ideology and empire as the physical and sociocultural education is quite capable of serving this a priori, something even the subconscious goals of Russia's establishment. When such a self-reproducing picture of the world empire looks like a great value, because it is the imperial resources can bring the military-political, economic and cultural confrontation with the West beyond the situation obviously anecdotal. Note that this is why the modern post-Soviet Russia, at least its political and military elite, are so drawn to the creation kvaziimperskoy group of satellite countries. I think that as a result of the "orange revolution" in Ukraine the draft of the new imperialism of Russia suffered not local and remedied, but the final and irrevocable defeat. Another thing is that the geopolitical game in the post-Soviet space are not yet fully played out, and here we can expect some surprises. Part of Russia's political and power elite is taking is clearly visible policy of establishing more rigid than it is now, authoritarian rule. It is known that this extends to such. Therefore, Moscow is inevitable search of those regimes and political leaders outside of Russia, who themselves profess the value of authoritarianism, identity, confront the West in all spheres of life. But the choice is small, if it ever is. Well, two or three leaders, the durability of the political situation which is quite possible to doubt now. You can, of course, try to play all-in, as Mr. Milosevic has already played, to the last few rearguard actions, and even win some of them. But the current state of affairs in the world is such that in the struggle against the collective entity of the West can win if you are very lucky, some "battles", but you can not win the confrontation in general. The more daring, "kurazhnee" will play against Western institutions and Western culture, authoritarian elites in the post-Soviet space, the higher the level of the final costs for them and for their peoples.
The paradox of history is that the more reckless and tough play, the faster you get into The Hague, and not as carefree tourist. Of course, the prisons in the European Union is somewhat better of similar institutions in Russia and other CIS countries, but still ... In addition, the example of Milosevic shows that earned over the years of money kept in Western banks, which are not free from political considerations. In considering these limitations in the way of a deliberate foreign and domestic policy is becoming increasingly clear a persistent unwillingness to Eduard Shevardnadze, Leonid Kuchma and Akayev to play hard, for use against the people's revolutions, secret service and army. Perhaps all is not forgotten and the fate of Ceausescu K. ... I think that the main positive strategic foreign policy objectives for the peoples of the European part of the post-Soviet space is the integration into the EU and NATO. Such integration not only means a change in the geopolitical orientation and foreign policy in general, but also change the internal situation, which includes democratization, human rights, balancing socio-cultural space on the European model. I have no illusions with regard to ease this way, knowing that every successful step towards European integration will require changes in both the mental and at the institutional level. But we realize not only the complexity of the problem, but its practical solvability in the not too distant historical perspective. The historical alternative to the developments in the post-imperial restoration option is incompatible with political democracy, observance of a minimum set of democratic rights and freedoms. Attempts by the imperial restoration lead to the inevitable narrowing of personal living space each, radically reduce the likelihood of personal fulfillment in virtually all occupations except those that directly or indirectly serve the interests of neo-imperial state. There are only two main actors - official and law enforcers (man with a gun) and an LED glowing - providing ideological cover for "active measures" a new generation of propagandists and agitators. But, as history shows, people will sooner or later put up with this refuse. And today over the country, the government and society continues to dominate the goods "geography and history, constraints, they asked, actions and decisions in many ways continues to set the old" rut "of imperial life. To change the vector of development and escape from it, you need to make significant efforts to build real federalism, work on the formation of a civil nation, to build democratic institutions and traditions. To continue moving in a historically familiar, lived-in thumb and "rut" of imperial life, so considerable effort is required. You can almost step back to observe the "self-assembling" mechanism authoritarian unitary state. But if earlier, until about the Crimean War, during the reign of Nicholas I, this "rut" led to the "mountain" that is, the benefits of the imperial state and authoritarian rule outweigh the costs, after the war, the costs exceeded the benefits gradually, becoming today the most significant constraint to development country. Again I refer to a close position Yasin: "the decline of the empire began long ago. The
country has developed, the empire - no, more and more becoming a brake on development. Today, Georgia imperial heritage influences the choice between a de facto unitary and a federal / confederal state determines the choice between democracy and various forms of authoritarianism. Many of those who now will of fate was in a cohort of people, policy makers, conduct in-country neo-imperial policy of unification of socio-cultural space, minimizing the harmonization of regional interests. It seems that the choice between two options is made. De facto selected recreate a unitary state. Largely because of this choice stems from the failure of democracy in favor of a managed, but something even decorative options. But ethnic and religious differences of stages and the Russian regions are doing a unitary form of organization of the state (de jure or de facto) and democracy malosovmestimymi. The choice in favor of unitarity largely affects the power of situational on building formal and informal "verticals" in politics, business, media. It is possible that this way is effective today, but this effect is temporary, purely tactical. If long-term and relatively stable co-existence of diverse Russian regions, people who inhabit them may, in principle, this possibility is based on two basic principles: real federalism with elements of confederation and the civil-ethnic nation. Civil, not an ethnic nation is hereditary connection with the nationality of the empire. Our on Leontyev, "blossoming complexity" of the imperial legacy here may be useful for this reason we can not form an ethnic nation, but we can multiethnic and civil war. In terms of civil and political freedoms, human rights in general, this option obviously preferable. What can help and hinder zhizneosuschestvleniyu these principles, and hence the future of people living together in Rossiyskogo state? Joint civil life of the nation in a federal / confederal state can build on the principles of consumer dostizhitelnoy human activity. In pursuit of "Russia's dream" in her Moscow, Yakut, Dagestani design it can at least temporarily not remember "who he is, how and where to go, or at least was before -" forget "about their cultural civilizational identity. While he was on it "forgot" until she at the periphery of his consciousness, until it determines his social activism - Russia's post-imperial state would exist in its current borders. Even today, despite all the backward, retrograde movements, traditional religious identity of various ethnic communities present in the public consciousness largely in a latent, dormant form. It is blurred and the Europeanization of the unification of varying intensity and duration, in the case of Central Russia - from the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich and Peter I, and the total secularization of politics pursued by the Soviet authorities. As a result of this policy, large, and in some regions of the country and the bulk of the population is indifferent to religion. As rightly observed I. Yakovenko, inchurched number of people within the Orthodox Church is only a few percent, and seriously would not grow. And this indifference united country, smooths the ethnic and religious contradictions. Once the process of ethno-religious revival will be truly massive, these contradictions seriously worsen, calling into question the
territorial integrity of the country. The more events actualized civilizational and religious life of early Russian regions, the less stable structure of Russia's statehood. The degree of traditionalism of latency determines the degree of strength of Russia. Today, part of Russia's political class is trying to build on these or other elements of traditionalism, especially its religious guise. This course is no prospect, the former imperial integrators today is not only not work, but positively destructive. Apparently, you need great courage to choose a movement in a historical dead end, the initiation of a regular in Russia's history of civilizational catastrophe. But for seventy years of Soviet power proved to be the most relaxed, not only traditionalists but also society as a whole. If we compare the democratic potential of Russia a hundred years ago, and Russia today, this comparison does not give an unambiguous advantages day today. During the decades of Soviet rule the country has made tangible progress towards modernization, completing the demographic transition, gathering the remnants of his people in the cities, destroying the patriarchy, including religious, traditions. The country has been industrialization, has a sufficiently high level of education. But this time, especially before 1953, had lost a multimillion-dollar layer of educated people, not only seeks to establish in Russia a democratic, republican form of government, but also willing to personally participate in this process, ready for the daily, routine work in the name of the republic. Before the 1917 revolution, millions of people in the country relied on a complex system zemstvos, sought to steer the country in the European way of development. They wanted a democratic European choice for Russia and really worked for it. Peacefully, evolutionarily do not work, it took a revolution in 1905, and then in February 1917. The fate of Russia's educated stratum of society is tragic, it was destroyed in the fire of civil war and the Leninist-Stalinist repression, pushed out into exile. But these people were. In the late Soviet period, the layer of people, comparable to the prerevolutionary in size and human qualities - the professional and civil, in Soviet Russia was not. Were dissidents and their sympathizers, but almost none of them went to the post-Soviet politics, instead of joining the ranks of officialdom. With the exception of items no one wanted to work for the benefit of Russia republic. In politics, people found themselves without any experience of democracy, with some degree of randomness, those who were nearby, and began to power, someone became the owner of the former state property. In Soviet Russia there was broad democratic movements, as in other countries of the Warsaw bloc. Nevertheless, there were found hundreds of thousands of citizens who came out to demonstrate the 1990-1991 the. There were people who were willing to die for the new Republic of Russia in August 1991, the White House, and in October 1993 at the Moscow City Council, but was not required of those who would be able to live in the name of the republic, able to withstand daily routine work, to keep the ideals, appreciate them more tangible benefits. In other words, there was no required amount of idealists, enthusiasts of
the country. Moreover, there was not enough people willing to consider democracy as a value, use democratic rights. "Democracy - a public order to free people. Freedom and confidence in creating prosperity, particularly in post-industrial society of the XXI century. But democracy - it is a sport in which not enough to be a fan, here to participate. Single man who enjoys his freedom. " And if so, just do not have enough layers of people to whom we can rely, people who want to work for free, democratic Russia, or using other, those who, regardless of their views and the past can and knows how to work, able to draft , daily bureaucratic work. Those who are willing to work for their own material interests, those who possess a certain inner discipline. So increasing the power of people from the power structures in this sense should not be surprising. Add to this tradition and public administration. If not for one reason or another rely on the society, the rule is based on power structures. This closes the circle. Based on the "input data, existing conditions prior to August 1991, this result was more likely, because, probably, and became a reality. Our common historical luck that the average realized some variant of a possible future, not very good, but not the worst. The most horrible practices of social transformation of Russia showed the world during the Civil War of 19181921. And transforming the practice of a multinational federation - to 90-years of the last century showed the world S. Milosevic and Serb nationalists in the former Yugoslavia. Given the nature of the Soviet inheritance, the extreme weakness of the political class, not to mention the practical absence of the political elite, we got off light. The political class has just started to emerge, and to ensure that it is formed, reproduced from their ranks an effective and responsible elite, needed at least a decade. And while he is just being formed by incorporating in its composition and otbrakovyvaya contenders not only for their political views, but also on managerial effectiveness. Authorities internally heterogeneous, because we must "learn to understand the three hundred shades of gray." This refers, of course, no differences in color and cut bureaucratic suits, but the differences of political views of their owners. The political class in contemporary Russia with a certain degree can be subdivided into two main groups: the "liberal bureaucrats" and "security officials" holding, according to the capital's political wit, the various towers of the Kremlin ". Of course, that each of these groups of their own world view, his idea of proper and improper, that is good and what is bad for Russia. In some ways this division echoes the same as it was during the "great reforms" of Alexander II. For example, Francis Vchislo in his monograph, "Reforming Rural Russia" identifies two types of political culture that characterize the enlightened bureaucracy, the Westerners and so-called "police officers". The value system of the political culture of the former includes the rule of law, equality of citizens, individual initiative and legitimate political power. Central to the "police" the political culture are the values of paternalism, custody and recognition of the primacy of the monarch's personal power, not law, as well as negative,
suspicious attitude toward the public and independent peasantry. At the same time features of "police mentality" found by the author and in the outlook of the reformers, as the basis of their views lay recognition of the primacy of public interest and conservation (conservation) of the order and stability. The groups officials have expressed different public mood. And the biggest threat to the democratic development of post-imperial Russia during the transition from Soviet authoritarianism to a modern Western democracy is outlined as civil strife, a departure from the constructive dialogue between the government and society. Responsibility for this lies with the government, and society, liberal-oriented part of which contributes to the migration corridor of power in an increasingly shrinking opportunities "from bad to worse." Those who demonize the government, helping it gain a foothold in authoritarian "Orthodox-autocratic" corridor of opportunities, making a big mistake. I believe that the monologue, the consideration of the current authorities only as "absolute evil, sometimes a creative go-fatal for those who so believes is harmful for the power, and for the democratic prospects in Russia. Need a permanent dialogue with the sane people in power, regardless of their past and current occupation, regardless of shared political views. No need to demonize the former and current security officials, lamenting the large number of people from the power structures of power. Dialogue blurs the positions of both sides, because it can lead to compromise. Because so hard to begin a dialogue. The easiest way to stand aside and full intellectual superiority to explain why power is always wrong, and how bad all of its undertakings, actions and inaction over. Yes, the dialogue more difficult monologue, especially in an environment where everyone has it as he can, and using their professional skills. Such dialogue is excruciatingly difficult, but it is preferable to "dialogue" parties to prohibit "Marches of Dissent" and riot police. Give regular scuffles with people in the form of securing means of confrontation, division of society into "us and not ours", in other words, the reproduction of confrontation "red and white", a situation of permanent civil war. I do not want to. Enough reclaimed. With the power to speak the language of interests rather than ideals and principles which, as we know, "can not renounce." Today, the only real opportunity for our civil society to promote the democratization of Russia - in cooperation with the authorities, not only with words but, above all, through effective participation in public and corporate governance. Implanting democracy in the country it is impossible for non-system nature of the democratic opposition. Without losing the democratic, liberal views, to try to become part of the system, to stop being afraid and intimidate each other. Must advocate for the legitimate, peaceful, democratic resolution of conflicts, for an evolutionary rather than revolutionary path of development of Russia. This does not mean that you need a priori agree with everything happening in the country. This means only the desire to solve problems through dialogue rather than monologue, focusing their attention not on what divides us all, but what unites.
But we see a weak commitment to dialogue with society and by the authorities. When it is in one form or another, impeded the "Marches of Dissent", the motivation of such action is understandable, although the issue of selfpreservation more efficiently solved in another way, as an open, reasoned dialogue, transparent support their positions. Defense, and this is defense, not very effective in terms of objectives pursued, but it is also possible. It is rational in the sense of political conditionality and economic interests. Unfortunately, we can see from the authorities reluctance to dialogue not only with political opponents, but with social movements strictly apolitical, subcultural, destroying the foundations of traditionalism. And this is action, if not directly irrational, it is caused not by the interests, and by some vague "ideals". Prohibited performance of sexual minorities, "hemp" marches ... The result is a radicalization of subcultural youth movements, which were previously on the policies and did not think. We know, as in recent years of the reign of Alexander II became a spiral of confrontation and hatred between Russia's educated society and government. At this bloody path was much blown emperor, governor-general, hanged and shot by revolutionaries shot the royal family ... It is not clear why today mimic this opposition. In order to avoid another Russian turmoil, do not need preventive violence on the streets and television propaganda, and a quiet dialogue between the government and opposition, desire to solve issues on their merits. Black jacks riot, like a hundred years ago, the Cossack whips, this is not the path to stabilization. For long-term stabilization can lead a broad public dialogue with the prospect of free competition neekstremistskih political forces. Today Russia's authorities have not yet dropped out of historical time, it has the opportunity to dialogue, to speak to society, attempting to persuade people to open, public debate. "Persuasion" with naked force only radicalize society and no one in the justice authorities can not convince. It is deeply in all of us sitting, regardless of political affiliation and the difference in assessments of the situation "not in force, God, and in truth." Rubicon no return to democracy is not passed, the historic movement toward democracy is not only possible, but we are now, today, are "inside" of this historical period. Police truncheon on the backs of "dissenters" disgusting indefinitely - but it's still not shooting the workers at the Lena goldfields in 1912 and Bloody Sunday in 1905. Today constructive dialogue between the government and society is the only way to remove the emerging civil strife, both civil society and strengthening Russia's statehood. Although the author of today there are great doubts about the very possibility of such a dialogue. The dialogue is successful, if leads to a compromise. But how can this compromise, and on what basis it can be achieved? It is ironic sounds temporary, situational compromise was obtained spontaneously, and consists in the possibility for some time to avoid the historic choice of committing to a particular solution of reflection about our imperial / post-imperial status, to where directed vector of our historical development.
And give the possibility of spontaneous temporary compromise the global economic environment, rapid economic growth in Third World countries, a sharp increase in the consumption of raw materials and energy. In the industrial era of raw materials and energy is enough for the economic needs of the "golden billion", is enough for today and for the rest of the world, but it will be quite different, much higher prices. Naturally, such a situation in international trade will lead to additional financial and geopolitical benefits for commodity-exporting countries One gets rare in the history of the situation: for some time, you can receive increasing revenues through the growth of world prices for raw materials and energy, without fear of changing price trend. Naturally, the local correctional movements in these markets are quite possible, but long-term uptrend minimizes the risk of external economic shock for Russia. This, in turn, minimizes the risks of internal political turmoil. And if we can avoid ideological nationalist-patriotic impasse, and a sharp aggravation of the electoral competition between the various towers of the Kremlin, "we virtually guarantee political stability and economic growth. In other words, the positive features of the external economic environment able to "freeze" relations etnofederativnye Russian regions, the most real and potential dampen separatist sentiment, push in the immensely distant future a possible third phase of the deconstruction of the state, the transition from imperial to a national form of organization. Naturally, for an indefinite time to maintain the status quo, to avoid certain decisions of the society and the authorities did not succeed but will postpone the issue of choice in the supposedly more prosperous and "wise" future. Granted to the history of break "energy power", giving an opportunity to not only maintain the current state of affairs, but also lay claim to part of the imperial heritage of the Soviet Union and the Romanov empire might be a "tale of a lost time," the road to progress in Russian history, socio-cultural and historical catastrophe. But it could enable more predictable and sustainable selfdetermination of Russia's society and state, which, here, do not entertain illusions and fruitless hopes, by definition, may be European, and all other possible choices for Russia obviously worse.
3. Russia in the post-imperial space
The problem of geopolitical leadership today, as, indeed, in other historical periods, did not have and can not be easy and voluntaristic solutions. Attempt to achieve leading positions must be backed by significant social and cultural superiority over the alleged contractors, local expression of which are available innovative technologies and investment potential. The desire for formal and informal leadership is inseparable from the formation of a field of attraction and affection, positioning itself as a reference, the model sample for the world in general and / or specific regions of the sample desired state of the state and society.
It is the achievement of such reference position allows to broadcast far and near people its norms, values, models of everyday behavior. Such a collective leadership of the country show of old Europe - Germany, Britain, France, their success by creating role models, causing a desire to join these successes, integration into the interstate system, capable of promoting the development of less developed nations. Largely on this basis is constructed as a rational and informed, and the subconscious desire for European integration in the second half of XX - beginning of the XXI century. Today we see more and more institutional expansion in Europe, where European Union enlargement to the east covering more and more new regions, including those who have never belonged to the "traditional" Europe. The observed expansion of European borders is unprecedented, but even more curious about the possible future transformation of the EU. We have in mind the urgency with which seeks a united Europe Republic of Turkey, contrary to the fashionable concept of seeking a clash of civilizations and cultures, despite their confessional past and present, in spite of the imperial tradition, which so consistently and convincingly fought the Turkish reformer Kemal-Westerner Mustafa (Atatürk). In Moscow, a lecture on "Dilemmas of Europeanization in the light of competition within the elite, dedicated to comparison of Turkish modernization and Russia's experience, made the founder of the Istanbul Center for Political Studies Ahmet Evin. Matches are probably more similarities than differences, but these coincidences are likely to imperial period of the existence of Russia and Turkey. Only Turkey imperial tradition was interrupted in the early 20-ies of the last century, and in Russia Empire lasted more about seventy years. USSR and became a facelift, to absorb the new Marxist-Leninist ideology of Russia's empire, the new wine was poured into old bottles, quickly acquiring a familiar taste, color and scent of Russian imperialism. Striking persistence of the Turkish elite, with which it is not just seeking a united Europe, but also perceives the West in its genealogy, norms, values, behaviors, and that relates to the erosion of traditional Islamic values. We believe that the main difference between Russia and Turkey's political and cultural elites, despite some similarity of socio-cultural tradition, which includes long periods of authoritarianism and empire, is as follows. Turkish elite since Ataturk's sincere desire for the West to Europe. For several generations of the Turkish elite, not only civil but also military, got a full Western education, passing a full course of study at leading universities and military academies of Europe. The duration of this process over many decades has led to the progressive Europeanization of the Turkish elite. Today a European identity - is largely her own identity, rooted so deeply that it is ready to defend it by all possible means, including use of military force. We know from history that at the slightest threat from the Islamists, traditionally oriented part of the Turkish people in business have always entered the Turkish army, which for decades has been and remains a bastion of Turkish Westerners by force guarantees the western, secular way of development. So
changing attitude elite, and it is usually the first changes its cultural and even religious identity. In Russia's case is easily traced reproduced in different historical and sociocultural circumstances, the desire to preserve its special, self, search for some mythical "third way", striving to remain competitive with the collective subject of the Western powers. Imperial ideology and empire as the physical and sociocultural education is quite capable of serving this a priori, something even the subconscious goals of Russia's establishment. It is through such self-reproducing picture of the world empire is seen as a great value because it is the imperial resources can bring this military-political, economic and cultural confrontation with the West beyond the situation obviously anecdotal. Note that this is why the modern post-Soviet Russia, at least its political and military elite, are so drawn to the creation of some kvaziimperskoy group of satellite countries. Key role in this neo-imperial construction was supposed to play a pro-Russia Ukraine, but after the popular "orange" revolution, these geopolitical dreams not only maintained but also strengthened its virtual status. Today the Ukrainian political elite is clearly defined with their ideological orientations and value preferences, including with the geopolitical orientation. Orientation is quite clear: Ukraine - an integral part of Europe, the Western world in general. We believe that as a result of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine suffered not local, and easily remedied, but the final and irrevocable defeat of the draft of the new Russia of imperialism, before it started, failed attempt to forming an antiWestern bloc of the CIS states. A large seen from a distance, and more or less adequate awareness of the importance of what happened in the autumn / winter of 2004/2005 in Ukraine will be realized both the people and historians somewhat later in its more distant outcomes. The author very much want to believe, and there is a very serious and important premise that this is not very distant, no later than 2008, a consequence of the "Orange" will be the democratization of the Ukrainian revolution and the dismantling of authoritarianism and neo-imperial in the modern post-Soviet Russia. Another issue that the geopolitical game in the post-Soviet space are not yet fully played out, and here we can expect some surprises. Of Russia's elite is taking more and more clearly visible, a course on the establishment of authoritarian rule. It is known that like seeketh like, so today is inevitable search of those regimes and political leaders who profess themselves the value of authoritarianism, identity, confront the West in all spheres of life. And here the choice is not large enough, if it ever is. Maybe one or two leaders, the durability of the political situation which is quite possible to doubt today, and it is not possible to doubt tomorrow. You can probably try to play all-in, as has already played Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, to the last few rearguard actions, and even win some of them. But the current state of affairs in the world is such that in the struggle against the collective entity of the West can win if you are very lucky, some "battles", but you can not win the confrontation in general. The more daring, "kurazhnee" will play against Western institutions and Western culture, authoritarian elites in the post-Soviet
space - the higher the level of the final costs, both for them and for the peoples of these countries. The paradox of history is that the more reckless and tough play, the faster you get into The Hague, and not as carefree tourist. Of course, the prisons in the European Union is somewhat better of similar institutions in Russia and other CIS countries, but still .... In addition, use the example of Slobodan Milosevic, it is clear that back-breaking hard-earned money kept in Western banks, which are not free of loose political situation. In considering these constraints on volyuntaristichnoy domestic and foreign policy is becoming increasingly clear persistent reluctance to Eduard Shevardnadze, Leonid Kuchma and Akayev to play hard, for use against the people's revolutions, secret service and army. It is possible that not all are forgotten and the fate of C. Ceausescu - happens in history and so .... But you can try to avoid such developments, to repent, humbly ask the powers that immunity from criminal prosecution, in fact, back up its petition exemplary conduct during the revolutionary crisis. Following the common sense of recognizing the current world balance of power may well have its rewards, including a calm and secured a long vacation in the picturesque corners of the planet - somewhere in Tahiti, the Cote d'Azur, etc. Such a fate may well be expected to politicians adaptive, capable of dialogue is not at the level of ideological abstractions, but of interest. We are talking about the possibility of choosing political leaders, but their choice seriously affects the life of the nation. Yes, it will be his choice, but the degree of humanity and bloodless change depends largely on national leaders, political and military elite, it is their historic responsibility. But the rulers come and go, but peoples remain, remains the geopolitical situation remains moist wind from the Baltic Sea in Europe, remains a historical inevitability of European integration. We believe that major positive strategic foreign policy objectives for the peoples of the European part of the post-Soviet space is the integration into the EU and NATO. Such integration not only means a change in the geopolitical orientation and foreign policy in general, but also change the internal situation, which includes democratization, human rights, balancing socio-cultural space on the European model. We have no illusions with regard to ease this way, knowing that every successful step towards European integration will require changes in both the mental and institutional levels. But we realize not only the complexity of the problem, but its practical solvability in the not too distant historical perspective. The historical alternative to such developments in the post-imperial restoration option is not compatible with political democracy, observance of a minimum set of democratic rights and freedoms. We believe that the attempt to restore the imperial leads to the inevitable narrowing of the personal living spaces, dramatically reduces the likelihood of personal fulfillment in virtually all professional fields, except those that directly or indirectly serve the interests of neo-imperial state. There are only two main actors - official and law enforcers
(man with a gun), and an LED glowing - providing ideological cover for "active measures" a new generation of propagandists and agitators. Implementation of such a historical alternative does not suit us, we believe that this should be as clearly and firmly say "no" neo-imperial encroachments on the post-Soviet space, try not to let in once again prolonging the existence of the empire, as it was after the Civil War in Russia / USSR . What's happening in the country now - the construction of a national state or the path of imperial revenge? This question in relation to Russia does not seem rhetorical, as it would have been even ten years ago. And here we do not save history, because of its experience should be understood, otrefleksirovan society the only way could be worked out an antidote for the imperial ideology and imperial forms of government. Work on the historical wrongs done was not in the public mind has become a popular misconception that the Soviet empire fell victim to short-term external circumstances, and betrayal of the political and intellectual elite - the Democrats. But if everything is so easy, then enough to try to change external circumstances, to "strengthen" the geopolitical position of Russia's state, "fasten your seat" to it Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and there, You never can tell, and Ukraine and Belarus. This builds up a neo-imperial project - the fit would perceive it as a bad April Fool's joke, but it prevents more distinct feeling that this plan was not only real, but it is already in progress. It is obvious that its implementation can not lead to the most serious foreign policy costs, put Russia on the brink of war between the "cold" - latent, and "hot" - open. Of course the fact that the most serious losses from this military-political confrontation between Russia itself will be a society so lethargic "depositing" today the democratic gains of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era. But democracy - the only way to protect yourself from society, foreign policy adventures, because reducing it to a decorative, purely external, hollow forms constitute a waiver of most foreign-policy "insurance." We know what a huge price paid the people of Germany for refusing to democracy and the outbreak of the Second World War. No lower price paid for this choice of the German political elite and the peoples of Europe. But this is a strange historical experience, too "far away" for Russia's social analogy, and because we own historical experience teaches nothing. The alignment system in Russia "managed democracy" minimized the participation of society in decision-making both in domestic and foreign policy. Decisions of these takes part of the political elite, which with some degree of conditionality can be defined as nostalgic for the Soviet empire "statists". The key question, to which they have to answer is as follows: Russia - is part of Europe, the potential of the West, or an independent center of power - as the EU, USA, China? The answer to this question depends on our present and future. If Russia's political elite has said that Russia part of Europe and the potential of the West, by analogy with Germany, which only after the Second World War came in the Euro-Atlantic civilization, then the EU and NATO enlargement to the East and South, on Ukraine and Georgia not only dangerous, but desirable. Then this movement, together with Russia - they are in NATO and the EU before, we
later. Naturally, the forms of integration into international structures, these have little Georgia and Russia can be a big different. There is another answer - Russia is an independent center of power, selfsoutheast-Christian civilization, embodied earlier in Russia and the Soviet empire, and is meant to be embodied in the new empire. This response suggests that NATO is a military and political rival, whose promotion to Russia's borders poses a serious threat - a threat to the very possibility of imperial restoration. How serious that threat is perceived and how far Russia might go to the military-political elite, to neutralize this threat? In the case of Ukraine the most serious threat is perceived. Because only together with Ukraine, Russia may in one way or another to return to the imperial way of development based on "OrthodoxSlavic" identity. Without Ukraine, Russia's imperial center inevitably will shift to the East, the two-headed eagle's head will be rotated from the European-Byzantine heritage to the heritage of the East, Mongolia, China. And if the Byzantine Empire are long gone, the rising economic and geopolitical power, China is today. Without Ukraine, Russia's new neo-imperial project may be only a draft of "return to the Horde", ideological and military-political distancing from the West, the withdrawal from Europe. Today, Russia's "statists" are sympathetic to the traditional imperial project Russia, headed the Slavic state of education - at the head of Ukraine and Belarus. This nucleus of the disintegrated Soviet Union, Russia's traditional core of the state - this is the language of geopolitics, the bulk of the Heartland. For a very short historical time, its resources may be enough to withstand the united Europe and NATO, followed by another geopolitical and social disaster - is also a repetition. It is important for Russia's political elite is the fact that the neo-imperial "union of the Slavs" shortcut to "reign" will be issued in Moscow, in the case of treatment in the East, to China, "the distribution of labels" may move to Beijing. It is clear that with such a set of alternatives to neo-imperial Russia of the political elite is desperately fighting for Ukraine, for its imperial integration, or at least pro-rate. After Ukraine's integration into EU and NATO removes even the theoretical possibility of traditional imperial restoration. Betting on Ukraine zashkalivayusche high, it is possible a powerful geopolitical breaking with Russia's participation, in contrast to events in the Caucasus, in Georgia, which for all its severity and possible tragedy can not go beyond a local conflict. Not the Caucasus, but in the Ukraine sent a geopolitical point of imperial restoration. Do this geopolitical scrapped, the division and the division of the country to its west and its eastern Ukrainians themselves? I think not - regardless of political and party preferences, even regardless of language Ukrainian or Russian. And not so important, Ukrainian voters supported the Party of Regions, Yulia Tymoshenko, Our Ukraine - all of them do not need it. This should only external to the Ukrainian neo-imperialist forces. We do not need an imperial restoration and the peoples of Russia - starryeyed neo-imperial dreams "for a cup of tea" costly when trying to implement them in practice.
