The meeting held recently in the news media about the impending 40% reduction of budget places in Russian universities, and at the same time the dismissal of tens of thousands of scientists, caused a vivid reaction from the young Russian left-wing intellectuals.
Their reaction was more cohesive and joyful than the traditional, liberal ojidala the deaths of the Russian Federation.
Left-wing intellectuals immediately bombed in social networks (which they are 100% equipped), which is the path to total spiritual scrapie and serfdom made another important step. They managed to sneer at the fact that still only 33% of roads of Russians believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth — and there is clearly a defect of spiritual education. And all this in the few hours, until it became clear that the news of the reduction of students and scientists another duck.
Sounds like a joke, but the reality before us — a new long-lasting factor in national media space. Today, when we come across it on petrosyanschinu about the inevitable collapse of the Fatherland — it most likely did not write traditional hardcore liberal, a lover of Ayn Rand and Yegor Gaidar. Rather, it was a leftist intellectual, a lover of Zizek, the visitor public lecture at Strelka and proud reader nauchpop.
This new type is so different from the usual Russian Communist, that it should speak separately.
In fact, we are witnessing another historic rebranding of Russian dissidence. That was “ultraleve” in the nineteenth century and the “ultra-liberal” in the twentieth century, now the logic was obliged again to mutate
Here it mutates.
The collective liberal dissidence, still struggling with the Shovel, because of age and loss of relevance strongly conveys the function of the struggle to the next generation.
Under him slowly reformatted centers of thought and flows of the asset, signing the manifests.
In the study of the past may seem “left-wing intellectuals” demand quite the opposite of “liberals”. It may seem that their main goal — the building of the good old socialist state with a strong public sector and in the protection of the majority. Because they demand in their manifestos “of the annual indexation of salaries, pensions, stipends and benefits, decent unemployment benefits, nationalization of basic industries in the economy, the moratorium on the privatization of all socially important spheres “. And so on.
But no.
Their main requirement is not how to protect someone. It is traditional entertained for centuries: someone to relax and who, on the contrary, give crimson pants.
The main requirement is still in weakening the power component of the state and the award of social benefits to somebody else: “Optimization of the police. Government support of science,culture and art, to promote the widest possible access to these areas outside of censorship and other restrictions. The decline in the share of expenditures on military and law enforcement agencies in favour of education, health and culture. Valid ensuring secular character of the state. The abolition of all discriminatory laws based on “morality” and “traditional values“, content is not determinedby society, and clerics from all religions. Eliminate from legislation the concept of “traditional religions”. The decentralization of power, the termination of any pressure on the media, ensuring freedom of expression of journalists in all media , regardless of who is their founder and their legal structure and ownership. The state is obliged not to interfere in the work of editorial offices and to guarantee the protection of journalists from persecution. The prohibition of extrajudicial blocking of electronic resources. Limitation of presidential power, the transfer of real powers to the Parliament ” and so forth.
Let’s try to guess whom these intellectuals see this as a privileged class of the future of the welfare state. In which “morality and traditional values” thrown in the cold and mediaklass taken on Costa and free from trouble.
In fact before us — the same “unrecognized elitist” that was 30 years ago. Minimally modified
Where did they come from? Under the hypotheses of the historical unity of the domestic dissidence — the new left its strain formed us exactly the same recipe as the previous one, ultra-liberal.
Soviet ultra produced provincial research institutes, cultural centers and publishing houses from the ranks of ambitious seventies, disabled Brezhnev “gerontocracy” from the glittering careers.
Today’s leftist fighters grew out of the latecomers at the age of 90-m and their mad career highs of holders of pretentious crafts — bias in art figures and computer programmers.
Actually, hence the difference in their requirements: generation dad did not want to share with the cattle of the fruits of their intellectual work and believe in your future mega-success in the free market — and therefore wanted to “Soviet egalitarianism” was canceled.
A generation of children is somewhat more sensibly imagine his value on the free market and therefore requires that its vast freedom and revelry provided by the state
In the main the same dad and kids quite agree — uncouth that the state should move, it is possible to dissolve his army/national guard/Ministry of internal Affairs, and take away the right to the formation of morality have “clerics” and give it “society”.
Here, by the way, it is pointless to argue that power structures and “traditional confessions” (as well as traditional morality) in fact, historically and established as bodies of self-organization of the majority. And that hit them in rights in favor of mediaklass — just so relaxing and plugging “the passive majority” (left-wing dissidents use that term with the same pleasure as traditional).
It’s pointless, because left unrecognized to most of the elitist are the same as liberal — they in an emphasis do not see. That they have a generic sign. They, like the liberal elitist, convinced that once the majority does not revolt against the state — it is only stupidity and disorganization. For to conceive the state otherwise than hostile entity they do not know.
Therefore, “traditional spirituality” for them, in contrast to the generation of ultra-liberals of the 1980s, is also the enemy. That generation had the illusion that traditional confessions in Russia can be their allies in the struggle against the state. The same is convinced that in Russia the clergy for some reason, always for the state. Hence the change of attitude and joyful replicating every unscientific statements “on behalf of the believers” — no matter how it contradicted the official position of the Church.
The “left-wing mutants” organically, there can be sympathy for the state. Simply because of heredity. Because first and foremost they consider themselves oppressed by the government elite, and only then — left-wing, galteljami degraded people and supporters of democracy.
Therefore, unlike the Communists of the twentieth century, who worked on the compulsory mobilization development of most state instruments – these are today quite comfortable feel in your ghetto with Wi-Fi, manifests, repost and intellectual meetings. Because “most passive, and the state is hostile”.
…There is reason to believe that dissent is only the beginning of a cycle, still in the chrysalis.
But times are changing.
History shows that ruling elites in Russia are equally at risk of “inner emigration” and otchalivai from reality, as “replacement” dissident
And if the first one falls then the second appears, albeit briefly, a chance.
Fell a couple of months ago the chance of the left dissident Kerensky, and a quarter of a century ago, the liberal dissident Gaidar. The consequences of those who laid them, had to deal with for decades.
