In the stream of various analytics that is poured out on the reader every day today, it is sometimes very difficult to see something really serious. Thanks to blogs, too many people began to write about what they see and hear, so the quality of analytics (the number of interesting thoughts per ten publications) in general has seriously decreased in recent years.
However, from time to time you come across texts that deserve the closest attention. And today we will break our tradition of analyzing several sources of the blogosphere, and will devote our attention to only one. We are talking about the text published on February 25 by Mikhail Khazin "Forecast for Russia for 2017". In our opinion, this is indeed a very important text for understanding the true problems of Russia's development and the risks it faces.
If we talk about the essence of this programmatic text, then, in my opinion, Mikhail Khazin gives a very accurate description of those three conceptual projects of the country's development, around which practically all political forces are concentrated within Russia. The first project is the project of the global liberals, who want to build a consumer society in Russia, as in the West, and see themselves looking from the West behind Russian territory, which is fully integrated into the Western world as a resource province.
The second project is a project of Orthodox monarchists, who see the point of their project for Russia in restoring the monarchy under any sauce. The Russian Tsar with the entire body of institutions that ensure its functioning, including the church, is the goal towards which this political group is striving. Like the liberals, this project assumes that the monarchists will form a caste ruling Russia, and the people will be the soil that will feed this crystal house of the new landowners and bourgeoisie, ensure the incessant “crunch of French rolls” in their bedchambers.
Mikhail Khazin describes this group as follows: “The second group, Orthodox-monarchical. They are patriots (and in this sense they cannot agree with the "liberals"), but at the same time they want the revival of the "good old time", on the assumption that it is they who will become the basis of the privileged estates. A very important thing: the church is needed by potential nobles (read - patriotic officials) in order to bridge the gap between tsarist Russia and the present time, since the continuity of the nobility was completely destroyed."
I would add one more very obvious factor of why the Orthodox monarchists need the church - in order to keep the people in obedience. They do not need thinking, educated people who will question the current Scaligerian history, ask questions about where the ancient people had knowledge from, but did not have tools, technology, and most importantly, a method of scientific knowledge to obtain it, and so on. And most importantly, the church does not help a person get rid of those problems and complexes because of which he suffers, but only aggravates them more and more, since it is not engaged in their treatment, but in exploitation, since if a person recovers, he will return to productive creative or everyday life.
Where did this second group of hidden liberal Westernizers come from, disguised in the toga of Orthodox monarchists like Natalya Poklonskaya and others like her? - The “alternatively gifted” team will work in several main areas. The first is the continuation of attempts to introduce an estate state in Russia. At the same time, a rather specific group, which is certainly not a liberal one, has become the main “strike tool”: it is an Orthodox-monarchist group.
Therefore, when we hear from Orthodox monarchists the idea of the need to reconcile the Soviet and tsarist periods of history, then we must understand that we are talking exclusively about one thing - first about the subordination of the Soviet period of history to the monarchical one, and then about its gradual liquidation.
The third project is a project that can be called differently - imperial socialism or socialist imperialism, depending on what is laid in the foundation of the Empire - the Empire itself as a multilingual people, or socialism as a qualitative characteristic of the system, but its essence is simple - it is a society of social justice with private property, but which will be under the strict control of the state, to ensure social justice in society.
That is, socialism and Empire do not contradict each other. And an example of this is the Soviet Union, which gave equal rights to all peoples inhabiting it, and socialism as a principle of distribution of profits. Of course, the USSR turned out to be not an ideal socio-economic formation (OEF), in too difficult conditions it pushed its way into life, the theoretical basis was still too weak. But the achievements of the USSR against the background of the bloody results of the First World War and the internecine civil war, the devastation of the first years of the construction of the world's first socialist state, to which world capitalism declared a war for survival, the destruction of the Great Patriotic War, are simply amazing. If the USSR had survived for another twenty or thirty years, it would have ruled the world today. But for one beaten - two unbeaten gives. We know what we have lost, and we know how to improve it so that this idea shines to the whole world and Russia regains the vocation that it had throughout the entire world history.
Therefore, I agree with the opinion of Mikhail Khazin that “the craving of Russian society for the empire is acquiring more and more socialist shades, no matter how annoying the monarchists may be. Moreover, nationalist tendencies are also strengthening, and not only in national regions, but also in purely Russian ones. The fact is that the demonstrative disregard of the population by the bureaucracy leads to the inevitable emergence of forces that explain such disregard for national discrimination (by the Russian elite for the national elites and, on the contrary, anti-Russian - for the Russian population).