The main question that arises before the political, economic, cultural elites in post-Soviet states, is taking place within the globalization process is a limitation of national sovereignty. This restriction implies the transfer of national sovereignty to the supranational level, it is quite objective and hard in the incarnation process. You can take it and under it to adjust, but it is possible to resist and go against the wind knocking down stories. The fundamental error is part of Russia's political elite, positing that there is a possibility of building an effective and viable poluavtarkicheskoy political system, preserving its territory full sovereignty, divided into a number of more local errors. So, let's consider some of them. First, the process of democratization "of Western-style" not only introduced from without, but also has a certain number of adherents worldwide, including in Russia. Let the number of these people are not so great, at least not predominantly, it is the most active, young and successful part of the nation. These are strong people who do not need paternalistic state, people who do not want the empire, the people who will not sacrifice their money, energy, and the more life in the name of any anti-Western political project. In addition, they are not scattered throughout this vast country, but mainly concentrated in the two capitals - Moscow and St. Petersburg. Needless, perhaps, to remind us that revolutions tend to occur in the capitals. And nothing here spishesh on conspiracy theories, the western financial assistance, the machinations of the CIA and Mossad. This is all outside, but inside these people almost instinctive rejection of an authoritarian state and empire. Secondly, we have very recent experience of military-political confrontation with NATO countries, confrontation, hasten the fall of the USSR. But the Soviet Union was much stronger than modern Russia in various fields, including economy and in the military field. The Soviet Union possessed a much more significant demographic resources and "best" geopolitical situation. All this is not a modern Russia, the attempt of military-political confrontation with the West would lead to a rather rapid collapse of the new post-Soviet state, will accelerate the onset of the third phase of the deconstruction of the empire. The paradox of history is that any attempt to impose its influence in the former Soviet Union, to proceed to the next phase of arduous collecting Russian lands will lead to a serious risk of losing even the remaining land. In addition, an attempt to confront objective processes, building antiWestern political-economic project will inevitably require resort to the mobilization of ideology as exclusively open violence such a regime can not exist for arbitrarily small historical time. In this regard, we note that Russia has experienced a historic temptation of international socialism, emerged in the public consciousness, even a kind of antidote, but not in relation to socialism as such, but at least with respect to its international dimension. Temptation of national socialism, more or less aggressive forms of nationalism is still ahead. How serious that threat is perceived and how far Russia might go to the military-political elite, to neutralize this threat? In the case of Ukraine the most serious threat is perceived. Because only together with Ukraine, Russia may in one way or another to return to the imperial way of development based on "Orthodox75
Slavic" identity. Without Ukraine, Russia's imperial center inevitably will shift to the East, the two-headed eagle's head will be rotated from the European-Byzantine heritage to the heritage of the East, Mongolia, China. And if the Byzantine Empire are long gone, the rising economic and geopolitical power, China is today. Without Ukraine, Russia's new neo-imperial project may be only a draft of "return to the Horde", ideological and military-political distancing from the West, the withdrawal from Europe. Today, Russia's "statists" are sympathetic to the traditional imperial project Russia, headed the Slavic state of education - at the head of Ukraine and Belarus. This nucleus of the disintegrated Soviet Union, Russia's traditional core of the state - this is the language of geopolitics, the bulk of the Heartland. For a very short historical time, its resources may be enough to withstand the united Europe and NATO, followed by another geopolitical and social disaster - is also a repetition. It is important for Russia's political elite is the fact that the neo-imperial "union of the Slavs" shortcut to "reign" will be issued in Moscow, in the case of treatment in the East, to China, "the distribution of labels" may move to Beijing. It is clear that with such a set of alternatives to neo-imperial Russia of the political elite is desperately fighting for Ukraine, for its imperial integration, or at least pro-rate. After Ukraine's integration into EU and NATO removes even the theoretical possibility of traditional imperial restoration. Betting on Ukraine zashkalivayusche high, it is possible a powerful geopolitical breaking with Russia's participation, in contrast to events in the Caucasus, in Georgia, which for all its severity and possible tragedy can not go beyond a local conflict. Not the Caucasus, but in the Ukraine sent a geopolitical point of imperial restoration. Do this geopolitical scrapped, the division and the division of the country to its west and its eastern Ukrainians themselves? I think not - regardless of political and party preferences, even regardless of language Ukrainian or Russian. And not so important, Ukrainian voters supported the Party of Regions, Yulia Tymoshenko, Our Ukraine - all of them do not need it. This should only external to the Ukrainian neo-imperialist forces. We do not need an imperial restoration and the peoples of Russia - starryeyed neo-imperial dreams "for a cup of tea" costly when trying to implement them in practice. The main question that arises before the political, economic, cultural elites in post-Soviet states, is taking place within the globalization process is a limitation of national sovereignty. This restriction implies the transfer of national sovereignty to the supranational level, it is quite objective and hard in the incarnation process. You can take it and under it to adjust, but it is possible to resist and go against the wind knocking down stories. The fundamental error is part of Russia's political elite, positing that there is a possibility of building an effective and viable poluavtarkicheskoy political system, preserving its territory full sovereignty, divided into a number of more local errors. So, let's consider some of them. First, the process of democratization "of Western-style" not only introduced from without, but also has a certain number of adherents worldwide, including in
Russia. Let the number of these people are not so great, at least not predominantly, it is the most active, young and successful part of the nation. These are strong people who do not need paternalistic state, people who do not want the empire, the people who will not sacrifice their money, energy, and the more life in the name of any anti-Western political project. In addition, they are not scattered throughout this vast country, but mainly concentrated in the two capitals - Moscow and St. Petersburg. Needless, perhaps, to remind us that revolutions tend to occur in the capitals. And nothing here spishesh on conspiracy theories, the western financial assistance, the machinations of the CIA and Mossad. This is all outside, but inside these people almost instinctive rejection of an authoritarian state and empire. Secondly, we have very recent experience of military-political confrontation with NATO countries, confrontation, hasten the fall of the USSR. But the Soviet Union was much stronger than modern Russia in various fields, including economy and in the military field. The Soviet Union possessed a much more significant demographic resources and "best" geopolitical situation. All this is not a modern Russia, the attempt of military-political confrontation with the West would lead to a rather rapid collapse of the new post-Soviet state, will accelerate the onset of the third phase of the deconstruction of the empire. The paradox of history is that any attempt to impose its influence in the former Soviet Union, to proceed to the next phase of arduous collecting Russian lands will lead to a serious risk of losing even the remaining land. In addition, an attempt to confront objective processes, building antiWestern political-economic project will inevitably require resort to the mobilization of ideology as exclusively open violence such a regime can not exist for arbitrarily small historical time. In this regard, we note that Russia has experienced a historic temptation of international socialism, emerged in the public consciousness, even a kind of antidote, but not in relation to socialism as such, but at least with respect to its international dimension. Temptation of national socialism, more or less aggressive forms of nationalism is still ahead.
3.1. Post-Soviet Kazakhstan
The book "post-Soviet Kazakhstan" Rustem Dzhanguzhin creates colorful, spherical panorama covering many aspects of life in our modern post-Soviet Kazakhstan, we can say that we face an encyclopedia, a book to which you can apply for information, advice and answers to the vast array of issues associated with the life of post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Here is a description and geographic location of Kazakhstan, the resulting location geopolitics, history, economics, including oil reserves, deposits, and the company, the demographic situation of the Kazakhs and ethnic minorities, the processes in education, politics, emergence and functioning of political parties. The monograph Rustem Dzhanguzhina addresses issues of history and current status of Kazakh science, both academic and applied, the arts, including music, painting, literature. But this is not a dry reference book, the author painfully aware of successes and failures of their country, its people, it
is not detached view of the chronicler, is living pain, empathy and direct or indirect participation in all processes of Kazakh life. Also fairly informative, the book Rustem Dzhanguzhina distinguished qualities of good literature: she was reading, at times intriguing and captivating the reader to the vicissitudes of history about the detective genre, and many parts about Kazakhstan today, read with equal interest. The author tells of fascinating tribal structure of the Kazakh people, emphasizing on this basis, the larger structural units - Zhuzes emerged (Horde), namely: Senior Horde, Middle Horde, Junior Horde. The author notes that this division of the Kazakh people were somewhat blurred over the decades of Soviet power through intermarriage and the leveling influence of the imperial center, but with 60 years of the last century, when the republic came to power in AD Kunayev, and today, already in the post-Soviet Kazakhstan , the revival of ethnic identity in many ways is through selfidentification of people with a certain zhuzom. In the nomenclature of the Kazakh Soviet period, even a proverb, a saying was born, dedicated to the selection and placement - "For biographies suitable, but the geography - no. All this is very exciting to read, for Europeans such stratification of society rather exotic, is strongly associated with the East in general, in any case, with nonEurope. And since this is not Europe but Asia, which has, moreover, human history and authoritarian socio-cultural tradition, the question arises about the possibility and timing of transition to democracy. This question arises not from scratch, the fact is that Rustem Dzhanguzhin believes that democracy in postSoviet Kazakhstan is available today! At this very much wanted to believe, but as the voters will not vote for the interests of its Juz, but for their own, conscious and specific interests - is not entirely clear. We believe that it will require a certain historical time to the west of its genealogy, mass culture was able to digest most of the ethno-national socio-cultural traditions, and the economy has provided a person to be self-sufficient outside of Juz, gender, and tribal identity, that is, become a person in the Western sense . This will be a victory for Kazakh democracy. Well, while the Kazakh intelligentsia before the people and the people at the mercy of sociocultural traditions, giving rise to a mutual and natural feeling of discomfort. If we talk about the shortcomings of the book, they are a natural extension of its merits. Oil companies, the development of the Caspian Sea and the history of Kazakh literature, cinema, laundering of proceeds derived from the "gray zone" of Kazakhstan's economy, and deep historical digressions and philosophical insights and generalizations - all collected within a single book, creates a feeling kaleidoscopic, overflowing fullness of life in which what is there not ... We understand and accept the author's intent, encyclopedic coverage of the material, but sometimes you want to dive into some specific domain, this dive is already happening, and then, suddenly, it is necessary to reconstruct their perceptions on the summary of the scope of regular Kazakh life. But it is a little emotional remark is quite a subjective nature, it is possible that other readers of this remarkable book it does not arise. Reading the monograph "post-Soviet Kazakhstan", we can not forget that important fact that Rustem Dzhanguzhin - artist, a man of imaginative thinking and
vision of the world. So, listen to the author, Rustem Dzhanguzhina: "... it is the Word, reproduced by the artist as an artistic and meaningful lyrics, creates a very society, its spiritual culture and tradition, being at the same time, the existential self-realization of the individual, as a converted form of transcendental existence at the moment / time / era. That is the existential self-realization of the author, not only in the here and now ", but also throughout their lives together as different spatial and temporal continuum, and their change rather than simply adapting to a new" ethnic groups and landscapes, the constant creation, impact on people and historical situation. As an epigraph to the book the author uses a wry Chinese saying: "If we do not change their way, the risk to get there, where trying to get. This applies not only to the post-Soviet Kazakhstan, but also to Russia, more and more clearly in the last two or three years, drifting in the direction of the gray zone of authoritarianism, which is accompanied by increasingly obvious manipulation and weakening of democratic political institutions, lack of respect for human rights, etc. . And again, like in the old "good" Soviet times, the only constraint on this path serves a critical dependence on Western technology and markets for raw materials, and as a consequence, dependence on public opinion and governments of Western countries. If it were not for this dependence, the national political elites in both Russia and Kazakhstan is unlikely to become a pretend play in the West for his genealogy of political games, to represent the rest of the world that they care about human rights, the appearance of legitimacy on the parliamentary and presidential elections, the independence of the media. One gets the impression of steady, that all this should be a collective entity of the West, but not the elites and the peoples of the former Soviet Union. A positive exception in this sense are the Baltic states and Ukraine after the victory of "orange" people's revolution. This is the first in recent years throughout the former Soviet Union a lesson that the people - this is serious, it can have its say, it may be more of an authoritarian regime, to support which instantly joined akin regimes and policies, similar to stretched out to like ... Stretch, managed to show a screen for almost a smile of European interior savage grin and crept away to their lair, without extraction, nothing for pains. People seemed to get stronger. So, Rustem Dzhanguzhin not only a writer and artist, a man of encyclopedic knowledge, he, above all, a citizen - a citizen is now a free Ukraine. And that he and many hundreds of thousands of citizens of Ukraine, we are grateful for the "orange" revolution. This is a guiding light for the entire post-Soviet space, has a historic opportunity to dismantle the oases of authoritarianism and violence. For our and your freedom, Rustem, thank you.
3.2. Moldova and Prednistrove
What is happening today on the outskirts of the former Russia / Soviet empire, it is quite natural. In the post-Soviet space remain enclaves of the empire,
who consider themselves part of it, remained a mass of people, considering the prevailing realities of the political geography of today as something purely temporary. Over the centuries the Russo-Soviet imperial life people actually started one new community, the "Soviet people", which for so long, and, as it seemed, quite wrongly told us the party propagandists. Referendum on Sept. 17, 2006, at which the citizens of the unrecognized Transnistrian Moldovan Republic voted in favor of "free association with Russia" and against "occurrences in Moldova" indicates exactly that. But it is not just imperial nostalgia, but also a global trend, leading to uneven development, "enclave" of life, competing for the same area of different racial, ethnic and religious groups. These groups are stable, they do not want to integrate into the "great society", to adjust to the prevailing ethos title. People in their desire to live independently, to speak their native language, their native language attributed to government agencies and local governments, schools, shops, on the streets. They often solve their life problems within these local communities, including their - in spirit, blood, culture. The separation of people on the principle of otherness, different lifestyle, religion, language - an ancient practice, as well as motivation samoprichisleniya rights to a particular community, when his - friend, stranger - the enemy. Today this tragic practice of re-separation of demand - are burning cars in France, Chayntauny spread throughout the world, newly arrived in the U.S. come from Latin America have been slow to learn English. Local ethno-cultural groups do not always demand a state of independence, but set in the emigre enclaves its power, its de facto sovereignty. And the nationstate is increasingly unable to obtain any that oppose the seizure of power. Of course, he has a police force, special forces, army, finally. But all are tools of despair, "last hope", they were allowed to move when the war is essentially already lost. Emigrants create a "parallel world" in which its laws, rules of conduct, their notions of honor. The situation in Transnistria, of course, differs from the situation with new immigrants and new ethno-cultural enclaves, but it fits into the overall dissimilarity trend. Historically, that Transnistria was part of the border zone of the empire, its active, serving part of a tightly tied to the metropolis. Distant and near history defines and today's development of the region. Sunday is not the first referendum in Transnistria, the two have been: in 1991 and 1995. But the most important and brutal "referendum" was a war whose outcome and divided the people on the left and right bank of the Dniester. Her pain is not forgotten today, between Transnistria and Moldova is no trust and no trust to build any relationship is difficult, especially in such difficult and sensitive area, as a civilized nation-building. This pain can be treated with time and a deliberate policy of mutual concessions and compromises, the search for what unites rather than divides people. It is worth trying to understand and forgive each other. Relations between Moldova and Transnistria - is precisely the case
where the bad peace is better than a good quarrel, when you should not make sudden movements. Situation is to restore the national integrity of Moldova difficult by the fact that the republic is not the richest state in Europe. The living standard of Moldova closer to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, non-European states and frankly poor. Whether it differently, if the income level of citizens of Moldova closer to the income of the Poles and Hungarians, the search for a possible compromise on the Government of the Republic would proceed much easier. With regard to the recognition of the results of the referendum on Sunday by the world community, the situation is fairly straightforward. The results of the referendum does not recognize neither the U.S. nor the EU. Regarding Russia's position is not so simple. Already, we hear statements by some politicians of "patriots", welcomed the outcome of the referendum. If all of this and limit, if the case reaches the incorporation of Transnistria into Russia, then we can assume that the Russians, and Europeans in general, lightly. That's what they and policies to attract public attention, to attract the attention of potential voter, using any relevant information occasion. However, if the declared purpose of the referendum would be interpreted by Russia's authorities and society seriously, and Transdniestria will become part of Russia, it is likely the new military-political confrontation between the West and Russia, the brinkmanship of the Cold "and" hot. " We remember what the opposition has greatly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the burden of the arms race was for him impossible. Not able to confront the West in the face of NATO and the EU and Russia. This is a very serious, and it can not be underestimated. There is a very serious risk that the legal incorporation of Transnistria to Russia, beginning the process of "gathering grounds" empire sooner or later send the latest European history is on this channel. "Collection of land" is always accompanied by blood and sweat, his burden is on the usual, immersed in their everyday worries man, there is for his personal living expense. So no need to shoot today, "Archduke Ferdinand", do not provoke the story, "wake dashing, not to play in August 1914.
3.3. Toward Georgia
In Russia there are the beginnings of civil society. This is evidenced by a letter on behalf of Russia's artistic and scientific intelligentsia in the defense of the Georgian national minority in Russia, as well as spontaneous reflex decision on the adoption of Georgian nationality ethnic Russian, no special relationship with the Georgia does not have. Old Russian attitude, as expressed in the famous maxim "God is not in force, but in truth, largely explains this seemingly paradoxical solution to our compatriots. Their attitude is noticeable in something, even heroic, but these extreme actions are caused by despair, inability to reverse the massive anti-Georgian campaign.
Today, a massive Russo-nationalist, archaic consciousness Georgians gradually take the place of the Jews: a dark, destructive, which contains the biological nature of man in relation to other, dissimilar - splashed on our longstanding and very close neighbors. This is despite the fact that the history of Georgia is intertwined with the history of Russia, the Georgian aristocracy served the empire of the Romanovs, the Georgian people, together with the other peoples of the USSR passed through hardships and sufferings of the Great Patriotic War. Today compatriots Bagration dynasty can not walk the streets of Russian cities, and their children have attracted special attention from education officials. The practice of human rights violations on ethnic grounds, of course, terrible. How tragic that the country is trying to live by the law selectively: for other illegal immigrants, the non-Georgian ethnic criminal community to close the eyes - for his guidance (quota?) Was not there, but by "persons of Georgian nationality" is already there, then let's look more and tax violations by cultural Georgian origin ... Indeed, the severity of Russian laws is softened by not having their applications. But since when the decision to apply the law, it is used "to campaign", "to the fullest extent", with overlap in order to discourage others were. But does this mean that the Government of Georgia, President Saakashvili, started to talk to Russia and its military is not "on the concepts, but by the laws of the Republic of Georgia, the rights from a moral point of view? No, it does not. I was not feeling that demonstrative arrest Russian officers, accusing them of spying, and most importantly, the blocking forces of the Georgian police headquarters Russian troops, beyond the usual "showdown" between the intelligence agencies. It was the political will of the Georgian leadership, will to the maximum destabilization of relations with Russia, for Russia's most rigid response. Perhaps the example of this, at first glance, the reckless behavior of the Georgian leadership, deliberately provoking a more powerful state, was a tactic of the Shiite movement Hezbollah, applied against the State of Israel this summer. By provoking Israel, Hezbollah sought to cause excessive forceful reaction, excessive use of force against Lebanon, the Lebanese civilian population. Substituting Lebanese civilians and our soldiers under the blows of heavy weapons the army of Israel, the leaders of Hezbollah have done this in order to win the information war. And in many respects they have won it. The whole world broadcast images of dead and wounded among the civilian population of Lebanon and destruction of infrastructure, livelihood of its people, not just the "infrastructure of terror". The Israeli society has got into an "information trap" trap set by Hezbollah. A few months later, Russia's leadership has got into the same "information trap" trap set by the Georgian leadership. He also was designed to emotional, going beyond the common sense reaction of Russia. To a greater extent succeeded. Relationships destabilized, the strength of the response to Russia's reaction surpasses all imaginable limits. Today, relations between Russia and Georgia reached an impasse, a country teetering on the brink of war "cold" and "hot". And, as always in history, most
suffer from the common people, those who have never engaged in politics, but thinking about settling his own life. In the eternal Russian question "what to do?" Can only reply that it is necessary to move from the conversation at the level of emotion to the conversation at the level of interest. We have to begin the difficult and, apparently, the long negotiations on the full range of Russo-Georgian relations. Subjects of these negotiations should include the future legal status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, questions of economic cooperation, the possible membership of Georgia into NATO, the Georgian cultural autonomy of national minorities in Russia and Russia in Georgia ... Today there is a space to search for a batch of agreements based on mutual concessions and compromises, there is an opportunity for serious and civilized diplomatic bargaining. From the menacing-looking, sharp movements on both sides time to move on to the dialogue. In other words, it's time to grow up.
4. Empire: pro. Reintegration nationwide imperial world
We know that historical time is not uniform. When everything goes without crises, growing steadily, there is a serious limitation of the variability of history, is its chief, indeed Univariate path. It can reject, against him can even rebel, but it's pointless, it was obviously a losing position of the eccentric and the marginal. But times are changing, economically poor mast years are replaced when the public mindset naturally turn to the material, to supermaterial values. Failure to increase the mass of material consumption and improve the quality of life contributes to the translation of social and scientific thought from the particular to the general. Becomes pressing again the hope for the nation and state, in the mass public consciousness once again there are encouraging dreams overall success and salvation. In Russia, the economic crisis imposed on the national humiliation caused by the collapse of the USSR and the purely local places of Russia in the modern world. Serious economic growth the last decade, public attention shifted from the field of national self-abasement to individual consumption. But in times of crisis to increase the volume and quality of consumption has become impossible. From the theoretical developments and practical synthesis of social sciences is well known that the Revolution and the important social changes occur, not when society turns to the socio-economic transformation, and standard of living is falling, but when he grows up, growing public expectations, and then sudden collapse occurs. Today we are in a situation of such a collapse, the real economic situation of inconsistency mass public expectations. In this classic, stated in the textbook situation, the government will have the opportunity to lose it, or transfer the energy of public discontent outwards from the social struggle between more and less advantaged countrymen in the area of foreign policy is closely related to, and even defining the policies inside. If we do nothing, or almost nothing we can do in the field of economics, it is possible to think of moving society towards sverhekonomicheskim goals, to what
would accept the material losses, as a normal payment for the acquisition of more the restoration of Russia's state in its traditional imperial ranges. Another ten or fifteen years ago about such a historical reconstruction of large and powerful Russia's state it was difficult to even conceive. The reason for this were different collective and individual dreams that give meaning and purpose of individual human existence, while making the rule of law, legitimizing it in the popular consciousness. Immediately after the collapse of the USSR great collective illusion, to some extent, uniting society and legitimate government, have opened up possibilities of capitalism, personal salvation and enrichment. In the most powerful, or just close to the power of people who believed in the possibility of capitalism, turned out successfully implemented in the personal fate of these inflated public expectations. And it is probably not even on commodity billionaires, but about people similar to Mr. Chichvarkin, embodying the American dream in its version of Russia, has come down from the Luzhniki to Euroset, and even more millions. Now, have no such illusions, and the habit of regarding the good life, especially in the Russian mega-cities already have. This habit of the good life brought up the growth of real income, the extent of consumer lending, the crowded shelves of hypermarkets, and even federal TV channels in recent years have argued that we are going from good to better. According to economic theory and practice of post-Soviet reforms in Eastern Europe, carrying out painful economic reforms carried out as quickly as possible, while the most profound decline in living standards to the possible minimum. With such a deep, drop shock, beyond the standard of living can only grow. In the case of sustained economic growth, followed by sharp collapse, uneven standards of living and social expectations of the situation in society is becoming more tense. What can promise social theory in the case of another historic turning Russia? Of course, the future is not predetermined, we can tell no more than about the likelihood of certain variants of historical development. Reflect on the most likely of them. In Russia, the massive public reaction to the Soviet collapse, the division within the various people of Russian / Soviet culture all these years, there was mostly in a latent, dormant form. But society is not only socially, but also biosocial organism, and the eternal secretly such a reaction in the present and the future is unlikely. Time of the active phase of this reaction did not occur for a long time, it comes only now. Here is historically the same lot, including the inability to further localize the national illusion in purely economic sphere. The main issue for Russia's power today - informal, people perceived as natural, bases its legitimacy in times of crisis. In the 90 years the foundation of legitimacy based on the energy gap with communism and the ability to live without the state, to pursue economic prosperity, based on their own. In the 2000's, this legitimacy has rested on economic growth, redistribution of commodity windfall, television propaganda. In an era of crisis, economic growth is impossible, but only propaganda to maintain the legitimacy of the
psychological reasons difficult. The current crisis is a spiral, facing down. In some sections it seems that you have reached the bottom, but this is the bottom of a local, stop in a downtrend. The crisis, having the financial and economic stages, has all chances to become a social crisis. Stage of social crisis in its most active phase of the system is updated as the political crisis. To retain power, will have to resort to internal repression by the principle - the procedure for the sake of order and repression, not supported by the advocacy objective, and therefore illegitimate in the eyes of society. High probability that power will inevitably change, and change radically, as the ideological and on a personal level. There is another way that allows not only to retain power, but also to Russia's society integrating non-economic objectives. The most vivid, clear Russia's society of such non-economic goals may be building a new Russia Empire. At the level of ideas it is understandable that the Russian, Belarusian, Eastern Ukraine - subetnosy one people, and have the right to live in one state. The question is, of course, not on Central Asia and Caucasus. It is, literally according to Solzhenitsyn, the reintegration of the Slavic republics of the former Soviet Union, possibly with the participation of Kazakhstan. The ideology of the new association is simple - escape from crisis is possible only within Russia, or with Russia. With regard to the revival of new technologies "kvaziimperii", then they may be buying "cheap" - falling enterprises, sectors of the economy. The next phase - engagement pressure groups, political parties, training, recruitment pro elite. Empire - the universe, absorbing the peoples, traditions and religion. No matter what you blood, it is important as you serve the Empire. Empire is based on the idea of service. The post-Soviet reform, the transition to the new life given to us so painfully difficult, largely because the society turned away from the idea of service, lost faith in the common good is at the time of the late USSR. But the paradox of history that even for a democratic state and market relations, we need idealists, people for whom it is very important public good. People ministry. These people in post-Soviet Russia was tragic enough, much smaller than a hundred years ago. Our tragedy is that in the historical cataclysms of the twentieth century, we almost lost this little idealistic, despite all its external materialism and rationality, a layer of people. One hundred years ago, the mass of people from an educated society was willing to work for the development of a democratic republic, parliamentary system, based on the idea of service. These people put the interests of the country and people above their private economic interests. The danger of the present situation is that without a significant number of such people in power in all social groups, a steady state is almost impossible. Historical feature Russia's civil society consists precisely in the idea of service. It is our common historical path, in this converging thoughts and actions of the aristocracy and commoners, the Bolsheviks and SRs, the Russian intelligentsia the path of serving the people and the fatherland. The idea of service - the cornerstone of Russia's civil society.
Recall that in the Romanov empire a hundred years ago was the idea of Russian imperial peace, built on the idea of service and personal care of many of the common good. Another question that this is a public good is understood in different ways, but the Left, Chernyshevsky and Lenin, and right, and Purishkevich Leontiev, representatives of the aristocracy and the imperial bureaucracy, did not deny the possibility of the common good and collective salvation. Suppose that in different ways, but they have sought for such a rescue. Romanov empire, beginning with the reign of Nicholas I, all closer to the clearer perception and articulation of their imperial dreams: Moscow - the Third Rome, which stands on the foundations of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Empire - the heir of Byzantium, and through it - great Rome, and Rome is the successor of the legendary Troy. This is the inheritance of traditionalism and mythological times, the inheritance of eternity. This absolute legitimacy of power coming from God and from tradition. In the competition dreams a spent old imperial dream-time winner left, communist, creating a new Russian imperial project - the USSR. Make way, other nations, it is Russia - a bird-troika rushing in a new, communist guise. The communist project was unprecedented challenge to the bourgeois world, a challenge to Red Russia more advanced culturally and technically, the countries of Western Europe and North America. From the standpoint of modern economic theory is completely impossible, but economists not take into account the intangible. They have learned to determine the value of the brand, but have not yet learned to determine the value of collective dreams. The cost of collective dreams higher than the value of brands "Nissan", "BP" and others like them collectively. This add-on them, that defines the history, life and death of national economies, the fate of a nation and people. The collective dreams of creating new states, the great wars and the great historical figures. What happened to Russia's collective dreams today? There are none, or almost none. The era of triumphant consumer distrust, cynicism and apathy. As mentioned in the post-revolutionary Petrograd, "We ordinary people (read consumers. - SG), we put on shoes, you, your partner for your power." We lost the cold war, and we acted like the vanquished. We still are in a position to defeat the external, geopolitical, and the decline of inner, spiritual and cultural. This decline deepens and today, we continue to spend the Soviet legacy in the economy, maintain a minimum social order and moral structure of society through the quality of people brought up in Soviet art, cartoons. Inheritance is good to all, except one - it runs out and disappears. In place of him is a new barbarian, a man brought up on western popular culture is, at best, a virtual Simpson, at worst - the young shoots family of Adams. Without overcoming inner disintegration, not overcome and external, are gradually disappearing, dissolving in the vast expanse of Eurasia. For the physical survival of the vast state, from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka, Russia save the world need a new unifying and mobilizing the collective dream. The new Russian project need a historic scale and a big geopolitical game, the tools of influence on world politics and the "backstage". We need to restore
Russia's imperial world in a new, non-Soviet guise. We desperately need the collective dream of a new imperial project. Today a new time is ripe, opens a window of historic opportunity for Russia, it is time of spiritual and cultural revival of Russia's imperial world. Russia today is a de facto not a nation state, but a truncated version of the Russia / Soviet empire. Building their own national states, even in the spirit konstuktivizma, on the basis of a civil nation, perhaps not on the throughout the country, but rather within the borders of Muscovy. In its current, intermediate form, Russia's state netransformiruemo, it will be so until the end of the drift between the empire and nation state, democracy and authoritarianism. For Russia's national state many peoples of the empire, as "aliens", we need not very much. Such a state can only gradually fall into the geography of the past, to the territory which it occupied during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, perhaps, under Ivan Kalita. But even such a small Russian European state with successful hedonists, consumers will not last long. In the best case he will get a small, on the one-two-decade history of respite, a quiet time until he came and did not ruin a consumer paradise, coupled with a quasi-European, the new barbarians. Today, Russia's state does not need patriots, he needs a successful consumers. But society is not just social but also biosocial organism that is not patriotic people of the sacrificial service to Russia simply can not survive. New Russia's imperial project needs Ukrainians, Belarusians and other peoples of Russia imperial range. This is an old imperial principle - no matter what you blood, it is important as you serve the Empire. Each nation brings to the overall imperial symphony something of his own, giving the synergy of efforts and violent colors of life, everything that nourishes the imperial passionarnost, striving for a common cause and common destiny. In the historical and social cataclysms of the twentieth century, we lost a thousand-year Russia's state, the Russian people of the Russian language and culture, have become divided nation. During the collapse, as has happened many times in our history, should be followed by a reunion. Restoring Russia's unified imperial state is incredibly difficult and painful process, but the big story is always difficult and tragic. Russia empire - the USSR will not go into historical oblivion for years or decades. Like the Roman Empire, it will die and be reborn over the centuries, changing the geographic location of the imperial capitals, nationality, language and the origins of passionarity new uniters. We can clearly see the migration routes imperial capitals, we can only dimly predoschuschat them. Kiev, Moscow, Minsk, Alma-Ata, Constantinople, St. Petersburg ... The list is obviously incomplete, we do not know the specific configuration, all the more distant, but quite likely the future.
Chapter III. Russia between East and West
1. Intercultural communication and national identity
Dialogue of cultures in one form or another there was almost always, its origins go back to the prehistoric past of mankind. There were periods of greater interaction included in history textbooks, for example during the Great Migration of peoples, the territorial expansion of the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the great geographic discoveries, the spread of world religions. It has always been the spread of technological innovations, from the bow and wheels to more effective weapons and tools, the latest military and civilian technologies. Have always been some form of commodity exchange, was trading with neighbors near and far, finally, were fighting against them. Armed conflicts, wars have been the oldest form of intercultural interaction. Through these disparate processes and events, and a dialogue of cultures for many millennia. There have been periods in history and less active dialogue between cultures, but he did not stop almost every time. Territory and were age, are less susceptible to cultural exchange by the will of natural and geographical conditions, or a conscious decision of the rulers, who used elements of the cultural policy of isolationism. From the recent past can recall an example of limiting the spread of information, goods, movement of people, known as "iron curtain" between the countries of the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The Europeans came to the East in the era of colonialism. These largely tragic pages of history contain in itself the violence and killings against the local population by the colonialists and the large-scale national-liberation movement that led to the collapse of the twentieth century the system of colonialism and the formation of colonies on the ground of newly independent states. The West, especially Britain, just broke the East in the era of colonialism, on the bayonets of their soldiers by bringing to the region its own rules of the game, elements of the capitalist economy, management skills, military affairs, education and architecture. West is the second time since the Crusades, only incomparably more ambitiously, discovered the East and the East came to him, opened the West. If you look at the historical processes of colonization of the day today, it is obvious that the most successful in its long-term consequences of the dialogue of cultures was observed, where the European innovations were superimposed on the traditional structures and their interactions gave rise to new cultural forms. For example, in India, the colonial administrative system is built over the existing traditional system, ie Society continued its social structure, the existing system of relations and institutions. British colonial authorities headed by the Governor-General, but the Maharaja and the nabob to keep power in their traditional domains. The colonial British authorities were interested in the use of local people in management and military spheres. India has a vast territory, significantly exceeding for the English, and far more complex social and administrativeterritorial structure. Suffice it to recall that the country consisted of 565 princely
states as Hindu and Muslim. The British faced in India with the problem of control, trying to resolve it with the help of established in the late XIX century, a specialized administrative apparatus - of the Indian Civil has Service ", the majority of officials who were recruited from local residents. In other words, the administrative system of colonial administration, in fact, preparing managerial skills for a new, independent India. That the British influence has accelerated the formation of hindustanskogo ethnic group, which became the prototype of the Indian nation. New and powerful impetus to change the shape of the world, the place of the next meeting of East and West was the Second World War in Asia. Asia for thousands of years, acted as an independent alternative to the West of religious, economic and cultural center since smyslozhiznennye representation and economic and political practices of local people relied on their own, different from the West, religious, economic, socio-cultural traditions. The landing of the U.S. Army in Japan and the Japanese colonial possessions in Southeast Asia, the spread in the region of U.S. military bases, and the subsequent spread of Western technology and the development of foreign trade including Asia in the global system of capitalism. The American military presence in the largely replaced the gradual withdrawal of Great Britain, has kept the Western influence at the end of colonialism and the collapse of colonial empires. Europeans brought the inhabitants of the colonies, all non-Western view of humanity a great world centers of military power and cultural attraction of which are located in the West, in London, Paris, Madrid. The colonial system proved to be a system where colonies exchanged with the metropolis not only material resources but also human beings. West in the era of colonialism came to the East, now comes East to the West, the inhabitants of the colonies emigrate to the former metropolis. The process put the Europeans themselves, engaging in the colonial apparatus and the armed forces of the inhabitants of the colonies, they also Westernized local elites. Centers of cultural attraction and the emigration of these people have become the leading European capitals, especially London. The process of the new "Great Migrations" is gaining momentum, "old Europe" and the U.S. are becoming increasingly multi-ethnic. Typically, one starts to think about who he is, the rules and regulations defined by its culture, when meeting with people brought up in another, especially nekomplementarnoy culture, perceived as "alien". There may be many individual behavioral responses, located in the range from complete rejection, which happens frequently, until the adoption, internalization of other socio-cultural norms, the choice of a new cultural identity. As we know, there are certain conditions for modification of the old and the formation of a new cultural identity. When the will of historical processes, or on their own people immersed in inokulturnuyu Wednesday, before it raises the question of its own identity, about who "we" and who "they". The situation of people brought up, or, as now, they say, past the process of socialization and
inculturation in the same cultural reality, and for life was a reality, often experienced as a personal drama. Thus, a person gets into a zone of cultural, linguistic bifurcation created by the conflict earlier life experiences, including language, assimilated the norms and values its cultural environment, and the new socio-cultural environment. There is a problem of choosing its own cultural identity, a man forced to self-determine, to try to answer the question - who am I? Bifurcation zone - a zone smyslozhiznennyh search, behavioral experiments, choice, opportunity to try and make mistakes. In any case, it is an area of greater freedom, going beyond the limits of ordered life, given by the automatism of Behavioral Development, in accordance with the assimilation of norms and values of the cultural environment, this person at birth. We know that the search for a new cultural identity in a voluntary or involuntary immersion in the new environment and the phenomenon of long and well studied. The processes of acculturation have long been studied by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists as among the refugees and internally displaced persons and voluntary workers. We emphasize once again that the West is becoming increasingly multiethnic, its culture more adequately described in terms of multiculturalism. We know that the simplest, most ancient, sotsiobilogicheskoy reaction to "outsiders", ie people of other cultures, is a reaction of rejection. It is no accident today's density of information, trade flows, the intensity of movement of people, both within the emigration and tourism industry is not only positive reactions to ethnic Europeans. Answer globalism is a renaissance of nationalism. As an example, recall the electoral success of Le Pen's National Front in France. But it is rather rearguard battles stretching from the historical stage of European civilization. Demographic predictions of mid-century, show the inevitability of the dissolution of the "old" Europeans in the ocean of non-Western humanity. According to forecasts, the potential population growth for individual regions and in the whole world, its population expected to reach historic highs by the end of XX century, to be followed by a long historical process of depopulation of mankind. Population growth during this period will be achieved by developing countries, with their lower level of per capita income, education, health care, women's inequality, ie, the developing countries for some time will continue to pursue their socio-cultural traditions. In the northern regions of the Earth is already prevalent in the course of this century finally be established in a completely different model of human reproduction, suggesting the nuclear family with one child that does not provide a simple quantitative reproduction of the population. In the coming XXI century non-Western societies have a huge demographic potential, introducing a lot of people possessed by the material temptations perceptived dostizhitelnuyu modernist motivated, dynamic, but for the most part for quite objective reasons, who can not get what is perceived internally as needed for a decent, modernist life, the success of the personal life of the project. Variance of demographic potentials threatening conflict along the North-South, and in the
longer historical perspective becomes a very real threat of dissolution of the western, modernist Faustian mankind in the ocean more than an inert non-Western majority. The processes of globalization contribute to the creation of original support groups, converts the West who heard not only of its institutional environment, but also of values, the organization of everyday life, patterns of behavior. This is the most westernized part of the non-Western world is chance to save Western civilization, cultural continuity with change in the ethnic, racial relations between different parts of humanity. Here it is appropriate to a historical analogy between ancient Greece and Rome, when the process of cultural expansion has led to the perception of the Greek cultural tradition as a common tradition of antiquity. Something similar is at a new stage of historical development may well happen in respect of modernist Western socio-cultural traditions and this, in all probability, is the historic mission of globalization. But the demographic processes are merely a consequence, the cause of fatigue in the West, the loss of vital forces, accumulated during Antiquity and Middle Ages. People of the West for a long time then burned the accumulated energy of life, subordinating its rational, they forgot the old gods of antiquity and, ultimately, themselves "killed" a new God. This murder is known as a process of secularization of Western society and culture, has taken several centuries, it was attended by many, including Voltaire, encyclopedic, schools of philosophy, western science itself, to abandon the concept of God's presence in the world as unnecessary. Toward the end of XIX century, Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the death of the Christian God, and Spengler stated "The Decline of Europe". Now Europeans are dying themselves. They die not from disease but from the loss of life meaning, and money, and arbitrarily high level of material comfort themselves in this sense can not be. People in the West looking for a new meaning in life, something for which you can catch on what you can save yourself, save your life, give it meaning. We are seeing increasing interest in non-Western religions, reflected in its highest expression in the annual adoption of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, tens of thousands of ethnic Europeans. It is human nature to identify with something more stable, long-lasting and fundamental than a finite human life, it is inherent desire for solidarity, group identity. The quest for cultural identity transvremennoy until early modern times in Europe, expressed in religious feelings, in a sense, giving the illusion of personal immortality. In Europe, modern times occurred a radical change of attitude towards the human person. Sotsiogenez this process was due to the transformations that took place in the later Middle Ages, when society emerged innovative processes that go beyond the resulting socio-cultural tradition. Medieval Society in Europe restrict the opportunity for individual choice, the person feels himself a member of a particular social group, a parishioner of the church of the parish, performed a gender role, and the process samootozhestvleniya with a specific collective identity was fairly linear, predzadan, askriptiven.
In the process of building a society Modernity gradually got to legitimize the identity of the new type. Individuality, independence of the individual against the collective (community), have a theoretical basis, to update in the moral, aesthetic and philosophical concepts. Status of human social predzadannost loses, the person appears to be integrated into various social strata, subculture, that is, there is the possibility of personal, individual biographies. The unprecedented in the earlier sections of the historical dynamics of the freedom of personal self-realization, samotvoreniya led to greater freedom of self-identification, which also lost askriptivny status. Paul Sartre said that in the modern era is not enough to be born bourgeois, to live life like a bourgeois, that was done the unthinkable in the Middle Ages. Modernity replaces predetermination social situation forced and compulsory selfdetermination. The socio-cultural tradition begins in the least affect on the process of stereotyping is going through the experience, the acceleration of dynamic processes is accompanied by a stream of innovations. Man lives in the New Age community at risk. For the first time in human history, identity refers to the possibility of rational choice of the various possibilities open to her actions. Since the beginning of the New Age religious collective identity has weakened, the role of substitution of the divine discourse in many ways begins to play the national identity. Man tries to modernism in the personal history to resolve the tragic conflict between the potency of the individual mind and the finite physical existence. As a stopgap measure to solve this problem completely different approach transvremennye essence, more or less resistant to the passage of time in comparison with the individual duration of human life. The man began to identify with the nation as transvremennoy essence, which is partly to satisfy the craving for immortality, the process of "desecration" of the world, replacing the religious sentiment of the national. In the later period began the process of self-identification of a person with different ideologies. Typical for the intensity of modern socio-cultural dynamics leads to a reduction of ontological stability. Today, in the period of late modernity, the dynamic of globalization processes, speed of dynamic processes in many ways closer to the threshold of the adaptation possibilities of man, when nothing is permanent, when the risk becomes systemic, the sequence is violated, the unity of the living world. National, ideological (party) identity is gradually supplemented and replaced by new forms, its replacement has a major influence processes limits the completeness of geopolitical, economic and cultural sovereignty of the nation state. New forms of identity is largely shaped by transnational (global) popular culture. Identity beyond national borders, the desire for personal immortality is expressed in heterogeneous forms of solidarity. As noted by F. Girenok: "In accordance with the laws of individualization everyone wants to get their portion of subjectivity (national, linguistic, etc.). Everyone wants to now have its own memory, but not universal, their sanity, and not a machine, your imagination, but not that produced in the bowels of faceless editors and think tanks conscious machines. But how to find (and understand) something of their own, if it breaks all
the time something strange ... separated from human subjectivity, and clung to the car, which produces images. Subjectivity has become too serial. Self-identification is "modular", finds the illusion of communion and the choice of the many forms of consumer transvremennym generality, let's say, Coca-Cola as a drink and a brand existed before us and are unlikely to have run out. Today, forms of social prestige, the reference model of behavior, norms and values are modeled and are broadcast within the emerging global information and cultural space. Now it is possible to identify with transcultural manifestations of social solidarity. Today, vertically integrated, institutionalized forms of social supplemented and replaced its web-based forms. A man of late modernity can identify themselves with transnational movements, subcultures, groups of consumers defined marks (brands) of goods and services, and alleged that the reference is reproduced as such by the media, especially in their electronic form. The trend towards diversification, the greater the variability of personal samootozhestvleniya not linear, since the observed effects directly opposite tendency, namely, the flattening of the personality and culture under the influence of the growing technologizing and standardization practices of everyday existence. Even if the search for a new identity can not be expressed in a consciously religious quest, looking for a European ideological smyslozhiznennoy alternative to Western, Protestant culture is inherently self-restraint, rationality, labor as the highest value of life. Hence increasingly keen interest in non-Western forms of culture, including ethnic music and fashion, eastern Narcotic Drugs. Today, part of ethnic Europeans are trying to choose a new identity without changing the environment of everyday living, out of processes associated with emigration, the physical movement of people across the planet. These people are still in the minority, but they make history on the practice of his life carrying out a pilot project osternizatsii West. As we have seen, the East comes to the West, not only through human migration and, consequently, culture and religion, but also by a gradual "ovostochivaniya" the Europeans, more intensive search of a new cultural identity.