On what basis is the unification of the pro-Western liberals and Orthodox monarchists and their struggle against the imperial socialists taking place? According to Mikhail Khazin, on the basis of class society: “the unification of the liberal 'privatization' elite and Orthodox monarchists on the topic of attraction to the class society shows what is really important for them. The failure of all right-wing liberal parties is connected, in fact, with one very simple circumstance: the leaders of these parties did not care at all about civil liberties and the need to comply with laws, not to mention the interests of entrepreneurs, they thought about their personal commercial interests. And this manifested itself in real political actions, which led to well-known results.
This is a very accurate description of the processes taking place in Russian society, which are no less important for the future of Russia than the civil war in Ukraine or the actions of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. Moreover, such very bright external stimuli well distract the attention of the population from those really important problems of social and property equality, the separation of church from the state, the gradual elimination in Russia of the society of equal social opportunities that existed in the USSR.
Therefore, the new Russian possessing elite, like no one else, is interested in preserving its property superiority over the overwhelming majority of the very poor living people. Therefore, sooner or later, and apparently already, she will think about institutionalizing her property status as a privileged social class. In this regard, she, by and large, does not care what scenario will be carried out for the elimination of the socialism inherited by Russia from the USSR - according to the scenario of joining the Western community as a second-rate raw materials appendage, or as an Orthodox monarchy, but also serving its Western patrons (British Royal House).
Therefore, in my opinion, Mikhail Khazin is absolutely right that the project of the Orthodox monarchists is only a sub-version of the project of liberal revenge, which a certain part of the Western elites is trying to launch in order to again deprive Russia of global and geopolitical subjectivity. Only those who associate themselves with Orthodoxy and monarchy, tsarism should become the only social basis for it. However, this is just another snag for the Russian people, since it was German tsarism on the Russian throne that was the most reactionary and conservative form of restraining the development of Russia itself, which resulted in the two revolutions of 1917.
I would like to remind you that at first tsarism was demolished by the liberals, who wanted to equip Russia in a Western manner, and only then, when their project of plundering Russia began to cause natural resistance among the masses, they were already demolished by the Bolsheviks, offering people the ideas of social justice, the elimination of classes and estates, equal rights and opportunities. It is thanks to the fact that, on the whole, under horrific external conditions, this society was built by 1940, we won the war with that fascist monster who began to cultivate the West immediately after he saw that he had not been able to strangle with force and blood the world's first socialist state.
And so, by 2017, the situation in Russia has matured in such a way that we see, on the whole, a repetition of the situation in 1917, only at a new round of historical development. The fact that this is exactly the case is confirmed by the world geopolitical and social processes:
In my opinion, Mikhail Khazin very subtly outlined the main three projects that currently exist in Russia and to which basically all the party and social diversity of ideas in society is reduced. At the same time, this understanding of the existing problem automatically leads us to the following conclusion - the estate society, for which, according to Khazin, the liberals and Orthodox monarchists stand up for, is only a special case of a class society in the version in which it existed in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. - everything to the top, nothing to the bottom. In fact, a class society is a class society, divided according to the principle of attitude to property: you own something, or just an employee.
In this regard, how does the new socialism differ from these two projects? It allows for the presence of private property, but it must be under the enhanced control of the state. The main issue is the existence of a disproportion between the profit that the owner of the enterprise or company receives and that part of the profit that is appropriated by employees. In a society of social justice, there can be no question of one person increasing his capital by a billion a year with an average salary in a corporation, for example, at the level of only 500-700-1000 dollars.
Based on this understanding, we see that in today's Russia socialism, on the one hand, is one of the most unpopular currents of political thought among the elite, on the other, it is the most demanded by the Russian people, as well as by the peoples of other former republics of the USSR, who lost from the collapse of the Soviet Union. more than Russia, and drag out their existence in poverty, misery, social and creative hopelessness, as a result of which aggressive nationalism receives a fertile ground for its development. Therefore, the choice between socialism and capitalism is not a choice between rich and poor Russia, it is a choice between Russia and the abyss.
Accordingly, since this political niche is empty, and the theoretical developments of socialism and imperialism are very fruitfully developed both by the "Essence of Time" group of Sergei Kurginyan and by members of the Izborsk Club, the creative symbiosis of these approaches with access to the political plane can become not only very productive with theoretical point of view, but also politically justified in the sense of supporting the course of Vladimir Putin to build a strong and free Russia.