2. European integration and solution of problems of displaced cultural values
Today, there are major changes in various spheres of human life, formed a single economic, political, informational space, the processes of integration apply to the sociocultural sphere of European states. Witnessed major transformation in the institutional organization of Europe when the European Union and the North Atlantic alliance extended its influence in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, the next wave of expansion of these international organizations to capture and a number of states formed from the former Soviet Union. In the field of European Specialties, we are dealing with a reformulation results of the Second World War, with the geopolitical changes that are on a scale comparable to that determined the development of the continent after the World
Wars. Me spiritually borders of Europe, which have always been mobile, but have never been distributed so far to the east. Reinterpretation outcome of the Second World War, the inclusion of Russia in a serious dialogue with the united Europe can in the new context to address the issue of restitution of cultural property. Nazi Germany, more than half a century ago, has drawn the world into World War II, is widely practiced by the capture and export to the territory of the Third Reich's cultural property situated in the occupied territories of European countries. Material, demographic, cultural damage caused by Germany to Europeans, especially the peoples of the USSR, is enormous. In an effort to partially compensate for the losses inflicted by the war, the country's leadership decided to roll out the economic and cultural values in the territory of Germany and the satellite countries, in the USSR. This policy was an attempt to restore the impaired balance of mutual damage, the response of Germany on the same political language, action, based on the old as the hills, the principle: "An eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Politics government expropriations on both sides accompanied by a disorganized mass removal of assets, which included and cultural values. Solving the problem of restitution, the return of cultural property to pre-war owners for a long time weighed down with the legacy of the past, the division of Europe into military-political blocs, the lack of political, human and cultural understanding. In this sense, the situation is changing drastically, Germany is the economic and political "locomotive" of the Single European state with which we can and must negotiate, to look at innovative, compromise solutions to old problems. The modern interpretation of the problem of restitution suggests a certain asymmetry, the possibility of its solution in the context of German investments in Russia, the cancellation of the old Soviet debt, the prospects for integration of Russia in a united Europe. The problem of restitution of cultural property is divided into an infinite number of separate episodes, the specific facts, a complex web of property, political and legal problems. The issue of restitution may be generally palliative (partial) solution, we can not solve it completely, just as we can not completely restore, to recreate the original appearance of the destroyed aircraft of European cities, medieval castles, cathedrals and universities. In different historical era restitution issues are perceived by us in a different context. An attempt to resolve them is a unique search for a balance of history and modernity, historical justice and political calculation, rationality and a sense of burning human tragedy, grief and historical injustices. Unable to solve the problem of restitution in general, lend themselves to addressing only its individual, private matters. The most important aspect of the restitution of cultural property is a need to respect the national interests of Russia, implying, in particular, the establishment of expert groups, involvement of professionals, transparent, open discussion of each restorative project. Moving cultural values are part of intercultural interaction, which often happened in history during the war, bore the character of aggression. Booty, booty, the oldest form of acquaintance with a foreign culture. These archaic mechanisms were first used in such a large scale during the Second World War. In Nazi
Germany, the looting of cultural property in occupied territories and their concentration in the territory of the Reich, was a material form of confirmation of claims to world domination. For the peoples of the USSR, the confiscation of the artifacts of culture, followed by removal of its territory was a form of familiarity with European culture, breaking the iron curtain, aestheticization of everyday life. Brought out of the picture, dining sets, furniture, housewares, books filled the void (simplicity) of proletarian life, at least partially sufficient to satisfy the craving for "petty bourgeois" well-being, filling the vacuum of property, the objective world, makes it more durable, solid, "bourgeois". At the level of mass consciousness is perceived as a small price to pay grief and suffering that people experienced in Russia. Today, we can greatly alleviate the problem of restitution to open the captured funds, carried out jointly with the European Union, UNESCO and other international organizations, charitable foundations, projects to preserve, systematization of displaced cultural values, their inclusion in the research, museum, exhibition turnover. And the brunt of financial participation in such projects could take over a united Europe, because it is the preservation of European cultural heritage. In practical terms, may create permanent exhibitions, including in Germany, while retaining legal ownership of their exhibits for the Russians. Perhaps a "dissolution" of the problem of restitution in the programs of intercultural contacts, which include the inclusion of displaced cultural values in the common European cultural revolution. Subject to good management, the scope of restitution may be another cultural bridge to Europe, but in the utilitarian sense, a source of new museum of technology, joint ownership of museum collections, the extraction of revenues which may not always involve the legal transfer of property rights. Today, the pain dulled the Second World War, Germany was no longer perceived by us as thirty - forty - fifty years ago. The problem of restitution is changing from the emotional to the rational plane, the area calculation, the compromises of political bargaining, purified from the feeling of revenge, getting some raid cynicism. It is part of a wider range of issues of historical memory, forgiveness, guilt, reconciliation of the peoples of Russia and Germany.
Afterword. Civil society and power: from confrontation to dialogue
Recently there has developed a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, there is a significant economic growth, Russia's companies are becoming major players in the international market, increasing the capitalization of Russia, growing incomes of Russians. On the other - "trimmed" publicly available information space, especially the federal TV channels, builds up a system of "managed democracy". Power and society communicate less and stop to hear each other.
Their "dialogue" is increasingly reduced to scuffle "Marches of Dissent" and riot police. This is bad for everyone, and for the democratic prospects of Russia in the first place. It is necessary to stop the confrontation. Today, power in Russia rather than be guided by ideals, but interests. When it comes to managing hundreds of billions and eventually trillions of dollars, none of the stakeholders in this pragmatic process would not infringe. The main thing for the political elite, including those from law enforcement agencies, rather than planting in the country's ideals, "Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality" as the capacity of its own economic potential and capacity of major Russian state-owned companies. This in a sense, pragmatic government. She needs to supply to the West and East oil and gas, she had to earn real money. That is what limits it to "self", she can afford a lot, but not all. It may, for example, "sterilize" publicly available information space and point "skive" his political opponents, but can not go on a serious, binding of concerted action, the alliance with Iran or China. The reason for these restrictions in the ratio of profits and losses in the value of the possible costs. And democracy today limit, sets up its "managed", the simulation option in many ways to maximize profits, maximize the capitalization of Russian state-owned companies. Today, at "low start" of society and economy, with all possible reservations and costs, including the moral order, it turns out. Tomorrow, when the structure of the ownership change, and it as strategic investors, will include major western companies, and GDP per capita will pass the magic number of five thousand dollars, the situation will change. Then, for the same purpose of maximizing profits can be claimed is not an operetta, but a real democracy, as an instrument at a certain stage of development of economy and society, contributing to further economic growth, increase the capitalization of Russia, and the population will not be pressing economic incentives to change the power in the left or right extremists. Does such a policy of power with democracy? Islamic democracy and Soviet possible and compatible, but not with classical Western-style democracy. Nevertheless, today we live in a historic transition between the authoritarian Soviet regime and the modern society of western type. Authorities can speed up or slow down this process, but to stop it, she can not. Taking into account the peculiarities of our history, to use now in a transition option is not very optimistic, but certainly not terrible. Limitations of democracy affect not only and not just liberals, many leftwing forces, the heirs of the Soviet Union. Through the efforts the current government is a sequential process decommunization Russia. And, naturally, and artificially truncated electoral base of the Communist Party (Fair Russia), removed the communist symbols in the army. Leftists of all stripes are squeezed into marginal plane. The danger of a Communist comeback eliminated completely, and yet in 1996 Zyuganov was very close to victory in the presidential elections in Russia. I think that comes from the Left is the most serious threat to the present and future of the country, and allow them to power is undesirable, at least at the federal
level. This unwillingness to share political and economic power to those who are on the extreme left and right flanks, and explains the use of administrative resources and manipulative political technologies. Naturally, the most essential part of this reluctance to share power is the desire to preserve the completeness of administrative rent control over cash flows in Russia's economy. That is the interest of keeping the power has a private component. The situation was seemingly paradoxical and internally ambivalent situation. Of the particular interests of political stability grows, exhibited rigid protective power in relation to potential competitors, including the left and right radicals. The latter fact makes this meaningful policies aimed at preventing a power transition from Soviet authoritarianism to democracy, left and right radicals, prevent a new Russian revolution. Only when Russia's society will become part of the "golden billion" when the country will build a society of consumption, when the average Rossiyanin be rich, while Common, leftist and ultranationalist forces cease to be dangerous for the country. And while they are deadly. But ironically, today the Left forces again in high esteem by the intelligentsia of Russia. Limonov is involved in the "March of Dissent", as indeed, Comrade Udaltsov, leader of the Red Youth Vanguard. I wonder how you can fight together for democracy and the heirs of Lenin and Stalin, why not fight against the "terrible power" and a "triumph of democracy" with the heirs of Hitler, Malyuta Skuratov, John of Kronstadt, and other well-known in the history of "defenders of democracy." Maybe someone from the Russian politicians of "liberal" camps like to unite with the Red Youth Vanguard and limonovtsami, even combined, it is their choice. Destroy - not to build in street riots, and even more so in the "revolution" is a heavy dose of romance and adrenaline. But behind the romance of revolution has to pay too much, not only the direct participants, but contemporaries events. Revolutions are destructive in its results, and Russia is fully exhausted its revolutionary limit. This does not mean that the people on the extreme flanks of Russia's policy not to talk. But like death uchuvstvovat with them in a broad political coalition, whose ultimate goal is to obtain state power. Deliver us all God and history on the success of such a "revolutionary" company. There are too many outsiders, yet earn too few able-bodied citizens of Russia - workers, peasants and intellectuals. So what political forces to "pick up" power under such a scenario - God knows. One can only assume that these people will be neither democracy nor the more liberal. At best for the country if they prove to be liberal Democrats. All other options are worse. Truly free elections in a country with a predominance of economically depressed population carry the risk of coming to power of the destroyers populists and radicals. It is possible to hold free elections with equal access various, including radical political forces, the federal TV channels today, but then we can think about introducing some kind of legislative "anti-extremist" insurance, remembering, for example, elections in the third and fourth State Duma. As we
know from history, in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century such antiekstrimistskoy property insurance was a serious electoral qualification. I'm not worried about free choice, relatively speaking, "the inhabitants of Rublyovka, possessing, as a rule, serious property and good education. They can scale to listen to any television appeals and reproof Udaltsova Limonov and without any risk to their political choice, mainly determined by their economic interests. They are, by definition, can make "a lot of wisdom and sadness", that knowledge about the political and economic life. This knowledge of the vast array of negative information about living in the country is not particularly affect their choices as voters, the maximum force further diversify their financial investments and life plans. But what worries me is how right-wing forces, namely, with all possible reservations, right-wing forces are now in power, can win elections, to get a parliamentary majority, if their policies are not consistent with current economic interests of the majority of the population of Russia. United Russia is not only the party in power, but right-wing party, slightly more diluted populism ATP. Making people vote against their interior, the Left, by definition, political and economic interests is extremely difficult, and the victory of right-wing party in power is to say, under such conditions may be largely a victory of administrative resources in a compartment with a modern spin-doctoring. What is the situation in Russia is similar to the situation in the Islamic countries, where attempts to hold relatively free elections led to the threat of Islamist victory. And with this threat the secular elite of Muslim countries such as Turkey, are dealt with differently, as those who can. How to solve the problem of its Islamist Turkish army, we are well aware not only of history. Turkish military has to use more traditional, more stringent methods of social control, because the power is too strong religious tradition, too, by the standards of Western countries, poor Turkish peasants. In Russia's power position in something similar, in something different. The situation in Russia easier, but still too poor by the standards of developed economies and democracies of the Russian peasants, workers, and to budget, they still can not be full players in the consumer society. They still need information and anesthetic protection from the horrors surrounding his real life, look at the world through "rose-colored glasses" of the first and second federal TV channels. The real world in which these people live, not very friendly to him, economic growth in the country until geographically localized in the large cities, primarily in metropolitan areas of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Mass of Russians should be given not only the physical possibility of living to a better future, but also help to not break psychologically, to await the distribution of economic growth in breadth and depth. From the history of Russia and other countries, we know that the impossibility of fulfilling their potential in the field of the Earth, pushes the material life of man to escape from reality, as the scope of deviant practices, and the scope supermaterial, initiation to the world of ideas, less secular, more religious. And he and other "out" is destructive to man and society. Destructive
behavior as deviant practices such such as alcoholism and drug addiction, and an appeal to the "spiritual opium" of secular and religious ideologies. In this context, it becomes clear broadcasting policy of the federal TV channels, which, according to expert estimates, soothes, entertains and "deceiving" the mass audience. We see a conscious attempt to replace undesirable forms of deviant behavior and social unsuccessful citizens of Russia the virtual world of mass culture. This is a form of "drug anesthesia" socially unsuccessful walks of life, minimize their protest potential obstacle to the realization of actual social conditions of its own existence. Every evening the federal TV channels make them vaccinated against regular participation in the Russian Revolution, minimizing the possibility of such a revolution. The mission is to prevent a potential revolution in strategic perspective, does not very nice power if not more enjoyable, then at least more understandable. In this "counter-revolutionary" context can be understood and enhanced television anesthesia part of Russia's society. Let the best man in the street is narrow-minded consumer, as an ardent revolutionary. If the average person "wakes up", slezet with "needles" virtual reality television, it will not find it to anyone. Terrible "Russian revolt, senseless and merciless". Philistine, who became at once a revolutionary, remember everything. He remembers the authorities and socially successful fellow citizens, the collapse of the great powers - the USSR, the value of property in the stratification of society, their own unenviable economic situation, the absence of the great national idea, the destruction of traditionalist attitudes in society. Because we all need to be more cautious in his speeches and actions, to stop to throw stones at "glass" house under the name of Russia. In his political actions and the public and the authorities should take into account the fundamental instability of the current structure of Russia's statehood today. The fundamental cause of this instability was minimal political participation of citizens in political life, even those who supported and defended the new government during the greater part of the post-Soviet period. How it not at first sight paradoxical, the internal instability of modern Russia's statehood is due almost exclusive reliance on government bureaucrats, including the security forces, not saving in a critical situation. In this regard, recall the least experience of the collapse of the USSR. Not be so hard for Russia to repeat traditional errors. The power itself is designed to weaken Russia's statehood, localized and demoralized virtually all segments of civil society that could support her in a difficult moment. Now her only hope for the officials and people in uniform. Russia state has become too fragile, and this wine and the sin of power. This situation demands that the society does not make sudden movements, attempting to break what might be broken. From history we know that the destruction of statehood detrimental to man and society. Therefore, we must not destroy, but to build. Do not clench tight and destructive confrontation, but to support the possible forms of cooperation, even those ambivalent and simulation as the Public Chamber. Thus, it can affect not only words but also in the affairs of government. We must try to stop the
confrontation of liberal society and government, to learn to listen not only themselves but also other, to move from monologue to dialogue with each other. Back from the confrontation and constructive dialogue - terribly difficult task, impossible for non-participation of one party, but the dialogue between them is the only way to remove the emerging civil strife, to become an effective mechanism to strengthen both civil society and the state of Russia.
Applications. Dialogues with actors Russia's science and policy
Dialogue with Alexander Itshokinym
The author, unlike Besfamilnov and somehow pejorative-sounding "Alika," which refuses to recognize a "fifth column" in the moral aggression against Russia and the West defending against the charges of groveling before him indistinct muttering about the need to "clean toilets", the participation and complicity in this virtual column of fully recognizes. Yes, dear Alexander Abramovich, not all, unfortunately, calm and well in our country. Yes, for three or even four hundred years, as bred in him the damned "nizkopoklontsy, and righteousness, and having quite a sacral support of supreme power does not weed out" the beds "Russia's society and culture, when prorezhivaya, and when the roots plaguing this to foreign (European) wind is listed weed, and he - right here. This resistance to authority, the ability to capture more and more segments of the socio-cultural sphere, including at times the very scope of power, says a lot. First of all, that in Russia, as in other modernizing countries have formed their westernized elite, and this is usually the most young, dynamic, educated and successful part of society. During these centuries the history of Russia's government repeatedly attempted to restrict or even physically destroy these latterday Europeans and the expression of OE M. "evropeyanok tender. As an example of the latter begs the example of Lenin, and later more classical Stalinist inquisition in society and culture, when the West began with carriers in all spheres of life, and in the culture at large, trying to get physically in order to solve the problem of westernization of Russia once and for all . No Westernising intellectuals - no problem. However, even fans of Russia's socio-cultural tradition, authority, too, did not complain. Action built on the same lines - no clergy, the peasantry, the nobility, almost no middle class Russian cities - no problem. But to the surprise and dismay of the authorities and parts of society, strive to pick up another part, zapadnizma infection persists. "Imprisoned in Stalin's little not to end, not until the seventh generation, and not every second, here ...", "Stalin's good for you", "Under Stalin, was the order, the prices twice a year, reduced" ... Such a simple question from the lips of the Soviet man could be heard until then, while they were alive generation members of this great historical drama, but you can hear today, with a
certain degree of nostalgia about the former imperial power and greatness of the Soviet Union. Do everything to play on and got a new representation and rehearsal bismarkovsy slogan - "guns instead of butter. The old slogans about the main thing in the interpretation of the leaders / ideologues kvazivostochnoy this despotism, which is fast becoming the Bolsheviks in Russia / USSR - "The greatness and power of his native state - above all", "formerly thought of home, and then about myself, and like them have become immanent for many Soviet citizens, in their primary socialization and inculturation in the 30-40-ies of XX century. Yes, we are forced to admit that Westerner Western civilization rather than something concrete, institutionalized, but rather the embodiment of tribute, that is, a place where achieved due to the Westerner situation, almost the embodiment of earthly paradise. But the most violent / hard state to fall, which according to A. Itshokinu, and one can make rashristanny anarchistic and the people of Russia closer to Western lifestyle, not only in consumption but also in work, take much less to maintain, as some do not want . Do not want to support any new Lenin (Ampilova, Tulkin, etc.), nor the new Stalin, and even a more lightweight version of the spirit is numerous discussion and encourage Russia's Pinochet. As important for A. Itshokina about human motivation to work in the East and West, we note the following. We believe that forced labor should only be economic. Shoot anyone unnecessarily, there is an old, reliable "bony hand of hunger", and the power is needed only to the extent to which it can carry out police functions. A. Itshokin on the basis of the last ten or fifteen years quite controversial reforms were accompanied, however, a drastic reduction in the role of the state, concludes that the Russian people can not be made to work well, while respecting all the requirements of technology without a severe compulsion, almost under the threat of immediate execution. Forced to work for little or nothing do not pay state or low paying it large or small entrepreneur Russia's rights really impossible. Four extra-economic compulsion to work in Russia irretrievably gone. Do not make it work, but are interested in working, turn the rashristannogo "Russia's rights in the success of the consumer, burdened with loans and dreaming of buying a new home and replace cash machines on the more expensive and prestigious foreign car. Then kogotok stuck and the whole bird abyss. Successful consumer, accustomed to the high cost of living, burdened with debts on credits striving materially better off tomorrow than yesterday, will cherish well-paid jobs, and calm enough to work according to Western standards. This assertion confirms the empirical experience of expressed above years of liberal reforms in Russia, the experience of hundreds and thousands of successful firms, where labor productivity is close to the accepted, for example, in the West of Europe. "Rashristan, drunk and less trepidation in relation to their own health Russian (Russia), people from our history, the traditional socio-cultural practices applied in relation to him is quite sacred power of historical frustration. Put in the country big Western companies, as it did in the 90 years of the last century Eastern Europe, the company that will pay for a decent wage standards on Russia - appear
(already appeared), and in our human motivation to work. Give him a few thousand dollars per capita income per month - and you get the ideal consumer and rapid economic growth. It should, however, recognize that not all the population of the country for various reasons, claimed Russia's part of a global (transnational) economic, not every individual will on its inherent characteristics it integrate. This completion of the process of natural selection, mostly committed in the years of Soviet rule, the final adjustment of man to Russia's economy, passing from industrialism to postindustrialism. Draconian measures of non-economic compulsion to work, which were widely circulated in the first thirty or forty years of the Soviet state, and in less pronounced form in the form of articles for the parasitism in the Soviet penal code, sending the parasites in prison and on the hundred and first mile - all this is now unnecessary . In other words, modernization in the Soviet period the main work of reformation of a natural person dogusudarstvennogo Russia completed, and the path of adapting it to the needs of the industrial economy performed. It is in the twenties, thirties and forties of the last century, choking on his own sweat and blood, our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers went to the mountain of industrial transformation, now we have passed this pass. Now down the hill, is now easier, we already know how to play their old (industrial) rules, is now easier to learn new (post-industrial). Moreover, no one today does not shoot for their unwillingness to work, but is a spontaneous process of segregation of Russians more and less adaptive. Learn a foreign language, especially English, the leading computer programs, know how to use the internet, got a good, preferably natural sciences basic education, full of vital energy - your chances in life to the horizontal and vertical mobility within the country and abroad is rapidly increasing. If all this is not, then the court is not, as there is in modern Russia de facto and probably will not be in the foreseeable future, the welfare state. There is a permanent process of segregation of Russians on the relatively wealthy, educated, healthy and young with one hand and the relatively poor, the sick and the less educated and young - with the other. In modern Russia's society, we have seen yesterday and today witnessed the domination of social Darwinism, but the time since the late 80's to late 90-ies of XX century, soon possessed not by observation and reflection, Samoyed, but to work. A. Itshokin working model dichotomic world, East and West. But Russia this is not east, and what works in the east - is working in our country is not as effective, if work at all. In addition, the mobilization mechanisms of non-economic compulsion to work, the ideological justification of its necessity, today it is broken, slave labor was much less effective labor-free, aimed at personal development and achieve ever-higher standards of living, worker. Yes, Russia is not the West, individualistic life strategies have not been properly spread, although this process is, and from our point of view, it can not be stopped. Long live like you, Alexander Abramovich has deigned to speak, "the revolution of fat" and wants to represent the fat on the throne, and weedy people in the crowd of revolutionary. But here, alas, the fashion for fat people held at the end of the Middle Ages, when the whole of Europe, at least at its western end, food
was worth, but today, in an era of "Auchan, Metro and food networks, many of whom not limited to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but also penetrated into the province - food for a person working in private company - not the value, then what to talk about its owner. So, fat men, people "fat" all the same metaphor, but the level and quality of consumed goods and services at the top and bottom of the social ladder to legitimate differences, social inequality reaches ordinal values. Today around the world suffer from obesity more representatives of the lowerincome groups, eating cheap food, fast food, visitors to McDonald's and restaurants are not "high" cuisine. But does social polarization in so your favorite Oriental despotisms, was less? Less than it is in developed countries in Europe, but not in third world countries. And the gap has formed far from the absence or presence of certain moral constraints, the case quickly in another. Case the low level of Westernization, with an increase of this level position with the income of the richest and poorest somewhat equalized. To do this, simply have to pass, that is sold over and over Russia's most significant property of Western multinational corporations as proper and made the political elites in Eastern Europe, and in some extent, Kazakhstan. As the experience of Eastern European countries that have undertaken the path of the mass transfer of national ownership by multinational corporations, it has brought them much-needed volume and quality of investment, higher than the autochthonous, culture, production, taxes, and, as a rule, higher wages. In addition, since the transfer of ownership in the hands of foreign companies virtually eliminates the existence of domestic oligarchs, both social and proprietary polarization within the nation is not as great as, for example, in Contemporary Russia, and, hopefully, in yesterday but not today's Ukraine. In modern Russia, is changing the very paradigm of socialization and inculturation "man of the masses", introduction to the high culture through a gourmet restaurant, and a culture of media - through the glossy magazines, advertising, shopping, television and theater musicals. So, most of Westernization, the more western and joint ventures, higher wages, as a natural way to form an absolute majority "Flathead and zombie" by definition A. Itshokina consumers. From our point of view - in the consumer power, they embody in their practical life the expansion of Western civilization, modern, "zapadnizma" in general. That mass of well-fed, but the dynamic of consumers eventually will refuse to follow the national socio-cultural traditions, will beat out from under the feet of all ground in the remaining out of work in different spheres of social theory and practice, not only repressed in the marginal area in the field of ideology, but who can not consume in comparable physical and value in national, civilizational, religious custodians and patriots. Naturally, the latter circumstance hurt the most, and that it serves as a material, in the spirit of Marxism, the reason that in many ways and gives rise to the observed intensity of nationalism, religious intolerance in various parts of the non-Western world, including in Russia.
Dialogue with Moses Kagan
The fate of Moses Samoilovych Kagan organically, but surprisingly intertwined with the life of St. Petersburg. In 1924, when three-Moses moved with his parents from Kiev in the former capital of imperial Russia, the city was renamed at the beginning of the First World in Petrograd became Leningrad, and the new, post-Soviet Russia was again renamed St. Petersburg. Three renaming during the life of one man, one generation, breaks the chain of socio-cultural continuity, but also its preservation in the architectural monuments, Neve, wet Baltic west wind ... The whole life of Moses Samoilovych place in this wonderful scenery having a very special atmosphere of the European city of Russia. Thus, from the author's reflection on the changing times and perpetuating the spiritual aura of the city are born of his book "Grad Petrov in the history of Russian culture" and "History of St. Petersburg from the foundation to our days." When reading his confessional book reminded of the poem The Trout Breaks the Ice ", written in 1920 by another famous and talented Russian writer Peterburg - Mikhail Alekseevich Kuzmin. Then a new, Soviet Russia was just beginning, she was a "blood-washed" but not petrified in concrete and bronze Stalinist version of Marxism-Leninism, where everything new in science broke through with great difficulty, and its appearance was associated not only with risk for career but also to preserve the life of the creator. Moses Samoilovich Kagan - a man of inner freedom: he had not simply be a contemporary of the Soviet era, but his life, his scientific works to expand boundaries if possible freedom, defending it against the Stalinist and post-Stalin cultural inquisition. He is one of those who were able podtopit first, and then break the ice pseudoscientific dogmatism, ideological dogmatism, freed from the stifling effects of science and the country as a whole. The foregoing does not mean that MS Kagan in the Soviet period of his life was "an ardent revolutionist: he and his peers belong to a generation that has received a start in life in the wake of the Revolution, a generation that accepts the humanistic values that directly and indirectly present in the Soviet ideology. We are mindful of the fact that MS Kagan belongs to a generation, the male half of which is almost entirely destroyed in the Great Patriotic War. He was party to the fighting near Leningrad, when they, the students philology department of the University was thrown into battle with the advancing German troops almost without weapons. So the battle turned into a slaughterhouse, Moses Samoilovich was seriously wounded, the months spent in hospitals. Since then, after more than sixty years, but he was party to those events and remember their dead friends, the reader's heart is aching from their heroism, and the general absurdity of the situation where the lack of organization and logistics of the front and rear, swam a massive sacrificial heroism of bare-handed people. Then there was the writing of literary study of "Eugene Onegin", the years of study in graduate school, working at Leningrad University. After Stalin's death in 1953, the country is gradually coming to life after the horror of repression, Khrushchev's "thaw" was accompanied by expansion of the external space of
freedom, including in the sphere of science. Results of scientific debate gradually losing the inevitability of a conviction for its less dogmatic members. But this relative freedom does not come by itself, everything new had to defend hard, being subjected to severe pressure and obstruction by self-serving dogmatists. Separately be said that MS Kagan was a contemporary of deployed IV Stalin's ideological campaign against "cosmopolitanism and groveling before inostranschinoy, marked the beginning of persecution and restrictions on the rights of the Jewish population of the USSR on the basis of nationality - of the criminal practices, which in a somewhat weakened form existed in the country before the end of 1980. The campaign has implied not only tighten and lead to an absurd ideological control of the NKVD, CCBP (b) of Soviet society, but also physical reprisals against the part of Party and administrative staff, physicians, scientists, educators, as consisting did not take place in the ranks Communist Party, when they beat not only on "their", ie party, but finished off the remains of Russia and received her spirit of the Soviet intelligentsia. MS Kagan have experienced difficulty and tragedy, "deterioration" of time. Saved the work, the ability to teach, to speak at conferences, write books and articles. Before us is a book summarizing the preliminary results, open-hearted stories about 'time and about himself, about bright, brave and talented people with whom fate brought the author over many decades of his life, starting with the prewar period. Naturally, in this not so the bulk material, we can not give here a complete list of personalities that are more or less represented in this book, but still try to list the names of those scholars, writers, teachers, friends and colleagues of the author, who devoted selected essays of the book. This Vera Poluboyarinova (Morozov), Jeremiah Isaevich Joffe, Eliazar Krever, Ludo Gudiashvili, Joseph A. Silver, Dneprov Vladimir (Vladimir Davidovich Resnick), Ilya (Cuzco Shmekker), George V. Stepanov, P. David Pritzker, Yakov Smolensky (Lieberman ), Fyodor Abramov, Alexander Iliad, Lev Naumovich Kogan, Nicholas Mr. Volsky Chavchavadze, John Erhard, Heinz Plavius, Uli Kuhirt Kurt Magrits, Efim Etkind G., Zinovy Ya Korogodsky. But reading the book before our eyes there is not so much the image memoirist who has everything in the past, but also the image of our contemporary, active in the here and now "man the creator. Today Moses Samoilovich Kagan much fruitful work, only in the last ten years were published in his new research on the development of philosophical, cultural, aesthetic, art criticism perspective. First and foremost, "Philosophy of Culture", "The philosophical theory of values", "Aesthetics as a philosophical science," "Behold the man ...", a two-volume Introduction to the history of world culture, we have already mentioned publication of the monograph "Grad Petrov in the history of Russian culture . In Hamburg, was published monograph «Mensch - Kultur - Kunst: Systcmanalytische Untersuchung», just came out in the light of "Metamorphoses of being and nothingness", "History of St. Petersburg from the foundation to our days." This impressive list made continuing collections of articles published - "The systems approach and humanitarian knowledge" and "art studies and art criticism."
Reviewer attracts and citizenship Samoilovych Moses, his participation in the restructuring, the response to the critical issues of our life today. This applies to the counter does not stop today in our society attempts to impose a medieval ideology on the basis of Orthodoxy, and education, particularly schooling, of course "Basics of Orthodox Culture", which is a remake of the pre-revolutionary "Act of God". Playing with the ghosts of a past age irrevocably alienates us from building an effective and efficient in Russia. Capable to whether this game cause of the past image of the medieval, pre-Petrine Muscovy as a symbol of our bright future - we sincerely hope not. Nevertheless, these games are quite dangerous, because having gone through the temptation of international socialism, we, unlike people in Germany, have not developed immunity against the temptations of national socialism, we also have no a priori rejection of religious utopias - and now part of our society irresistibly drawn to another appendix stories . And here we are totally in solidarity with MS Kagan: "The only consolation may be just what the historical process, as the life of the individual, has no reverse and no current spell sanctimonious, even with the support of politicians, unable to return to humanity in the Middle Ages." We believe that for Russia the most important is to create an atmosphere of tolerance for freedom of personal choice, the completeness of which suggests the possibility of rejection of the proposed to use secular or religious megaprojects. We want to retain the right to remain natural or scientific atheists form their own picture of the world on the basis of scientific knowledge gained from the successive analytical procedures rather than on the basis of a priori no doubting the gift of faith. In fact, it comes to preserving the traditional division completely: God - gods, Caesar - Caesar. In modern times in Europe, science and education within the "sphere of Caesar", and well-known exceptions only confirm the rule. Reviewing the book "About time, about people, about myself, it is impossible not to mention the fact that it contains numerous philosophical and cultural theoretical considerations, generalizations and conclusions. And chief among them is the following: "The task of philosophy, which no other form of mental activity can not solve, is to understand the perspectives of human development in the new century and millennium, and equip it with this knowledge - scientific knowledge, rather than the irrational belief, with all the hypothetical nature of the knowledge available to us about the future. " This philosophy should be used to achieve scientific thought of the past century - a systematic approach and synergetics. Human freedom - is a great value. Because no "bailout" pathetic monologues, dialogue must come to replace the monologue, the dialogue between man and man, man and nature. A new book of Moses Samoilovych Kagan's "On time. About people. About Me "is filled with the spirit Dialogism and humanism, the desire for the unity of Nature, Society, Culture and Rights. Its pages are intertwined scientific research, meeting with the landmarks of people age, the joy of friendly and family interaction, the change of seasons and decades, intertwine, creating a forward-looking irreversible flow of life.
Dialogue with Alexander Akhiezer
Reading new work, AS Akhiezer should point out one sad fact - between the time of writing works and their publication was about ten years. This is critical for many ephemeral, topical text that roads in time, as soon as "the egg to the day of Christ". Topical text quickly "port" loses the reader in the best case is past the memorial. But here the case is different. Published in the Proceedings AS Akhiezer's work "The specifics of Russia's history," the Holocaust in society and nature as a moral problem (on the historical experience of Russia) "," On the singularities of modern philosophizing. View from Russia "is not lost, and it is not unfortunate for a long time not lose its urgency and relevance. What is unfortunate is that such a deep understanding of Russian social and cultural realities, the new paradigm of social sciences in responding to society's need for reflection on himself, his history, his possible future, at last, will be in demand for many years and decades? Book by Alexander Samoilovych Akhiezer, which includes three large works, is devoted to the establishment, development and current state of Russia's statehood in a situation of self-reproducing, glow in the midst of people's life and manifests itself in almost all spheres of socio-cultural life of the country's deep divisions. And this division has not started properly with a church split or earlier historical time. He is immanent in the very nature of Russia's life, immanent in Russia's statehood. Summing up and somewhat hyperbolizing, we can say that the split - is the teleological idea of God and history in relation to Russia, the manifestation of its underlying inherent properties. And in terms of socio-cultural split - the result of a lack of historical ability of the historical subject, respectively, to rebuild a culture of changing conditions, the result of a lack of interpenetration of meanings split groups, weak dialogue, a basic consensus that the problem is of primary importance in the larger society. " And yet the author provides detailed specifications of this division, its causes and consequences. Dissension sistemoobrazuyusch against our historical past and present, are afraid to tell the future, our socio-cultural traditions, so let me explain a great quote from the work of AS Akhiezer. "The split took various forms: between the government and the people, the spiritual and the ruling elites, between intellectuals and power, the intelligentsia and the people, between cultures and forms of communication between the established institutions, communities and their own attempts to improve their own functions, etc. it could arise between any of the parts, elements of society. As a result of the split, adapt to having different forms of socio-cultural pathology: high disruption, threatening to grow into an irreversible slide towards disaster, the disruption of each (with) a company; universal dual power, developing into multiplicity; localism (tendency to collapse of the society at large, the local circuit in different worlds scales from regions to individual settlements, to emotionally integrated small groups), the atomization of society, lame solution (chain of decisions, where each subsequent decision to partially or completely
abolishes the preceding); insufficient for survival ability to form relationships in accordance with actual and potential changes in functions; aspiration liberalmodernist solve problems by relying on archaic programs and forms of relations. Considering the problem of Russia's history, the author explores the sociocultural background of Russia's public relations and Russia's power and reveals the reasons for repeating the history of the country's sovereign alternations of victory ups and political disasters. "The government saw its primary goal in collecting tribute from the deprived of their historical patterns of people. Society has become "fine-grained" character, which did not allow him to unite, do not come out a desire to unite in a large scale. " AS Akhiezer speaks here of our medieval life and about the features of the relationship of government and society during the period of our history, as well as all the modern sounds as though there between us, centuries of history, Peter's and the Soviet reforms ... The same "fineness" is now increasingly say "atomization" of society, all the same "to collect tribute" to my good, including the personal. The past is seen in the book and in its historical specificity, and how long prehistory of modern Russia, problems which, in turn, ask the author of the angle of view on all Russia's history. First, opening the works of work, "The specifics of Russia's history, is dedicated coil Russian historical and socio-cultural issues, those that did not give all of us to get to" paradise "quiet, well-fed, consistent and far more rational European life. All these problems are qualitative in nature, that is, the process seems to be there, there and urbanization, and development of territories, but the quality of these processes, their substantive content are radically different from the norm, is a clearly defined farcical nature of simulation. The main problem - the transition to organic intensive self-development of Russia - can not be solved within the framework of our historical and sociocultural traditions, because it is immanent to the extensive model of development. But today this type of development is not only inefficient, but for its implementation, there are fewer social and geographical space. More precisely, the actual geographical space for expansion outside Russian borders are not left completely. Today we are talking about holding the territory which became embroiled in the border state on Rossiyskogo imperial expansion phase of expansion and colonization. Retention of these large areas is only possible through the arrangement of life on them, their development, as it is today can only be intense. But the problem is precisely in the transition to intensive development is often understood in our history as another "accelerate" the development of extensive. This is a difficult transition, the implementation of its vital, but so far no more than a probability. There are other, far less rational alternatives. There is an extreme version of "neperehoda", life on resource rents, the excessive exploitation of the vast space that we inherited from the imperial phase of Russia's history. This way "neperehoda" for some time possible, and decorated it can be quite decent, as our participation in the international division of labor. But this is a deadend road leading only to the approximation of the third phase of the deconstruction of the empire. Only in this case under the threat of territorial disintegration is no
longer the Soviet Union and Russia. To try to avoid territorial disintegration, it is necessary to master adapting to, lovingly, by thrifty cultivate inherited territory, creating the infrastructure of life on it. And interfered and prevented in the rational, in all senses of an effective, proven many times in the west and east of the transition to intensive development of society, human rights and economics, inherent in everything and everyone in Russia, a social and cultural divisions, with virtually every historical and sociocultural process in Russia internally divided. As a result, all of our history, and today, too, is somehow not so often do not go where needed. AS Akhiezer puts heavy, hard to cure Russia's diagnosis of disease - a comprehensive, all-pervading socio-cultural divide. To use a medical diagnostic associations, the split - worse than schizophrenia - because there it is "only" about the duality of consciousness, and communicates these forked part, exists between them filled with mediatsionnoe space. And his proposed remedy, a way to "cure" is not so much bitter as painfully difficult, almost too heavy in terms of eternal relevance, samovosproizvodimosti, "self-assembling" deep socio-cultural division, produced by Russia's historical and socio-cultural tradition. This "self-assembly" is happening today, before our eyes, when the authorities in carrying out right-liberal reforms, the eyes begin to fall in the sociocultural archaic. This process is fascinating and frightening, almost word for word match with their "ideal way", so ably recreated and analyzed, including in its prediction of, A. Akhiezer. What can be done in a situation of "deja vu", walking circles, permanent reversible motions inherent within the system? It remains to recall the simplest and most difficult, of dialogue, mediation, filling the voids between the poles of sociocultural division, building a "median" life meaning. A possible way out of the enchanted kingdom split - mediation, dialogue between the poles of the split, "growth" and filling dialogical emanations of the median area of culture, society, filling the "median" individual, narrowed, according to Dostoevsky, a Russian man. What is all this happen? Predictions on this account differ-ently, from the very affluent and respectable, aged in the spirit of Europeanism and progressism to negative and frightening. Today's Russia is quite different from the pre-Soviet Russia, and less like the Soviet Union. We believe that the pervasive ideology potrebitelsta and expressing its mass culture, many "razmoyut", negate, a solution in itself. And in this context "bitter medicine" we appreciate consumerism is quite positive. Despite its financial and environmental wastefulness, it is just and is unique for Russia to fill the middle, filling her overweight goods and services, which will be so cozy feel vindicated tradesman - a full-fledged citizen of the consumer society. The image of modern Russia's consumer is not heroic, he is not interested in history, but the interests of the economy. He oblagodetelstvuet humanity a new messianic ideology, would not build a new Soviet Republic or city of the Sun of Campanella. It is quite peaceful citizen, controls the means of social engineering, but its behavior is determined by the values of the consumer society, that are assimilated from childhood, always up to date with pervasive advertising and marketing. And that he may become the ultimate creation of Russia's history,
eliminated in a Russian messianism and socio-cultural divide - it would be too simple, if you like primitive for its reproduction and maintenance. Perhaps the pervasive divisions, eyelids modeled Russia sociocultural and historical reality will begin to recede, slowly and painfully, along with the change of generations, changing the ethnic and religious landscape of the country. Time will tell. But already undertaken AS Akhiezer fruitful to develop a new paradigm of social sciences to update and expand at our disposal research tools, will significantly increase our heuristic possibilities for the most complex and intricate processes of Russia's history and culture, their causes and effects. The good news is that we have today, here and now, there are scientific instruments, and technology with a split, which is still within us and around us - for the long-term fruitful efforts should thank A. Akhiezer, assessing its contribution to the theory and methodology of social sciences.
Dialogues with Irina Hakamada Dialogue I. On Literature and Life
Before us is the fourth book «SEX in politics. Tutorial self-made woman »I. Hakamada. Unexpected name provokes interest of potential readers, forcing to take the book in hand, browse, read caught paragraphs and even pages. And all gone reader kogotok stuck - the whole bird gulf remains go to the cashier to pay and read a new book by Irina Mutsuovny to the end. The last assertion is checked up on himself, he began to read directly in the Institute of Philosophy, the book captures and does not let go. Its readership is clearly wider than indicated in the subtitle (Tutorial self-made woman), a book eagerly read by people of different sex and age, finding in it something interesting for yourself. And the floor (English - sex) is not the main reason, though, of course, curious how a woman survives in the still predominantly male Russia's politics. The reader is wondering what she is - a former MP, minister and presidential candidate, and, without irony - "a student, the Komsomol and simple beauty" I. Hakamada? This reminds me of Akhmatova: "He loved three things in the world: / In the evening singing, white peacocks / And worn map of America ..." and she, this woman who loved the chocolate cream, blue vases, plush cloth with tassels on the floor, the first volume Das Kapital Karl Marx, elephants, waterfalls and classical music ... she, this woman hated alarm clocks, museums, mountain skiing, their suits, artificial reservoirs ... able to kindle a fire with one match, even in winter had fallen from a balcony ... more than anything else she loved to lie on the couch with a remote control and an apple ... dreamed transform Russia, to learn a perfect English, and sit on the cross-string ... ". Reader interested in looking at the world introvert careful observer, and since 1993 also an active participant in political events. In the book there is no
illustrations, but a lot of visual images visible to the reader, when different colors, sounds and smells of the parallel worlds of Malaysian jungle and Russia's government. Together with Irina Mutsuovnoy we see varying from west to east, living in different historical time Russia's regions, because "in Russia the time, like ocean wave traveling along the sinusoid. To the Urals it right before your eyes roll down: in the Nineties, in the eighties, in God knows what. And then begins the ascent of the Urals, and in Vladivostok in 2005 was again first. The book is transmitted and an amazing sense of freedom abroad air 90, the time of the first cooperatives, Russia's nascent capitalism, leaving quite prosperous, an academic, but a recognizably Soviet life. In these years, and scary, and funny, crazy and want to work for themselves, to defend its independence: "The man laid mad potential. He endure anything when fighting for their independence. Recently on television played back a fragment of a program of cooperative movement in those years: sitting in the basement, with more dotsentskim beam on his head, but publicity and romantic, and declare: "I am - a free man! I - a free man! ". We - not slaves. Slaves - not us. " Today the trend is different today is much more complicated to open a business, to feed himself, for young people again the way to the officials, but not in the business, again dependent, only the more well-fed and cage a bit more elegant and more spacious than the Moth. This is our tradition, and, as noted in the middle of the XIX century, NG Chernyshevski, "their children (owners, merchants and capitalists. - SG), usually in a hurry to give up trading activity on the service. But the wealth created by the capitalists, not the bureaucrats, for the love of the status have to pay expensive rent and society, and power. Reading «SEX in politics. Tutorial self-made woman », soon the question arises: why should a decent person to go into power? Power - the world of selfreproducing hierarchy, where you need to pay attention to who sits with whom, remember a lot of unnecessary name and patronymic, without a strong drink to relax relaxing - yes we need it? "When I was a minister, all my attempts to lure decent people ended in failure. Why not tempt could not prevail, no one disagreed. Go out for tiny wages reluctance to steal uninteresting, all life in popolame and why. Result-then no. The machine is dull, does not work ... ". That's not going into the power of Russia's intelligentsia, and once mustachioed or beardless "Father of the Nation" is building "under a" vertical system, acquiring the ability to accept and execute the solution he needed, braking and blocking "harmful". As Russia's intellectual Hakamada the power went, and then almost all of Nekrasov - and about the horse, and about the house ... How and why? Enough to listen to A. Galich, to understand that the few survivors of that generation to understand: "that's what I want to ask. You hurry. You build their democracy quickly. Please. I beg of you. Try faster. Although eye on her watch. Thank you. " Here and agitators in the 1993 elections: "The blizzard, the blizzard sweeps in all directions, all limits, buses do not go underground yet, and suddenly in the doorway - two of God's dandelion, handkerchiefs crosswise, like a blockade, jackets, boots, sledge . Where is the literature? What is literature? Well leaflet about you. Let's leaflet on the sledge. We loaded and transported. All these people
are very well remembered classic "Soviet" power of Lenin - Stalin, they did not have to explain anything to prove, because there, behind their backs, "which roamed the area Kaer / and the snow looking for a rotten roots, / before the land by any Premieres , podtyanuvshi pants not bowed the knee ... / Sing the same pipe, sing the same melody, sing about my Potma, / sing about my brother, there in the ice fall down. " These people on a deep, visceral level, feel that Hakamada - their own and external, that which divides them is not so important. Alas, our common historical heredity, we should try to influence the government at the slightest opportunity, and without even a possibility at all - it's terribly painful and persistent that heritage, which we reject. And to do the work which you personally can not do - to build and protect Russia's Democracy. I. Hakamada few years, meets in the government for the development of small business, she started with the first cooperatives, realizing that in this business for the freedom of millions of people. Its development is desired "irreversible change", the possible formation on the basis of independent, successful and strong small economy of our civil society. Today in Russia, settled down political "Mask Show" when he met with potential voters, politicians dress up in costumes from "Bolshevichka" and decorated with a clock "Flight" - I'm just like you, vote for me, "poor Russian "paternalists, wait for his master, who will come and judge. But not all Russia's people paternalists rather, he paternalists on until there is possible to live without straining, relying on the stern, but fair boss until it's time to work itself and for itself, without regard to the state. Tens of millions of people waking up in Russia 90 years were, they opened a small business, chelnochili, 3 / 4 dropping out of statistical reports. For the state as they would not have been, they often do not pay taxes, but that they were the most active and widespread group of support for President Yeltsin and the reform policies. In this economic behavior manifest the traditional understanding of freedom as the will, freedom from government, and when the power this will give - millions of people say: this is our power. Recall the phenomenon of the 1996 presidential election. If it were not for those millions of small businesses - the millions who for the first time in my life felt that such economic freedom - no use of administrative resources, financial and promotional opportunities of big business are not allowed to re-election, BN Yeltsin's second term. Ironically, the government did not understand that small businesses are its mainstay, which further descending, were liberal intellectuals and big business. Today the government understands this, but that is another power, it does not need the support of economically independent people, these people viewed with suspicion if not hostility. Social support to the current government are law enforcers - a man with a gun - and the official - the receiving status revenue men to the ruble. This is a qualitatively different level of social support, clinging to the government and large state companies successful centrists, the townsfolk are good in that role for the time being, until all is quiet and calm, the price of oil and other commodities of Russia's exports are growing, and has billions of dollars can be
"obscure" almost any possible problems. Such social support is good in stable and predictable political situation, but when it is aggravating the townsfolk are unlikely to protect the government but to defend its people with certain political views in August 1991, the White House and in October 1993 at the Moscow City Council, believing that this own power. The centrists, successful ordinary people who remain at home until the last possible, becoming later as the passive victims of the Cheka and the Gestapo, as well as active accomplices in repression. But in times of crisis, the turning points of history creates an absolute minority of the people, passionarians whose energies are sufficient for the initiation of social change. In general, "adrenaline - is the oil of the Russian soul. Who got, what they (and oil and soul) and would get ". The release of adrenaline important to the Russian soul, therefore, to engage in politics today is interesting. What kind of interest in entering politics, when you're in meystrime, and not scary. That I do not mean Khakamada, and myself. What else is hooked to this book and what not to say impossible? For me it is the Malaysian jungle, a cave with myriads of swallows and bats - another, parallel world. Looking from this world for us and it helps us to understand the smallness of our men, including political, issues. The world is more of Russia's policy, where someone splashing in the face of an opponent juice, someone allows himself to steal and lie, where the tabloid press and political opponents are made of you an insidious and horrible "Ms Mamba, when viewed from the eyes of birds, frogs from the Malaysian jungle skukozhivaetsya acquiring its real shape. The main thing to see it in the system context. In a stream overlaps with each other events of public and private life, in the days of unconsciousness, in whirl of which no notice "during the annual" hard not to lose yourself, those past, present - with remote control and an apple. " A look at the world through the eyes of emerald frog helps here - the point is how to look, what you coordinate system. You look so, and just remember that this is not the whole life, this is only part of it, and the world around a large and free. Openness and self-irony the author's striking. I must admit that I almost did not read the "glamorous" literature, although I know that there are books M. Arbatov, workers show business - probably because I was not very curious about people's private lives, which they write. When the author is interesting to you, read it, taking as he is taking and the "human, all too human", that is in the book. The book «SEX in politics. Tutorial self-made woman »diverse, and that part where the actual tutorial for the woman, for a reviewer speculative. Present possible, and feel almost as difficult as seen through the eyes of the amazing emerald frogs from the jungles of Malaysia. So what about this part of the author's text is not for me to judge. Following I. Hakamada E. Tregubova mention only because of their problems «SEX in big politics. Tutorial self-made woman »overlapped with the" Tales of a Kremlin Digger. " In both books before a woman's critical view on Russia's great politics, and even the authoritative personalities, referred to, often the same. But Khakamada does not burn the bridges behind them and do not want to drive into the corner that is mightier than you, because "when the ruler of Russia
to bring to the pen, he becomes a tyrant." This is quite rational and pragmatic view, because Hakamada politician. Tregubova is not a politician, it is romantic, in her excitement a hunter and his views on how to defend democracy. On the men's biased view of the reviewer, it would be good for bright, intelligent, critical, and there were more women in politics and in life, then increases the likelihood that the country will begin to live an independent life and will be built self-developing civil and democratic society. Now let me say a few words about the design of the book, more precisely, about one sign detail. Russia philistine habit that once the power is on her neck have to be a chain of yellow metal, due to the brutality that has historically emphasized the pendant with the royal crown, almost Monomach cap, which, as everyone knows, is hard. Burdensome almost like metal chains, which hosted the "Ball hundred kings" Bulgakov's Margarita. On the front book cover photos physical weight of the yellow metal is not visible, the blood from seeping under it does not, this allegory, noticeable only by his aesthetic seriousness and inappropriateness in conjunction with a child's defenseless collarbone. Well, what authority, and such symbols. In not so long ago the 90-s in the power mechanism are quite decent people, the same BE Nemtsov, who was in the office of his doll of the same name NTV. Now neither Nemcova in power, nor the program "Puppets", nor the old NTV. It seems that today's drab, sad and hopeless almost forever. Oh, no, not forever, mediocrity over time, quietly and calmly, or violently and quickly, but will leave. And then there is not let the confidence, but hope that will not have to try on the official "royal" chains of heavy and clingy Russia's government, which I pull hard, and not quit. The official, who hires a civil society through supervised and accountable state, he can be different: "I have always maintained that Russia will save the lazy bureaucrat. Anyone who wants to please women and start novels. For novels requires leisure. But leisure would provide a system that can operate without it. " Meanwhile, another trend, more and more spheres of life are embedded in the "power vertical", the authority seeks to control politics, business, media, civil society organizations ... This trend may soon result in bringing the power of verticals to the individual, as in our the recent Soviet past, with his party, trade union and Komsomol meetings. All and all under the control of officials, this approach seems to power more desirable than trouble with the independent and laugh your opinion to have civil society. The space of public freedom today is shrinking dramatically, we are again, as in the memorable times, they are driving in the kitchen. The space of freedom must be protected, internally free man is free to anywhere in the inner freedom of changing times is not affected. Hakamada free man, and it helps to be free to other people, especially young people, those who watch - to make life with anyone. Irina, thanks for the book and for all what you have done and are doing the late 80-ies. Today, only the twilight of history, they will still be. A potential reader to say - read. Cool.
Dialogue II. On the "New Social Course - 2008".
April 18, 2007 in the House of Journalists held a presentation of "new social policy - 2008". The project was prepared under the guidance of Vice-President Rossiyskogo People's Democratic Union Irina Hakamada and is offered as a basis of pre-election programs of the candidates for the President of Russia, who will become the single candidate from the opposition forces. The panellists were: Lyudmila Alekseeva, Serge Le Havre, Sergei Glazyev, Yevgeny Gontmakher, Lev Gudkov, Tamara Zamyatina, Kirill Kabanov, Mikhail Kasyanov, Elena Lukyanov, Lyudmila Telen, and others. The ideology of the new social policy formulated I. Hakamada: "We need a national social policy as a new form of patriotism. Single social space, common social rights, the unity of the main objectives - that is what will unite the nation. Our program can use any candidate who would agree with her. This unity of rights and unity of purpose, something that can unite the country, promote a multi-ethnic, civic nation. In fact, the program it comes to building a welfare state, increasing the social fabric, which is today still largely rests on the Soviet legacy. P rot and decaying social fabric can no longer exist country. Today it is exhausted, the Soviet legacy in the field of education, science, health care is almost exhausted. Its restoration is necessary, this necessity is gradually beginning to be realized not only society, but business. A third party has not held the social contract - the power, not fully aware of or do not want to understand the criticality of today's social situation, their actions to correct it regards as a purely secondary to PR-companies that create the appearance of the solution of social problems in a virtual information space. Yevgeny Gontmakher, head of the Center for Social Policy, Institute of Economics Sciences and one of the main developers of the program, said: "We can expect that the ruling party, followed by some lotion to rectify the situation before the elections, but they will not save anyone."
Speaking about the importance of the social programs of the future presidential candidate of the opposition, I. Hakamada remarked that "it is because the Democrats have full loss that stolen people. In order to implement social policies, not necessarily use, as suggested by the Communists, the endless spending of the budget. You can create a very efficient market mechanisms actually work and give not only the social quality of life, but also investments in the economy. But you need to do this a priority and work on it honestly. " I believe that the power to improve the social quality of life through market mechanisms, apparently, can not work effectively. This is evidenced and miscalculations in the process of monetization, the limited pension reform. Authorities can not solve social problems on the merits, and when to do something still need to be prone to PR-solutions. And if the power in their real actions often have quite right-centrist, in the information space of its appearance irresistibly moving to the left, getting so familiar in Russia paternalistic connotations. Society sees this "leftist" ideological bias power, feels the information "the disease of leftism." Today, increasing expectations of citizens are not on our own strength, but on the redistributive capacity of the State. Society moving to the left, increasingly are in demand social democratic ideas. The question arises - why? After all, in the not too distant 90-ies it was all different, people are willing to go into business, start their own business, changed their place of residence up to the immigration from the country. In other words, had hoped for himself and not the state. The reasons for such a drastic change in public attitudes, at least a few. First, it has become harder to work in small and medium sized businesses, has increased dramatically "entry fee", a business can open, having a much more substantial means than in the 90's. During these years there was competition, which pushes the small entrepreneurs out of business. For example, in trade small, and the average businessman can not compete with large retail networks. This process of pushing small and medium enterprises from the market of retail sales is typical
not only for Russia. In the U.S. such example is the spread of the trading network of Wal-Mart, causing loss of business retailers, smaller carriers, vendors, lawyers, serving them. Thirdly, this lack of protection of property rights. Since the feudal imperial system of ownership of power determines ownership of property and the property itself, despite a number of pravoustanovleny, virtually defenseless, then the position of officials in this hierarchy are much higher than that of the formal owners. Fourth, increased bureaucratic and criminal extortion and restrictions, increased appetite officials, their active participation in the redistribution of property, dramatically increased fee bureaucratic permissions, approvals, inspection. Not produce any goods or services itself, and to participate in the development and assignment of administrative rent - a favorite occupation in Russia since ancient times. Fifth in business, and then at his own expense and the state, there were real money, it appears that it is possible to divide, rearrange. Appeared government budget surplus, growing Stabilization Fund, gradually increasing funding for social programs. Once it became possible to ask the state, which has emerged some means for partial or full satisfaction of petitions. The problem here is, and how, supporting the "weak", not to undermine incentives for capitalist activity in the "strong", those who actually creates the bulk of national wealth and jobs. An example of the Scandinavian version of socialism demonstrates the extent of this threat. So, in the country, there is public demand for social-democratic, by definition, the left, turn. Today it is the way to win votes, to strengthen its position in the coming election cycle. With all possible reservations of some "leftism" is palpable in "new social Course - 2008". But this theoretical "leftism" is not evil, it is akin to "leftism" of the Democratic Party in the United States. People are less socially successful is always more, especially if we set a high bar for comparison, the list of states and their owners from the Forbes magazine.
People are not very economically successful almost always in favor of the redistribution of income redistribution from "rich to the poor." They are almost always more, the more that Russia's power itself aggressively pushes people into this marginal area of "weakness". And this public policy must be changed. Above the theoretical part of the new social policy, this expected change society of social policies have worked authors, developers of the New Social policy - 2008 ". Now it is up to its practical embodiment. Mikhail Kasyanov, summing up his attitude to the program, noted that "it is a social program block of civil society, which will be exhibited as a punishment for the future of the candidate or candidates. This is a very high score, the recognition of universal value stated social objectives.
Dialogue III. On the life and success in the big city
"Love yourself a little more than a career. And luck will return. She's a jealous woman. How does it - without it? " "Learn how to time deduct turnovers, ironic on himself and above all - do not be afraid of change. " Irina Hakamada What is our life? Game. How to play social games and win, at the same time realizing that it is only important, but the game, but not all of life? How to achieve social summit and at the same time keep enjoying life, as to not break, as not to feel a void within themselves and lack of interest in the world around you? Like, finding career success, rising higher and higher up the social ladder, not completely squashed by himself in the basin of cement, as in the old
American gangster movies, how to save a living creature, how to save yourself? This new book by Irina Hakamada «Succes [success] in the big city. How to survive when you are alone with the big city, metropolis, "concrete jungle". It is a battle of David and Goliath, where the chances of winning certainly not equal, but it is possible. Winning is hard, urban jungle like giant jaws sooner or later swallow and grind all - the idealists and the realists, romantics and cynics, politicians and poets. Hakamada provides an answer to a question torments many of us - how to reach the peaks of social and not lose the taste for life: "The most interesting and powerful response to the challenge of concrete jungle lies in the ability to combine the inner contemplation of professional success" (p. 8). Climbing higher and higher up the social ladder, in the early recovery may even experience the charm of the process itself, achievements, step on the path to the summit. At some moments you can forget themselves, plunging into the socialDarwinian process, if not without reservation, almost. Then you get used to, catching his breath and ask yourself: where is I? Similarly, not all in the offices of officials in the social rituals, tones and nuances of relationships with colleagues, superiors, "higher" and "inferior". How do I see, say hello, sit down, sit down yourself, and even unimaginable, and completely unnecessary, and therefore detached at a subconscious level, the number of rank name and patronymic. Another life, a life beyond themselves. For a while, maybe even interesting: look, and I, it turns out, so I can, and even better, then get tired and begins to weigh apparent futility, alienation inner peace. The process of social ascent, the Bole life achieved considerable efforts in the tops of the clouds must be in joy, pleasure. Today it has become fashionable to escape from society, abandoning the social race, not to go outside, in the social, but from the world, the way to himself. The way to escape from the world almost as old as the world itself, the way of uniting the hermits and exiles of the past, "daunshifterov" present adapting to Goa and other exotic lands, retiring in the contemplation of the world, scattered polurastiteloe existence.
But today eskeypizm, life outside the world, is not acceptable by many. How to be those for whom the achievement of social success is necessary as part of selfrealization, the external performance internally overwhelmed by the ideas and desires? It is hard not to make a career, not asserting themselves in the social hierarchy, because a man needs not only self-esteem, but the evaluation of others. Irina made a career, she rose on a career high, where the air is rarefied, and the women did not occur often. Russia's traditional society in many ways, it is still a society of patriarchy. Woman in it is very difficult to climb to the summit, where policy is made. From this "machistskogo" rules are rules and exceptions, all the more striking that our way in Russia's society to the upper floors of the woman's power is almost as difficult as living green shoots way through the asphalt. These women in the history of Russia were. Without more distant excursions into history, let us recall only the names of the Muses the Russian revolution, a turning point epoch was then Russia's history - Alexandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand. And then, after nearly seven decades, during the next social revolution - Galina Starovoitova. But the way up, becoming closer to the top, learning adopted in a patriarchal society rules, the woman will almost inevitably change itself often resembles, and almost did not even superficially, the favorite of social games - man. Irina has avoided this trap, it is absolutely, totally feminine. It is not just a woman, but almost the very idea of women, free, emancipated, and at the same time, a hell of a stylish and equally damned attractive. Irina - the muse of our era, the era of radical change in post-Soviet Russia. Another era, other muses. We are not so inflexible, and therefore not flexible, as people first Russian revolution. If this does not become president (the wind is blowing era in the opposite direction), we should not fight in the blood, to selfdestruct, but another part is to actualize himself, to move to other areas, to come and win where least expected. "I'm still a fan of the idea to make Russia a developed, open country. But I understand that the political elite is not ready. Well.
There are other ways. Creativity, social activities. Strategic targets remain the same, change instruments "(p. 24). The new era has just pondering over the fact how "hospitality" should open the door "Nerchinsk mines, leaving until the blessed city of London, and you will not play on the court under the official guise of" policy ". Why play something in public forms still have little or no. And the "Invitation to a Beheading" loses its destination, but an idol, or as it is now fashionable to say, the leader of public opinion, albeit in a different capacity regaining society. Must have a hankering for their future, not to betray the dream, to seek new ways for its implementation, and it will come in the world there is almost nothing really is impossible. Irina knows this: "Film - this is my dream. I want to take movies! .. It is a non-WHO-mo-OFP! But do not fall off - so hooked. Just like the dream to become president "(p. 26). But then, when the spirit of the age change, when society becomes clear that something needs to change. But what to do now, how to save themselves for the future? What to do next person who has passed through the "copper pipe" social success? To move forward, to change itself, embody in the biography of youthful dreams, writing books, novels, which read, in the end, ennoble, estetizirovat this world is, by its very presence in it. Beauty, aesthetic quality to the world is something "extra", from which, indeed, grows very notion of civilization. Hence its attention not only to the maintenance people and processes, but also to their design, the style of dress and life. Here we should not forget that we are talking about professional politicians, held a long way to the top of the political, party presidential election of 2004. This fantastic at first glance versatility not often, it seems to be sending us out of the current century of professional specialization in the Renaissance. Itself of the opportunity inherent in man determined by the degree of talent. This was said long ago, to Irene, but also about her - a talented person is talented in all. Today, she wrote a book about love and social success of the play, leads training
sessions and master classes ... And it's not so much that it is a professor MGIMO, which in itself is prestigious and stylish. Irina Hakamada yavila «Urbi et Orbi» perhaps the most vivid embodiment of the success of women in Russia, a success that extends the boundaries of the possible, translate into reality the dream of social takeoff. I predoschuschayu that the fact that it already was, by no means the limit of the possible, the fate of teleology Hakamada-policy has not yet accomplished. It is possible that the withdrawal of a literary, artistic creation - a gathering of forces to the new political jerk. Today is the era rejects liberal ideas, and tomorrow, when its winds will blow again in the back will help move forward and not throw back, may be called upon again to the forefront of the history of those who represent these liberal ideas in the public consciousness. Hakamada first in Russia's history a woman capable of becoming its president. History loves unexpected somersault and transformation. It would be fun and instructive to see at the top of Russia's power wise "samurai with katana", strong and flexible, able to regenerate, responding to the challenges of time. Leader stylish and elegant, able to hold the audience's attention, the attention of the country. New leader of Russia post-industrial era, the countries of the XXI century, the century of unpredictable challenges and incredible responses. The most important thing not to miss a call, to have time to respond adequately, to have time to change yourself, be up to the elusive, ever-changing era. Hakamada is such a politician of the future. Every era in history requires an understanding of themselves through a person's life, in which the intertwined personal and public. Age remains in the history of symbolic figures, which then, decades later, remembering the events of his contemporaries, and then, when his contemporaries have little or no remains, carry out scientific and art historical reconstruction. As contemporaries of the events difficult for us to objectively judge the present and recent past but the future reconstruction of the first decades of postSoviet Russia's history will be based on the images of the brightest exponents of
the spirit of the era in its "flesh and blood." Whatever happened the future, in this short list will definitely be Boris Yeltsin, and Irina Hakamada.
Dialogue on the "March of Dissent"
In Moscow on Saturday, December 16, 2006 was "March of Dissent". "March of Dissent" - this is not a rehearsal of "Russian Maidan. It is more like a demonstration of other "Romantic revolution" - the Trotskyists in 1927. This is not new chords, harbingers of the "great turmoil", and rear-guard action, followed by a withdrawal from the actual historical scene. Such is the logic of Thermidor. Today, there came a classic in all history textbooks prescribed by the period of Thermidor, the inevitable after the revolution. Our revolution was in 1991, fortunately she was "polubarhatnoy" - "polubarhatnym" was and our Thermidor. Anyway Thermidor an unpleasant thing, and simultaneously a desire to continue the "revolution" and "counter-revolution" unite people of incompatible political views and positions. The fight against, rather than unites yesterday's implacable enemies. In the "one system" go and sit at one table Comrade Anpilov and some of Russia's liberals. The combination of striking, extreme, almost beyond. "Against whom will be friends" is defined, so that for the work, gentlemen and comrades. Motivation comrades Ampilova and Limonov can understand more, they are almost professional revolutionaries. With understanding motivation gentlemen-"revolutionaries" complicated. Good fight with the government, knowing that one hand is not in prison, but on the other - the power to become still fail. And if fantasy on the theme - suddenly fail? Then the next day to start tough confrontation situational passengers on the "Other Russia", previously understood, and the prospects of such a confrontation. Liberals do not replay the heirs of Stalin, marching under the slogan "Stalin, Beria, Gulag," in this "tripartite" the future place of the liberal intelligentsia is in the Gulag. If we talk seriously, then no democratic (orange) revolution in modern Russia is impossible. Civil society is weak, there is almost no internal constraints
to strengthen the power vertical and building a managed democracy. If a society and a revolutionary potential, it should look to other political wing - at xenophobic and ultra-nationalists. And intoxicated with "the romance of the revolution" of the liberal intelligentsia can ease their way to power. Do not give us God of revolutionary upheavals - they can bring to the forefront of the history of ultranationalists, the National Socialists and the like, destroy the stability of the life course, throw the country into the worst days in history. Does all said that the author is willing to abandon democracy and accept its limitations? Far. Democracy - is the supreme value. But it requires quite follow certain democratic procedures, an evolutionary, not revolutionary in nature. In the framework of democratic procedures, the authorities do not try to "pick up" on the street, the tactics of street confrontation, regular scuffles with riot police - is too much. Too for democracy, of course. For the revolutionaries of all kinds of street actions, the opposition for the sake of confrontation - the purpose and style of life, and the theory of permanent revolution of its "ideology". Of course, everyone is looking for its meaning in life, and participation in the fight for the sake of the process itself also has a right to exist. In addition, civilians, doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs are strong in their professional field, stronger in its security officials, including in a street confrontation. Who's that attended. So the outcome of such confrontation is largely predetermined. And the outcome of this, besides the defeat of the democratic movement, will be accompanied by strengthening of authoritarian rule. But even the unlikely "victory" in a street confrontation would be a victory "pyrrhic". Yes, today's government has done much to building a system of "managed democracy", it has many shortcomings and imperfections, but this does not mean that it should be broken "on the knee - is more likely, almost inevitable that over time, democratic procedures and institutions grow stronger. Under the pretext of the imperfections of democracy should not destroy themselves democratic procedures and institutions that do not resemble the sample to the
Bolsheviks in October the seventeenth, who ruined Russia's young democracy this is not the best role in the history of Russia.
Dialogue with Vladislav Surkov on politproekte "Our"
Today, some of Russia's political elite, wanting to err on the case it is already foreseen changes in our lives, initiated the formation of youth support groups. Assuming a priori values of this part of the elite, consisting in retaining power for its own sake, the idea is quite understandable and at first glance seem to be even reasonable. She is one of the eternal series about the straw that it would be good to lay in advance, without waiting for the painful contact between the latest of Russia's statehood with the uncomfortable space of popular discontent, aggravated by a rejection of the political establishment by people who share the left-and right-wing political views. The author of the initiative power is different historical associations, most of which are harmless beginnings of the Provisional Government of Russia on the formation of shock women's battalions, which were supposed to save the situation at the front, and, if necessary, to support the government in the rear. The need for such support came very soon, but hopes that the women's battalions will be able to defend the Provisional Government of the external and internal enemies, as we know, proved futile. Naturally, the story almost never be repeated verbatim, but now visible and broader lines and the intersection with the 1916/1917 year, and, above all, with time before the February Revolution. Today, as then, almost all the cash in Russia's society passionarians were concentrated on the left and right political wings. The political center is a traditional bog people "moderate and tidy", which can formally and sluggish play in anything, including a custom political games. And it is to these young people to "center" and refers to the power politproekte "Our".
The second historical allusion that comes to the author after the memories of the women's battalions as the last hope of the authorities then, time, links the current "nashistskoe" initiative power today with a history of functioning as a reserve unit of the Komsomol Communist Party in the late period of Soviet history. A rhetorical question, but who saved and protected the Soviet Komsomol period of decline? - In any case not their employers and financiers of the CPSU. With good direction from above, young people today can pay a membership fee and go to the election meetings, hold rallies, flares and other mass marches, picket performances and lower the makeshift toilets, send them to the dustbin of history books and portraits of unwanted politicians, writers, directors ... Next is the historical analogy, which arises in connection with "nashistskim" project of the least harmless. Although the movement and positioning itself as the anti-fascist in its symbolism, and there are some semantic overlap with the symbols in the time used by German National Socialists. This symbolism was brought to the public May 14, 2005, when tens of thousands of young people, senior students of secondary schools, colleges, universities of Moscow and other regions of Russia were in the area of Gagarin and Lenin Avenue under the dashed white crosses with red flags. In the 30 years of the last century, Hitler read, interpreted the color symbolism of the National Socialist Party of Germany: "The red color represents the social ideas ... White idea of nationalism. Swastika - the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryans .... Naturally, the swastika on the flags of "Nashi" no, its appearance would be too provocative in the country, winning the Nazi invasion. But the red flag, embodying the social ideals of the Communists / Socialists - is, as there are white national purity (white cross). Yes, and a cocktail column of young people under the red-white flags most like shots from the film Leni Riffenshtal "Triumph of the Will. We understand that the repetition of history will not, but what is happening has its own logic, its vector of development. These tragicomic extras tragic is that the logic of theatrical and political action falls within a definite historical tradition. "Collect all the books would be,
and burn, this recipe as a win-win and versatile to deal with sedition proposed in the early XIX century, still Skalozub, and followed his advice, and other similar national-socialists in Germany, 30-ies of XX century. But today, while different, and yet informal and formal leaders "nashistskogo" project is not quite defined its ideology and the desired reputation. Remains an open question about how to be intolerant and rigid (severe) and extent permissible actions that cause such a candid historical reminiscences. In the direct predecessors of the movement "Nashi" - the movement "Walking Together" creativity and rigidity enough to defiantly chanting - "enemies of the people - to answer", "recycle" books Sorokina, picketed the Bolshoi Theater with clearly readable passionate subtext: we censor, censorship . By that logic, all our troubles due mainly to the positions of conspiracy, implying the separation of the nation, citizens of Russia to the first people (going together) and second (wandering singly) varieties. In terms of our present sociocultural context it can mean something like this. Those citizens of Russia - who is with us / our - it is people who, as we know, is always right. But those citizens who, with Nenashev - it still should take a closer look and decide who, how and under what circumstances, was in Russia, not mishandled whether the CIA and Mossad, or, at worst, have not lived there in the occupied territory and have no questionable whether the relatives in foreign countries, for example in the "orange" Ukraine. And so, in a futuristic, but not least, the probable future, all the "not our" brothers and sisters can give to individual earrings - to whom the yellow star on the jacket, and who simply jacket without specific reference marks. If you get down to business "crackdown" a little bit softer, which might be possible for less dangerous opponents - that the effectiveness of their citizenship could be mitigated constraints (restrictions) on the profession and the non-counting of the votes cast at the election at any level. The key question to be answered by the authors, designers of any project, including "nashistkogo" - is its efficiency and effectiveness, the ability to be
realized in accordance with stated plans. And here on this project raises a number of questions and misunderstandings. First of all, it is imperious initiative, as well as many other ventures before, and we dare to assume, then, would not absolutely to any specific consequences, but large-scale development of the money the state and / or scared to death of large / medium-sized businesses. "The mountain gave birth to a mouse" - is about us, this is the most common and familiar version of the completion of any undertaking in Russia / Soviet history. Because politproekta and implementation of division in our society and Nenashev may have such an inglorious end-trite. But there is another paradox, but not least, and perhaps more realistic version of how to evolve "nashizm" and what role it can play in our not too distant future. A common place is the assertion that Russia / USSR, any initiative from the bottom punched painfully, that fully applies to the emergence and institutionalization of civic movements and public organizations. Today, when Russia's civil society is in poluzachatochnom state, grass-roots initiatives is rarely seen and even less formalized in stable forms, quite often the whole cash initial energy dissipated without leading to the achievement of stated goals. It is also well known that when the formation of different structures happens at the initiative of government, using all its power of administrative resources, such undertakings are usually institualiziruyutsya receive some funding, growing statepaid functionaries, etc. This organization not only gets access to the media, but also the formal / informal support from the state apparatus. Despite significant content differences of today with the communist era of romance and enthusiasm, an almost on VV Mayakovsky "And if the party crowded small - sdaysya enemy be still and lie down. Party - millionopalaya hand, clenched into a fist fulminatory. So - tremble "enemy" external and internal. Note that the experience of youth movements, youth in general for political purposes long ago and is well known in different regions of the world. Here and Soviet Young Pioneers in the Komsomol, the youth organizations and the Spanish "phalanges", the Italian fascists, Hitler adults with the National Socialists in
Germany. This is why political and massive use of children and adolescents as a cheap and effective military forces of governments and / or the opposition in some Third World countries, particularly in Cambodia, Sri Lanka and some African countries. Children and adolescents, young people in general can be a terrible destructive force, bulldozing sociocultural space under the new political, economic, social configuration. 5 April 2005 the leader of the movement "Nashi" Vasily Yakemenko stated the following: "We need wholesale change the political, economic and informational power in the country, acting as a network of mutual support." To the greatest extent this appeal recalls the words of Mao Zedong, addressed to Chinese students at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution: "Open fire at the headquarters (ie the elites - SG). The call for a change of elites has yet another apparent consequence: if we can suddenly change the political, economic and masmediiynuyu elite in the country - this will open the way for rapid upward mobility, as the great purges of the thirties in the Soviet Union opened the way to a dizzying career for people from lower strata of society . Another question that these appointees "in the blood" were often incompetent and totally failed to meet the new, literally fallen on them high social roles. As we know, history is often presented to us as tragedy and repeats itself in the game, reduced, farcical form. And today, in front of us, most likely, it appears that - a farcical part of the historical process. But the present government is not averse to pay with their voluntary / forced aides to speed them upward mobility and cleansed of its channels in the spirit of Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin. Note that the monuments to Mao Zedong, as indeed, Pol Pot, set in present-day Russia as something not to hand, but monuments to Stalin, to direct their teachers and leaders of all nations, beginning to grow in cities and villages of our fatherland in the set, benefit the socio-political climate here has become (become) good - for a leader. However, the situation with "our" and can be quite ambivalent. In situations of possible social and political crisis, accompanied by a sharp decrease in the
administrative capacity of government positions and the possible role of institutsianalizirovannyh "Nashi" little predictable, because the young revolutionary, simply because of their age, lack the proper degree of adult cynicism and excess availability of vital energy. Therefore, hypothetically, we can not exclude the possibility of such a development in which "Nashi" can get out of control of their creators / puppeteers, to change the ideological orientation and personal political preferences. By an irony of history, they can suddenly become precisely the kind of socio-political force, which in Russian conditions would be kind of a remake of the Georgian "Kmara" Kyrgyz "Go-Go", the Ukrainian "Pora". Such developments may contribute to two different but complementary to each other circumstances. Circumstances of the first: young people are revolutionary, not conservative, they are likely to want to break and change, but not to protect old arising before them, and often not their values - they want to be revolutionaries and winners. And the second fact: in a certain situation is quite possible mass "buying" of elites and institutions, a kind of auction, where they can compete in both internal and external to Russia forces. Nothing can do about it, a world in which we live is increasingly globalized, and it kind of a given, that is beyond our control, our acceptance or rejection. Historical events and situations mirror is not repeated, each new situation, despite the effort to follow the general historical trends and even the external similarity, is made in view of contextuality, given by the national socio-cultural tradition. Accordingly, Russia will be a different situation than in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. A person familiar with our history can easily assume a similar situation, especially in Russia, where the initiative of popular discontent could pick up the organization created above and beyond its own expense equipped and financed, as other youth organizations who have certain resources and the popularity of the country is not there. According to historical writings and memoirs of contemporaries of the events we know paradigmatic account of the events that took place to be during the Russian Revolution, 1905-1907. We remember we are and the history of the
Workers' Trade Unions in St. Petersburg, the trade unions "without politics", created under the auspices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The trade unions have been entrusted with these well-tested and loyal priest Gapon system, which, however, subsequently organized a peaceful march to the Winter Palace on Jan. 9, 1905. How it all ended, we know from history books - January 9, 1905 marked the beginning of the first Russian revolution.
Dialogues with Alexander Melikhovo Dialogue I. Berdichev Cossacks in the service of the fatherland
We are born to complement, to decorate and reinforce each other [pp. 230] Before us is a new book Russia's famous writer Alexander Melikhova Birobidzhan - the promised land. The book is described as geographically local and subcultural, but the questions raised far more extensive, directly connected not only with Russia, in part world Jewry, but also the present and the future of Russia's state. Like any talented book, it is convincing, and the author's version is credible. Melikhov scrupulous in their calculations of the Jews, movable and immovable property, provides the reader with more statistical compilation on the topic extensively quoted sources rare today. This complements the scientific rigor prophetic view of the artist, having a priori knowledge about the whole thing. Statistics This really tightens and charms, while reading feel yourself almost inveterate anti-Semite in power, meticulously to calculate how many people of Jewish nationality is represented in the organs of the Party and Soviet government, business nomenclature, education ... With figures in hand Melikhov proves that this percentage is not greater than the average percentage of Jews as urban residents in the 20 years it is not about the
Jewish domination, but only for the correction of distortions Pale. But he understands perfectly well that figures, scientific facts with myths to fight very hard. Since myths can be combated only myths, it is a different logic and world view. To tell the truth, it was even a bit awkward to read all these calculations, as if someone is just as corrosive to counting how many and which represented, for example, the Chuvash. For me, more or less - is not so important. It is important what kind of state what his inner quality and how it uses the potential that has in effect the Divine, and as a result of the endless chain of historical events and processes. Reading A. Melikhova, never get tired of wondering miroustroitelnomu potential of Soviet power in the 20's. And to all she has to say, everyone is solved from the standpoint of social engineering and the highest public interest. Where as paler looks post-Stalin Soviet leadership, the state of mind which has enough to shy discovery of Jewish emigration to Israel with concurrent customs complications and shaker, crumbling property departing. Edakii grinding dirty dog, not from the epic epic, but not very decent jokes. And the fear grows stronger special in the new Soviet government did not exist: it is necessary to negotiate with American Jews, we must negotiate with the Zionists - not the question. Today, at the mere mention of the Zionists and Masons traditional patriots hysterics. But hysterical sign of weakness, the Communists 20's were not afraid of anything or anyone. This after Stalin's sweep of the revolutionary romantics Soviet power was only able to defend themselves, at first slowly, then faster and faster, retreating under the onslaught of Western mass culture, and targeted propaganda. But you can not hide for long the country for the Iron Curtain radioglushilok and rigid customs and border regulations for the movement of people, books, music and movies. We must win in the competition dreams, you must be a center of intellectual, but as a consequence, and physical attraction. Soviet Union in the 20's - early 30's such a center of attraction.
Let a few, but in Birobidzhan, for example, drove the Jews from Europe and the United States. We drove, inspired by the hope to build a new, better world, to gather the scattered people in the historically possible form of statehood. Drove to build a wonderful new world of the future - the USSR. It was a rare event in the history of synergy, complementarity folk dreams - Russian and Jewish, and communism as the common, unifying all a dream. Intellectual debate peculiar paradox, an aberration, not only individual but also collective view. Do not overlook the obvious or just make it braces for discussion, possible in decent society, including science. The first omission is less, the second more. Birobidzhan project Bolsheviks saved many thousands of Jews from the direct physical destruction of national-socialists, though not much, but reduced the extent of the Holocaust. But this calculation is inappropriate, saved a lot of people, or little, important every saved man. Melikhov not afraid to speak the truth such as he knows "I think it then someone that ... Birobidzhan with its mosquitoes and floods will retain the lives of thousands of Jews? I would preserve the life of the majority of those who would go on resettlement troubles, leaving the hard-set a small-town West, first got into the clutches of Hitler ... "[pp. 139]. The second omission is more to talk about it and are afraid to think, it's almost an absolute taboo. New state of Israel was built before the coming of the Messiah, and the divine guarantee for its continued and secure existence is not. There are only human safeguards, the courage of the Israeli army, the moral unity of the people, the willingness to die for their historic homeland. The Israeli state is from the epic that is transmissible through the millennia, and now can not get out of the genre of tragedy. In a situation of a huge demographic, and on the approach - and the economic disparities between the State of Israel and its Arab opponents of Israel's army may be compared with the Spartans, the defending Thermopylae. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that Israeli society is increasingly blurred western hedonistic mass culture, gradually losing the initial impetus to the
struggle and sacrifice. In other words, in the terminology of A. Melikhova, dream, uniting people, weakens. What results is a weakening and then disappearance of collective dreams, we are well seen in the countries of old Europe. Their citizens are not willing to fight for common goals and values, share the dream of a common good for all or salvation. Each survive alone. Destroyed, all social institutions, including even those close to man, as a family. Western man feels more like individuals, not ready to sacrifice their private, selfish interests for the common. No collective illusions - this is not common. Western man is too rational, to die for such as him all the more it seems, "chimeras", as the state and nation. The man lost his religious roots, weak, and if these minds will prevail in Israel, the "wall" of Sparta, consisting of the courage and constant readiness to sacrifice its people, will fall. And then you can again think of the land on the edge of the world - an autonomous region of Birobidzhan in Russia. "So shrewdly whether to concentrate all resources in this very" core "? (State of Israel. - SG) Pah-pah-pah, and even the coming decades, not for us be it said, may well show that this was a fatal mistake - to revive the Jewish state near the boiling crater of the Islamic chimeras »[c. 226]. Diversification, gentlemen, diversification. What kind of attitude has a book by A. Melikhova, the fate of Russian Jewry in general, the fate of Russia? In the Romanov empire a hundred years ago was the idea of Russian imperial peace, built on the idea of service and personal care of many of the common good. Another question that this is a public good is understood in different ways, but the Left, Chernyshevsky and Lenin, and right, and Purishkevich Leontiev, representatives of the aristocracy and the imperial bureaucracy, did not deny the possibility of the common good and collective salvation. Suppose that in different ways, but they have sought for such a rescue. Romanov empire, beginning with the reign of Nicholas I, all closer to the clearer perception and articulation of their imperial dreams: Moscow - the Third
Rome, which stands on the foundations of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. Empire - the heir of Byzantium, and through it - great Rome, and Rome is the successor of the legendary Troy. This is the inheritance of traditionalism and mythological times, the inheritance of eternity. This absolute legitimacy of power coming from God and from tradition. In the competition dreams a spent old imperial dream-time winner left, communist, creating a new Russian imperial project - the USSR. Make way, other nations, it is Russia - a bird-troika rushing in a new, communist guise. The communist project was unprecedented challenge to the bourgeois world, a challenge to Red Russia more advanced culturally and technically, the countries of Western Europe and North America. From the standpoint of modern economic theory is completely impossible, but economists not take into account the intangible. They have learned to determine the value of the brand, but have not yet learned to determine the value of collective dreams. The cost of collective dreams higher than the value of brands "Nissan", "BP" and others like them collectively. This add-on them, that defines the history, life and death of national economies, the fate of a nation and people. The collective dreams of creating new states, the great wars and the great historical figures. What happened to Russia's collective dreams today? There are none, or almost none. The era of triumphant consumer distrust, cynicism and apathy. As mentioned in the post-revolutionary Petrograd, "We ordinary people (read consumers. - SG), we put on shoes, you, your partner for your power." We lost the cold war, and we acted like the vanquished. We still are in a position to defeat the external, geopolitical, and the decline of inner, spiritual and cultural. This decline deepens and today, we continue to spend the Soviet legacy in the economy, maintain a minimum social order and moral structure of society through the quality of people brought up in Soviet art, cartoons. Inheritance is good to all, except one - it runs out and disappears. In place of him is a new barbarian, a man brought up on western popular culture is, at best, a virtual Simpson, at worst - the young shoots family of Adams.
Melikhov: "Experience, unfortunately, shows that, breaking away from allegiance to some the historically society (freed from the power of any group of chimeras), the individual usually does not go to the devotion to something greater, but In contrast, flows into the net shkurnichestvo "[pp. 121]. Without overcoming inner disintegration, not overcome and external, are gradually disappearing, dissolving in the vast expanse of Eurasia. For the physical survival of the vast state, from Kaliningrad to Kamchatka need a new unifying and mobilizing, Russia's collective dream. The new Russian project need a historic scale and a big geopolitical game, the tools of influence on world politics and the "backstage". We need to restore Russia's imperial world in a new, non-Soviet guise. We desperately need the collective dream of a new imperial project. For Russia's national Jewish state, as, indeed, all other "foreigners" are not needed. Such a state can only gradually fall into the geography of the past, to the territory which it occupied during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, perhaps, under Ivan Kalita. But even such a small Russian European state with successful hedonists, consumers will not last long. In the best case he will get a small, on the one-two-decade history of respite, a quiet time until he came and did not ruin a consumer paradise, coupled with a quasi-European, the new barbarians. The collective dreams of the Jewish people, together with the Communist DREAMS Soviet leadership gave rise to Birobidzhan. "We were born to MAKE DREAMS COME TRUE ...". Birobidzhan was present, generating creative intelligentsia, passing in the folk epic, samples of which leads by the end of the book. These texts are so vivid, that carry a serious ideological strain that did not help myself, to quote one passage from the poem Vergelisa - "The Song of the hero" - Joseph Bumagin, repeated the feat Alexander Matrosov. I am a Russian soldier, I am a Jew because of the Siberian given. I went into battle with Hingan Mountains, where my whole family, I was in labor Siberians handyman named, And now call me a daredevil in battle friends.
The enemy knows - my hand hard. At the Russian field has grown and gained strength, my kind of the centuries. I like to Matrosov, as brother, I am a Russian soldier, I am a Jew because of the Siberian rivers. I am a soldier of his homeland. I went to the area of Europe With fights serious came, not surrendering, not statute. I am with those who came under fire, fighting, digging trenches, Russia lovely store, standing guard happiness ... This feat of Soviet patriot, red empire to replace the white empire, the empire of the Romanovs. Today, Russia's state does not need patriots, he needs a successful consumers. But society is not just social but also biosocial organism that is not patriotic people of the sacrificial service to Russia simply can not survive. New Russia's imperial project needed the Jews - "People of the Book", you need the Jewish world, we need to passionarnost. Jews as Russian patriots need Russia's imperial state, as well as Ukrainians, Belarusians and other peoples of Russia imperial range. But do Jews Russia Russia if they were interested in its preservation in eternity? Melikov directly answers this question: "... from the perspective of eternity, and the Russian Jews are interested in preserving Russia as a medium that gives them the opportunity to realize their talents to serve their immortality. What price? But the romance is only one possible answer: we will not quibble over the price "[S. 229-230]. This is an old imperial principle - no matter what you blood, it is important as you serve the Empire. Each nation brings to the overall imperial symphony something of his own, giving the synergy of efforts and violent colors of life, everything that nourishes the imperial passionarnost, striving for a common cause and common destiny.
Dialogue II. On the national tolerance
The journal Neva in the last year published a number of deep and insightful articles by Alexander Melikhova. Subject to these publications, intersects with the theme of this article, and some provisions advocated by the author, causing a desire to agree or argue, but, more importantly, do not leave indifferent, make you think. Let's start with the national tolerance and intolerance. It is a topic for a multinational, multi-religious and even mnogotsivilizatsionnoy Russia to explain, perhaps, not worth it. Thus, "tolerance are the winners in the world who want to quietly enjoy the fruits of their victories." Losers next round of the historic confrontation, accumulate hatred etnoutverzhdayuschimi entertain illusions about their own election and exclusivity. We can not agree with the author that the increase in ethnic tolerance, tolerance to a different general, one can achieve a permanent reduction in the number of those who feel defeated, those who translate their social victories and defeats in ethnic plane. The cure of such ethnic self-justification is perhaps more significant vertical and horizontal mobility, the ability to reach, to play by the rules of the consumer society that displays all of the brackets, which goes into transcendence, beyond the sphere of immanence. Carve including religion, because it is the basis of socio-cultural traditions of the ethnic group, the most important marker, separating it from other people and allow to recognize their own. Primordial winners in the control of establishing the procedure for allowing to coexist relatively peacefully for many ethnic groups, was an aristocracy of world empire. We know from history that has emerged as the ethnic aristocracy, the imperial aristocracy with the passage of time seriously complemented by the most active came from aristocratic families of different peoples of the empire. We can recall the story is far from us on a scale of historical time of the Roman Empire, and quite close to Russia and the Soviet empire. They organized power,
and therefore a system of upward mobility on the ancient principle that has prevailed in Europe until the late Middle Ages - does not matter what you blood, it does not matter what language you speak, it is only important to whom you serve. "The relative inter-ethnic peace is when the supreme power is provided, so to speak, equidistant from under her ethnic groups ...". So it was before, but times change, the western world is living today in the era of liberal-democratic, imperial principle of organization is geographically large and diverse socio-cultural spaces of today, if used, such as the bashful, "default". And here the most important question, "how to maintain tolerance in the house where the owners are all"? Let's search for an answer to this question. Almost all the multinational state as having or not having a particular historical experience of imperial coexistence mezheticheskih tend to smooth out differences, and therefore hatred, proposing as an important unifying principle of the principle of organizing the nation on civil, rather than ethnic lines. You can refer to the mentioned A. Melikhovo experience of France and the United States. And in the civil nation "neither Hellene nor Jew", all, regardless of ethnic origin, native language and religion Americans or Frenchmen. But this is an old, slightly tampered with the imperial principle of citizenship. The difference between the current latent imperial of the imperial past, not ashamed of itself is more likely in today's political, social and cultural practices, in particular, in the level of violence employed by the State. Empire, as the state in general, is always kept at a certain level of violence. In multiethnic societies, this level is usually higher than in mono-ethnic. Imperial socialization subjects rested on the upward mobility of ethnic elites, spread of imperial culture and violence that defines the scope of legal and illegal, setting the rules of the game "here and now." If you violate these principles of organization of imperial and kvaziimperskih spaces, the mounting tension, until the resistance of direct imperial rule. I think that this is not historical and transitory, and the invariant ways to organize a multiethnic spaces. Let us remove component
of this triad and the building of a multiethnic state, whether in the imperial, or national incarnation, begins to crumble. Melikhov rightly observes that today inokulturnyh, alien ethnic immigrants, however, and minorities traditionally live in multi-ethnic territories "has almost nothing to deter and almost nothing to entice - and so the newcomers have already had a civil equality." But today, the French state, through its police force continues to apply necessary to preserve the multi-ethnic secular state level of violence by banning such religious symbols, in particular hindzhaby in public education, suppressing street performances of the Arab-African youth. In other words, the principles of control have changed rather formal, declarative than meaningful, except for a significant reduction in the level of state violence. In place of physical violence had come to "soft" social technologies, the manipulation of consciousness on the part of mass culture, advertising and media. Man, regardless of their ethnic origins, learns the general rules of the game of consumer society. He must, above all, be zealous in the faith, Muslim, Christian, Jew, and a successful consumer. And here do not need the police do not need the same level of violence. Manipulable man feels imposed his wishes as their own. In the incarnation consumer man really "forget" about their ethnic and cultural identity, it moves from public to private sphere. And in this our common salvation. Melikhov believes that "multinational states never able to reconcile their national teams, if not compel them to believe in some sort of new common tale, which would not have rejected their earlier dreams, but putting them in some honorable place in the new." On a note that the new story, a new ideology - it eskeypistkaya ideology of consumer society, nothing great, the complete triumph over the immanent transcendent, all the achievements in the sphere of material life, all the achievements of the here and now. It is not great, not a heroic dreamideology. Man as a successful consumer, "forget" that transforms into is not very meaningful, private, their ethnic traditions.
Now a few words about the article by A. Melikhova "Aristocracy and the national idea." I agree with the author of almost everything. I'd add only that a society in which no idea of service, where everyone, including representatives of situational elites, enters only in terms of economic advantage or disadvantage of this action is doomed to destruction. And if you dive into the material interests of mass human-ethnic societies contributes to the stability of the state, at least in terms of maintaining the latent nature of interethnic conflicts, the elite all the exact opposite. Looking for house keepers, keepers of the state, people, for which economic values are secondary. This has historically been a keeper of the aristocracy. That is largely thanks to the preservation of aristocratic traditions preserve the continuity of power and control, such as those in "old" Europe and Japan. It is useful to recall that this aristocratic heredity and captures the scope of business. Descendants of famous noble families led many large European companies, and the descendants of the samurai - the Japanese. They can be guided in their economic activities by non-economic objectives, such as serving the state and society. And this ministry keeps the state, society, national business. In Russia, the ministry of the matter is bad. From the old aristocracy of preSoviet, the Soviet authorities for decades, virtually nothing is left but to a large extent assimilated descendants of the "first wave" in Western countries. Not spawned its aristocracy and the Soviet period of development of society. Lack of the aristocracy, the minimum necessary for the sustainable development of the state and society section of the population, the most dramatic impact on the reform of post-Soviet period. Without these people we got what they got.
Remembering the XX Congress XX Congress of the Communist Party became a Soviet version of the Nuremberg trials, which, despite its softness and the half-destroyed the cornerstone of the foundation of totalitarianism. Today, all the louder voices are heard critics of the fact of exposing the cult of personality, the crimes of Stalinism, the sharpness with which it was made NS Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress. There is much talk about what we need to act would have been softer, to speak the truth at once, but piecemeal, in order to preserve the long-term purchased up to the Second World War, the geopolitical advantages and not to scare the left intellectuals around the world. But with all possible sympathy to the abundance of controlled territories and leftist political ideas must be remembered that in the gradual dismantling of Stalinism, there was simply no time. When Allied troops entered the German extermination camps - it was also a shock to Europeans and Americans, shock, naked unbearable horrors that brought with it the practice of national socialism. Commander of the Allied forces, U.S. General George Patton organize study trips to the death camps of journalists and politicians, who saw for themselves that it was not just a war. To better understand the reality of ideological recovery leftist European intellectuals to be not only awareness of the horrors of the everyday practice of National Socialism, but also to the Stalinist version of socialism. It was necessary to bring them out of youthful drunkenness communist utopia, they all had to grow up and abandon illusions. More truth about the crimes of Stalinism was necessary to Soviet society, we need not only then but now, in post-Soviet Russia. Allied troops are understandably not included in Stalin's death camps camps opened the door NS Khrushchev, for the liberation of the surviving prisoners brought change the party-state policies, ideologically enshrined in the Twentieth Party Congress. Congress has revealed a giant abscess of Stalinism with
him began the process of liberation from totalitarianism, the process that led then to August 1991. Often compared sharpness and simultaneous action NS Khrushchev and progressively, step by step policy of democratization in the years of "perestroika". But after Stalin's death totalitarian system was able to change from within, evolving into an authoritarian system. By the mid 80-ies of XX century, the USSR was no longer of the "absolute evil empire", which he had been under Stalin. The country has starved millions of peasants, not shot by millions of potential and actual political opponents, shut down the huge camps of the Gulag, the scale of political repression was incomparably smaller. In other words, that was not the totalitarian Stalinist system, changing it could afford not to hurry. In 1956, it was impossible not to hurry - people dying in the camps. They have become a little issue, but the community had to explain what happened in the country during the Stalin decades. We must remember that the international communist movement and communist parties around the world, behind the red terror and crimes of Stalinism, the Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution in China, original furnished their own versions of Treblinka, Dachau and Auschwitz. By building "brave new world" on such a foundation, we can not hope to maintain long-term political and geopolitical benefits, preservation of the world communist movement, the stability of the Warsaw Pact, to expect to win the global expansion of communism. For all of history has to pay. At the end of 80 - 90 years of the last century of the crimes of the Stalinist regime said all or almost all. The truth is inexhaustible, it is no statute of limitations, it can not be written off and forgotten. But today, much of Russia's society, it does not know or does not want to know, assuming that publicly guaranteed soup is more important than freedom, and Stalin is much better than Gorbachev and Yeltsin. English football club Chelsea in the property from Roman Abramovich outraged many of our fellow citizens far more than Stalin's genocide. Hence, there was no cure, vaccination against this evil is not today, because the
theme of our Nuremberg - XXth Congress - belongs not only to the past, but present.
Russia after empire
Postimperial status our country is confused1. Today Russia is not yet fullfledged national state. I think that it is mutilated, lost at time and space postimperial formation. There is no concensus in public consciousness about legal state borders: it is very difficult to answer the question, why some regions constitute the state, and why other regions do not. As before the country disposes of "imperial body" (1) (E.A. Pain), which was got in inheritance from imperial stage of the territorial expantion. Hitherto the most part of society and political elite perceive imperial territorial inheritance as certain nearly sacred value, that it is impossible waive under no circumstances, inspite of “sociocultural vicinity” or “sociocultural distance” of "disputable" territory. But the most unpleasant is concluded, to my mind, in the fact that the threat of disinteration of Russia as state formation, remained from empire, is saved. In inheritance from empire we got an ethnonational and socuocultural "flowering difficulty" (K.N.Leontiev) of Russian regions: they referes to three civilizations, three world religions; they resides to different stages of the economic development: preindustrial, industrial and postindustrial. Besides, from my opinion, nation did not formed in Russia neither in its ethnic, nor in its “postethnic”, civil sense. Traditional question – how to agree so heterogeneous regional interests – is very important for our agenda. But deal is not only in cultural and civilizational differences. On the strength of the positions of Russian regions (territory, economic) and its differences on the scale of the stages of development they have different interests and they extremely differ on level of living, incom and social protection.
Перевод статьи «Россия после империи» – Л.С. Перепелкин.
The outlying Russian regions often are attracted not to Moscow, but to other world centres of economic. For example Kaliningrad/Kenigsberge region is attracted to ES in accordance with some economic, historical and cultural reasons. In the East side of the country the states or Asian and Pacific Ocean region, first of all China, are the source of the strong economic attraction. We do not speak about strictly cultural or civilizational reorientations of Siberia and Russian Far East but about absolute economic integration of these regions in economy of foreign Asia. Nevertheless, as we know from history, political integration often follows the economic integration. Often this is a function of time. We pay attention to these well-known points to emphasize the differences in interests of Russian regions, to put a question about possibility to agree so different interests within the framework of Russian state, leaving but not left from empire. The World history experience gives two main decisions, individually executed under influence of different historical and sociocultural contexts. The First variant expects straightening of ethno-federative relations as a procedure of regional interests co-ordination, of delimitation and delegation of authority. This is a long, often nerve-racking process for Russian authorities. Temptation to return to traditional but failed forms of state management, to simplify the co-ordinations of interests, to go to order, authoritarian management and unitary state is too great. This is the Second way. In its frame the interests of regions are minimum agreed, the main decisions are taken in the centre, the processes of "co-ordination" realize in traditions of unitary imperial state. Such were the practices in the USSR and Empire of Romanoffs. Though there were the known exceptions with autonomy of Finland and the Constitution of Polish Kindom in tsarist Empire... This design expects using violence against nonconformists. This is an inheritance, which unites the present-day Russian state with the state of Russian Imperia. I agree the key characteristic of empires, given by E.Yasin: existence of Empires is impossible without violence, although in soft forms. This is the main identifying sign of empires (2). To change the vector of Russian development and to get free from
imperial life, it is necessary to enclose the considerable efforts, to form up the real federalism, to work on shaping of the civil nation, to form the democratic institutes and traditions. To continue the motion in a direction of historically accustomed imperial life, so significant efforts are not required. Now it is possible to observe a reconstruction of authoritarian unitary state mechanism. But if earlier (in pre-soviet period) advantages of imperial state and authoritarian rule exceed the costs, after the Second war costs have gradually exceed the advantage. Today this is the most essential restriction on a way of the development of the country. I’ll again refer to position of E.Yasin: a decay of empire began long ago. The country developed, empire (as its political form) – not, and this fact became the brake of the further development of the country (3). It is likely that choice between two variants of development is made. De facto the variant of the reconstitution of unitary state is chose. As a result we can see refusal of democracy in favour of its “operated”, even decorative variant. But differences of Russian regions can not to combine the unitary form of state organization (de jure or de facto) with democracy. Often the choice of unitarianism affects on situational actions of authorities in relations with politicians, business, mass media. Possible, today this way is efficient, but this effect is temporary, especially tactical. If long and firm joint coexistence of heterogeneous Russian regions and their inhabitants is possible in principle, this possibility is based on two cardinal principles: existence of real federalism with elements of confederacy – and existence of civil, multiethnic nation. Civil, rather then ethnic nation expresses the generic relationship with citizenship of the empires. To reach this aim our imperial inheritance can be useful: we can not form the ethnic nation, but can form multiethnic and civil nation. Such variant is undoubtedly preferred in the sense of observance of civil and political liberties, human rights in general too. What can help or disturb to carry out these principles and what can help or disturb to set right the further joint life of the people on the territory of Russian state?
It is possible to build the joint life of a civil nation in federative/confederate state on a basis of consumer and achievement activity of a person. In shoulder strap for "russian daydream" in its moscow, jakutsk and other registration he can (may by only temporary) not to recall, "who is he, whence and where he goes", or, anyway, "forget" about his cultural-civilizational identity. While his “memory” does not define his social activity - an postimperial Russian state will exist in its own present borders. But today traditional religious identity of different ethnic groups is present in public consciousness often in hidden, latent form. As rule it is washed away with westernization and with the policy of total secularization, conducted by soviet power. As a result of this politicians significant and may be the most part of population is indifferent to religions. As I.Yakovenko has noticed (4), number of those who suggest itself as a part of Russian orthodox church forms about several percents of the society and this number will not grow seriously. This indifference unites the country and smooths inter-ethnic and inter-religion contradictions. As soon as process of ethno-religion rebirth will become on-persisting mass, serious contradictions will arise, putting under question the territorial wholeness of the country. Degree of expression of traditionalism defines degree of toughness of Russia. To my mind, today a part of Russian political class tries to rest on some elements of traditionalism, first of all in its religious variant. This course has not prospect, as today former imperial mechanisms are destroy for the country. But during seventy years of the soviet authority not only traditionalists but society as a whole were greatly weakened. If compare the democratic potential of tsarist Russia and contemporary Russia, we can deduse, that this comparison will not give the unambiguous advantage to present-day situation. For decennial events of soviet authorities our country seriously advanced on a way of modernization, it made demographic transition, it collected Russian population in city, destroyed patriarchal, including religious, traditions. The country passed industrialization, it obtained high level of mass education. But during this period, especially before 1953, wу have lost many millions of high
educated men, who not only strived to install in Russia democracy and republic, but who was also ready to take part personally in this process. Before the revolution of 1917, millions of men in the country rested on furcated system of civil institutions. They tried to direct the country on European way of development. But this was not got peacefully, step by step, and it was needed the revolution of 1905, but then February revolution of 1917. At the end of the soviet period layer people, comparable with prerevolutionary on number of human quality - professional and civil, – was not in Soviet Russia. There were dissidents and sympathizing him, but almost nobody of them went in post-soviet policy, almost nobody of them renewed rows of Russian officialdom. The new authority was created with men without experience in democratic work, it was created with some portion of chance. In soviet Russia there were not a broad democratic motion, as it was in other countries of “soviet block”. However there were sewn hundreds of thousands of people in the country, who took part in demonstrations of 1990-1991. There were men, who was ready to die for new Russian republic, as it was at August 1991 (events near White house) and at October 1993 (events near Mossovet), but there were not a necessary number of those, who was capable to take part in everyday stale work, save the ideals and value them cherish then material advantages. Moreover, there were insufficient amount of the people in country, who was ready to consider the democracy as value and use the democratic rights. "Democracy – is a public order for free people. /.../ That one, who uses his liberty, is free" (5). But once so, it is necessary to use others, who, outside of dependencies from their own glance and past, can and will die to work, capable to quick-and-dirty everyday official work. They are ready to work for sake of its material interest possess certain internal discipline. So the rise of number of former members of power structures in our authorities must not be surprise in this sense. They were added with traditions of state management. If it is impossible on that or other reasons to rest on society, authority rests on power structures. Coming from the conditions
before August 1991, such result was more probable, therefore, probably, it became the reality. Our common history carrying concludes in the fact that it was realized certain averaged variant of possible future, not the most good, but also not the most bad. The most terrible practices of social transformation Russia has shown to whole world at years of the Civil war of 1918-1921, and terible practices of transformations of multinational federation - in 1990-e years were demonstrated to the world by S.Miloshevich and Serbian nationalists in former Yugoslavia. Considering particularities of soviet inheritance, extreme weakness of the political class, to say nothing of practical absence of political elite, we have easy finished. The political class only began be formed, and for its formation and reproducing from their own rows efficient and responsible elite, it need, to say the least, many decades. But now it is only formed, including in its composition and rejecting pretenders not only upon their political glance, but also according their management efficiency. The power is intrinsically heterogeneous: therefore it is necessary to take into account differences in political glance of high officials. The political class of modern Russia, with the known share of conventionality, is possible to split into two main groups: "liberal bureaucrats" and "former members of force structures". They occupy, on statement of Moscow political jokers, different "Kremlin towers". Naturally that each of these groups have its own picture of the world, they have its own belief about due and non-due, about that what is good and what is bad for Russia. This fission perhaps calls with that, what was at years of "great reforms" of Alexander II. So, some foreign historians reveals two types of Russian political culture, which characterize the enlightened bureaucrat-“zapadnik” (westernoriented persons) and so named "police officials". The system of values of political culture (the first type) comprised legality, equality of the people, the personal initiative and legal political power. Central for "police" political culture (the second type) were such value, as paternity, trusteeship and confession of personal
authorities of the monarch, rather then law, as well as negative, suspicious attitude to independent public and peasantry. In ditto time elements of "police mentality" come to light in worldoutlook of modern reformers since in base of their glance lay the confession of the primate of the state interest and conservations (the preservations) of order and stability (6). These groups of official express the different public moods. And the largest threat for democratic development of Russia – at its transiting period from soviet model of power to modern west democracy – is marked civil opposition, care from constructive dialogue between authority and society. Responsibility for this lies on the authorities and on the society. Those who “represents the power as demon”, they help it to fortify in authoritarian "orthodox-autocratic" corridor of the possibilities and they make the greater mistake. Instead of this, it needs constant dialogue with “sober” people in the authority, in spite of their former and present professional implements, in spite of their personal political glance. It is not necessary “to represent as demon” former and present members of force structures, lamenting about big amount of them in the authorities. The dialogue washes away the positions of both sides since it can lead to compromise. Therefore it is so complicated to go in a direction of dialogue. To stand in side, feeling intellectual superiority to explain, why power is always wrong, and how bad are all its projects, and why its actions and inactions will absurdly finished, is easier. It is necessary to speak with power on language of interests, rather then ideals and principles. Today the real possibility for our civil society to assist the democratizations of Russia is consist in interaction with power first of all by means of efficient participation in process of state and corporative management. As it was got during the hole period of the reforms, for instance, by A.Chubys. Dialogue is successful if it brings to compromise. But what is the ground this compromise can be reached? Paradoxically, but temporary, situational compromise is received spontaneously, and it is concluded in possibility to avoid the history choice during
imperial/postimperial, to avoid the question about ourselves: are we West or Orient, are we a part of European civilization or not, where vector of our history development is directed. The possibility of the compromise is connected with global economic conjuncture, tempestuous economic growing in countries of the third world, sharp growth of raw materials and energy resources consumption. In industrial epoch raw materials and energy resources were wholly enough for economic necessities of "golden billion", today they will be enough for the rest world too, but this will be more high level of prices. Naturally, such situation in the world trade will bring to additional financial and global political advantage for countries-exporters of raw materials, including Russia. That is why it is realizing in our country briefly-level variant of “energy and raw materials superpower" (sverkhderzhava). Now it forms rare in world history situation: for some times it will be possible to get all increasing incoms to account of growing of raw material and energy resources world prices, not fearing of change of price dynamic. Permanent rising of this price dynamic minimizes the risks of external economic shock for Russia. But this, in turn, minimizes the risks of internal political convulsions. If we shall be able to avoid an national-patriotic deadlock end, as well as cutting the intensification of election competition between different "towers of Kremlin", political stability and economic growing are practically guaranteed. In other words, positive particularities of foreign economic conjuncture are capable to freeze ethnic and federative relations between Russian regions, greatly mute real and potential separate moods, postpone in vast distant future possible of the third stage of state deconsruction (I speak about state which going from imperial to national form of its organizations). Historical pause of "energy superpower" will be able to become a "fairy tale about lost time". But it can enable more predictable and more firm for self-determination of Russian society and state.
1. Afanasiev YN Dangerous Russia: Traditions autocracy today. Moscow: State Humanitarian University, 2001. 432 pp.
2. AG Dugin, Russian Orthodox Church in the Eurasian space: Speech at the
VI World Russian People's Council (December 2001, Christ the Savior)// Basic Eurasianism. M.: Arktogeya Center, 2002.
3. Akhiezer AS Disasters in society and nature as a moral problem (on the
historical experience of Russia) // Works. M: The new chronograph, 2006. P.333-479.
4. Akhiezer AS No attempt to split the dialogue in Russian culture is
irresistible// Westerners and nationalists: is a dialogue?: Proceedings of the debate. M.: OGI, 2003. P.73-76.
5. Akhiezer AS On the peculiarities of modern philosophizing. View from
Russia// Proc. M: The new chronograph, 2006. P.157-332. 6. Akhiezer AS Russia: a critique of historical experience. T. 2. M., 1991.
7. Akhiezer AS Russia: a critique of historical experience. T.I. M.: Philos.
Society of the USSR, 1991. 318 pp.
8. Akhiezer AS Split// Russia: a critique of historical experience (socio-cultural
dynamics of Russia). T. II. Theory and methodology: Glossary. Novosibirsk: Siberian chronograph, 1998. P.390-394.
9. Akhiezer AS The specificity of Russia's political culture and the subject of
Political Science (Historical-cultural study) / / Pro et Contra. 2002. T. 7. № 3. P.51-76.
10. Akhiezer AS The specificity of the history of Russia // Proc. M: The new
chronograph, 2006. P.23-156.
11. Akhiezer Α., Klyamkin VI, Yakovenko, I. History of Russia: the end or new
beginning? Μ.: The new publishing house, 2005. 708 pp.
12. Alyakrinskiy N. Born in a hurry// Kommersant. № 01-02 (1269) 14-20
January 2005. P. 12.
13. Bauman Z. Customized Society / Per. from English. Ed. VL Inozemtseva. -
M.: Logos, 2002. 390.
14. Benedict R. Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Models of Japanese culture.
M., 2004. 15.Benedict R. Images of Culture// Man and socio-cultural environment. M., 1992.
16. Besançon A. Russia in XIX century // Soviet and now Russian history:
Collected articles / Per. with fr. A. Babic (Chapters IV-XI) and M. Rozanov (Chapters I-III). M.: Publishing house "MIK", 1998.
historiography): Analytical review/ RAS. INION. Social Center. nauch.Inform. Issled. Otd. Patriotic. and abroad. history; Ed. Ed. Shevyrin VM M., 2003. P.14 18.Bolshakov OV The paradigm of modernization in the Anglo-American specialists' (Russia Empire)// Political Science. Political development and modernization: Current Research: Sb. scientific. tr. / RAS. YNION. Social Center. Nauch.-Inform. Issled. Otd. political science. Ross, Assoc. his political science; Ed. Ed. and comp. AG Volodin. M, 2003.
19. Bonner, W., Uigtin E. Doomsday U.S. Treasury: mild depression XXI
century/ William Bonner, Addison Uigtin; Lane. from English. BS Pinsker, Ed. V. Kuznetsov. Chelyabinsk: Social Developments, 2005. 402 pp.
20.Braudel Φ. Time of peace. Material civilization, economics and capitalism XV-XVIII centuries. / Per. with fr. LE Kubbelya, entered. Art. N. Afanasyev. T. 3. Moscow: Progress, 1992.
3. The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and its
Geostrategic Imperatives. M.: Intern. Relations, 1998. 256 pp. 22.Bukovsky Vladimir Moscow process. Moscow: IIC; Paris: Russian Thought, 1996. 23.Bykov VP, Vlasova, A. Why do we need a Ukraine// Expert December 1319, 2004, № 47 (447).
24. Chernyaev NI Mysticism, ideals and poetry of the Russian autocracy / came.
Art. MB Smolin. Moscow: Moscow, 1998.
25. Chernyshevski NG Provincial Sketches Shchedrin / / Critical section.
(Contemporary 1854-1861) / Edition NM Chernyshevsky. Petersburg.: Printing and lithograph VA Tihanova, 1895.
26. Civilization model of modernity and its historical roots / YN Pakhomov, SB
Krimsky, UV Pavlenko et al, Ed. YN Pakhomov. Kiev: Nauk. Dumka, 2002.
27. Coker K. Twilight of the West. M., 2000. 28. Deutsch K. National integration: an overview of some concepts and research
approaches / Ethnicity and Politics: A Reader / Auto. comp. AA Prazauskas. M.: URAO, 2000. P. 190-202.
29. Dostoevsky FM Devils / / Full. Coll. Vol.: In the 30 tons Т.10. L.: Nauka,
30. Dzhanguzhin (Zhangozha) RN post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Kiev: The Union,
2002. 31.Eibl-Eybesfeldt I. Public Space and its social role of culture. 1983. № 1.
32. Eisenstadt C. plurality of Modernism in the Era of Globalization /
Globalization: The contours of the XXI century. M., 2002.
33. Eisenstadt S., Revolution and the transformation of societies. A comparative
study of civilizations. M., 1999.
34. Eisenstadt S., Revolution and the transformation of societies. A comparative
study of civilizations. M, 1999. 35.Evans-Pritchard E. Nuer. M., 1985. 36.Fedotov, GP A new idol // The fate and the sins of Russia: Selected articles on the philosophy of Russian history and culture: V 2 t. T. 2 / Sost., Introductory essay, notes Boikova VF SPb.: Sofia, 1991. 37.Fedotova VG Between Europe and Asia / Westerners and nationalists: is a dialogue?: Proceedings of the debate. M., 2003. 38.Fedotova VG Modernization of the "other" of Europe. M., 1997. 39.Fomichev PN Discourses of globalization and trends in sociology: Analytical review // Sociological Studies at the threshold of the XXI century. / RAS. INION. M., 2000. 40.Fomichev PN Discourses of globalization and trends in sociology: Analytical review // Sociological Studies at the threshold of the XXI century. / RAS. INION. M., 2000. 41.Fromm E. Escape from freedom // The dogma of Christ / Per. with him. G. garment workers, comp. and buses. Introd. PS Gurevich. Moscow: Olimp, AST-LTD, 1998. 42.Fukuyama F. The End of History and the Last Man. M., 2004. 43.Furman Late President // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2007. August 21.
44. Gaidar ET The loss of empire. Lessons for Modern Russia. Moscow:
"Russia's political encyclopaedia" (ROSSPEN), 2006. 440 pp.
45. Gavrov Sergey, Modernization in the name of the empire. Social and
cultural aspects of Russia's modernization. M., 2004.
46. Gavrov Sergey, Our and our // Personality, culture and societies of. T. 8.
Vol. 1 (29). M., 2005.
47. Gavrov Sergey, Irreversible the transition to authoritarianism? // Free
thought, № 1-2 (1563) (XXI), January-February 2006. P. 80-89.
48. Gavrov Sergey, Draft of the new imperialism of Russia // After the Empire /
Yuri Afanasyev, Yegor Gaidar, B. Inozemtsev, A. Pain, M. Urnov, E. Yasin
et al Under Society. Ed. AM Klyamkin. M.: Foundation of the Liberal Mission, 2007. P. 113-117.
49. Gavrov Sergey, Social and cultural transformation of the Permanent-tion of
Russia // Russia as a civilization: stability and variability howling. : Nauka, RAS, Scientific Council "History of world cul-ture" 2007. S. 505-530.
50. Gavrov Sergey, Nikandrov ND Education in the process of co-tsializatsii
personality // Herald URAO, № 5 (43). P. 21-30. 51.Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. M., 2004. 52.Geller M. Ya machine and screws. The history of the formation of Soviet man. Moscow: MIK, 1994.
53. Geller MJ Machine and screws. The history of the formation of Soviet man.
M., 1994. 54.Giddens A. Sociology. M., 1999. 55.Gontmaher E. To live up to reform // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2007. August 28.
56. Gurov T. revolution, its leaders and its technology// Expert, December 13-
19, 2004. № 47 (447).
57. Guzhva I. Absolution is// Expert, № 25. 2001. P. 14.
58.Habermas, The philosophical discourse of modern dance. M., 2003.
59. Hakamada I., SEX in politics. Tutorial self-made woman. Moscow: ANO
RID "Novaya Gazeta", 2006.
60. Hörster-Phillips W. Conservative policy in the last period of the Weimar
Republic // Types of power in the comparative-historical perspective: Topical collection. Vol. 3. INION, 1997.
61. Iadov VA And yet the mind can understand Russia Russia: Transforming
Society / Edited by VA poisons. M: Kanon-Press-Ts, 2001. P. 9-20.
62. Ilyin IA Prerequisites creative democracy // About the upcoming Russia:
Selected articles. Ed. NP Poltoratsky. M. Military Publishing, 1993.
63. Itshokin AA Restoring meaning. Why not finish Zarathustra. M.: Lights,
2003. 539 pp.
64.James W. The variety of religious experience. M., 1993. 65.John, 18, 36
66. Kagan MS About time, about people, about myself. St. Petersburg: ID
67. Kantor VK "... There is a European power. Russia: the difficult path to
civilization. Historiosophical essays. M.: ROSSPEN, 1997. 479 pp.
68. Karpukhin O.I, Makarevich EF Formation of the masses: The nature of
public relations and technology public relations: The experience of historical sociologist. study. Kaliningrad: National Center Jantar. Tale, 2001.
69. Kemal M. Path of the new Turkey. T. III. The intervention of the Allies.
Greco-Turkish War and the consolidation of the National Front 1920-1921. M.: Gos. socio-economic izd-vo, 1934. 70.Khodorkovsky MB Property and Freedom // Vedomosti. Number 239 (1279). December 8. 2004. SA 4. 71.Klakhon K. Mirror for man. Introduction to anthropology. SPb. 1998. 72.Koch A. State-seller / Privatization on the Russo. M.: Vagrius, 1999.
73. Kravchenko II Modernization of Russia today // statist model of
modernization. M., 2002. P. 6-30. 74.Kutkovets TI, Klyamkin IM Modernist project for Russia // Vedomosti. 75.Levi-Strauss C. primitive thought. M., 1999. 76.Levi-Strauss C. Structural Anthropology. M., 1985. 77.Levy-Bruhl L. Supernatural in primitive thought. M., 1994.
78. Lipman W., public philosophy. M., 2004.
79.Lotman, Y Symbolism of St. Petersburg and the problem of semiotics of the city / Selected article: V 3 t. T. 2. Tallinn, 1992.
80. Malinowski B., Death and the reintegration of the group // Religion and
Society: Readings on the sociology of religion. M., 1996.
81. Malinowski B., Magic and Religion / Religion and Society. M., 1996. 82. Mastyugina T., Perepelkin L., Ethnology. The peoples of Russia: History
and current situation: Textbook. M., 1997.
83. Moss M., Society. Sharing. Personality. M., 1996. 84. Neyrn T., Internationalism and the Second Coming // Nation and
Nationalism / Translated from English. and him. LE Pereyaslavtsevoy, MS Panina, MB Gnedovskiy. Moscow: Praxis, 2002. P. 347-363. 85.Op. By: Bolshakov OV Russia Empire: Control system (Modern foreign historiography): Analytical survey. M.: INION, 2003, pp. 14-15. (Bolschakova OV Rossiyskaya imperiya: sistema upravleniya / Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya istoriografiya / pp. 14-15).
86. Orlova E., Social and cultural preconditions of modernization in Russia.
Library in an era of change. Vol. 2 (10). M., 2001.
87. Ortega y Gasset J., The revolt of the masses / Aesthetics. Philosophy of
Culture. / Per. with App. AM Geleskula. MA: Art, 1991. P. 309-349.
88. Pain E., Between empire and nation. Modernist project and its traditionalist
alternative to the national policy of Russia. M.: Foundation of the Liberal Mission Foundation, 2003. 164 p. 89.Parsons T. The system of modern societies. M., 1997. 90.Parsons, T. Essay on the social system // On the social systems, Ed. VF Chesnokov, and SA Belanovsky. M., 2002.
Vlastetsentrichnye iideologicheskie base // Russia and the modern world. 2003. № 3.
92. Platonov S., Moscow and the West in the XVI-XVII centuries // Moscow
and the West in the XVI-XVII centuries. Boris Godunov. M.: BOGORODSKII printer, 1999. P. 21-142.
93. Pomerantz G., From the depths of the cold distemper / unheard voices.
Volume 2. M.: Independent Publishers "Peak", 2003
94. Population and globalization/ NM Rimashevskaya, VF Galetsky, A.A.
Ovsyannikov, etc. M.: Nauka, 2002. 322 pp.
95. Rimashevskaia N., Saving people. M., 2007.
96. Samodurov Y., last word canary // Moscow News, 04/10 March 2005, № 9
K., Aesthetic life in antiurbanisticheskoy Japanese culture/
Landmarks M.: Ifra., 2001. P. 166-187.
98. Savitskaya T., Postmodern world: changing cultural paradigm// Global
Community: Mapping of post-modern world / Rook. project status. and Ed. Ed. AI Neklessa M., et al: Vost. lit., 2002. P.76-104.
99. Semenov V., Differentiation and consolidation of generations// Russia:
Transforming Society, ed. VA poisons. M.: Kanon – press, 2001. P. 256271.
Shtaff I. On the concept of political theology of Carl Schmitt // Types
of power in the comparative-historical perspective: Topical collection. Vol. 3. INION, 1997.
Simonov K Energy superpower. M., 2006. Solov'ev second invasion: "Walking Together" reached the level of Solovyov E. At the root of Russia's conservatism // Political Studies. Starikov E. Community-barracks of the Pharaohs to the present day. Stepun F Thoughts on the Russia / / Stepun FA Works. M.: Sztompka P. Sociology of social change. M., 1996. Tregubova E. Tales of a Kremlin Digger. M.: Ad Marginem, 2003. Treivish A. Town, village and regional development / town and
ministers, governors, and TV // Kommersant, April 16, 2005, № 68.
M., 1997, № 3.
Novosibirsk: Siberian chronograph, 1996.
ROSSPEN, 2000. P. 201-424. 106.
village in European Russia: a hundred years of change: Monografich. Sat M.: OGI, 2001. P. 337-373.
Trubetskoy EI, Prince. From travel writing refugee / From the past. Utkin A. Impact of American Gods. M., 2006.
Memoirs. From travel writing as a refugee. Tomsk: Aquarius, 2000. 110.
Van der Vee G. History of the world economy. 1945-1990. M., 1994. Vlasov O. The final step in the Europe// Expert. 28 March-3 April Water VI, Chernikov A., S. Strokan Ukraine surrendered to the Allies. Weidle B. Three of Russia // Dying Art / Sost. and buses. poslesl. VM Wulf L. Inventing Eastern Europe: Map of civilization in the minds of
2005. № 12 (459).
Kommersant, April 22. Number 72.
Tolmachev. M.: Respublika, 2001.
the Enlightenment / Per. from English. I. Fedyukina. Moscow: New Literary Review, 2003. 560 pp.
Yaklvenko I. Empire and the Nation / / After the Empire. M.:
Foundation of the Liberal Mission. M.: 2007, pp. 60 (Yakovenko I. Imperiya i natsiya // Posle imperii, p. 60).
Yakovenko I Empire and the Nation // After the Empire / Pod Society.
Ed. AM Klyamkin. M.: Foundation of the Liberal Mission Foundation, 2007. P.60.
Yakovenko I Ukraine and Russia: correlation plots // Herald of Yakovlev A Dusk. M.: The Continent, 2003. Yanov A Russia and Europe in 3 books. Book Two. The Enigma of Yasin E ASU whether democracy in Russia. Μ.: The new publishing Yasin E Phantom pain of a bygone empire // After the Empire. M.: Yasin EG Phantom pain of a bygone empire // After the Empire. M.:
Europe. T. XVI. M., 2005. P.63-76. 119.
Nicholas I of Russia. 1825-1855. M.: New chronograph, 2007. 504 pp.
house, 2005. P.339-340.
Foundation of the Liberal Mission Foundation, 2007.
Foundation of the Liberal Mission ", 2007 (Yasin EG Fantomnyie boly uschedschey imperii // Posle imperii).
Zinoviev, A West. M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2000. 509 pp.
Гавров Сергей Назипович, д.филос.н., профессор Gavrov, Sergey Nazipovich – dr. of sc. /philosophy/, Professor of sociology and social anthropology
Компьютерная верстка Масалова В.А. Ответственный за выпуск Морозов Р.В. 161
Бумага офсетная. Печать на ризографе. Усл.-печ.л. 23 Тираж 1000 зкз. Заказ № 979
Информационно-издательский центр МГУДТ 115998, Москва, ул. Садовническая, 33 Тел./факс: (495) 506-72-71 e-mail: email@example.com Отпечатано в НИЦ МГУДТ