Recently, in the right environment, there are justifiable concerns about the emerging new left.
In fact, they already have a fairly powerful media resource: the media (Lentach, Meduza), bloggers (nixelpixel, TrashSmash), lifestyle magazines (Knife, Wonderzine), intellectual platforms (Sygma); not directly related to them resources (T & P, "Batenka, yes, you are a transformer," "Mel") are also influenced by Western discourse; in higher educational institutions "gender studies" have been conducted for a long time already (and not only in the Higher School of Economics, even in my provincial alma mater they are); in the territory of the Russian Federation there are doubtful organizations (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation); LGBT activists and feminists dare - arrange scandals, hold uncoordinated actions, meetings, conferences. And this is not all.
In fact, the right has not fully realized the seriousness of our situation and stubbornly does not want to do this. By the way, I will tell you a secret, I have good reasons to believe that the state oriented much faster.
Those who look at each other a little and possess the rudiments of reason, the first thing to come to mind is the obvious: the American scenario. I met this version, for example, on the streaming of the ROG PR team, and I confess I was sick for a while. But having recently considered what I have learned over the past year and a half, I came to the conclusion that it is fundamentally wrong and has nothing in common with Russian reality. In favor of my point of view, I can give five arguments, which, perhaps, will convince you.
1.Antifs will not be
Quite obvious and almost indisputable fact: the "anti-fascist" movement in the form in which it exists in the West, is doomed to us. Several months ago the so-called. "Penza case", which, after the statement of the anarchists arrested on him about torture, grew into a serious confrontation between the siloviki and "anti-fascist" organizations. I could tell you all the details, but better learn about them first-hand: the "Autonomous Action" website published "a review of the repressions of 2017 and the beginning of 2018", and in the "People's Self-Defense" group a remarkable review post on the same topic If it is unfastened, use the search for an obvious "repression against people's self-defense"). The FSB began to work with diligence and is clearly not going to retreat, which means: no breakdowns of lectures by ultra-left activists and no "battle for Berkeley".
I sincerely wish the department good luck in good endeavors and sincerely wonder why it did not take up business before. It is even more or less clear to me why the liberal democracies can do nothing with those who directly declare war on the state to the state and are ready to smash shop windows and kill policemen on occasion, but in a democratic dictatorship one can somehow deal with the enemies of Russia somehow .
Sorry, the lyrics began, we better return to the current situation.
In addition to the above, there is a fundamental difference between the problems of the "revival of fascism" in the US and Russia. If in the States there are quite real neo-Nazis with access to arms, unlike many comrades-in-arms, the Alt-Right movement did not bother to exclude from its ranks, in our God-Saving Fatherland even the stillborn party of the bonheads has already been routed. Everything that looked like totalitarian bastards of the middle of the last century either does not exist, or has gone to more socially useful areas (sport, civic activism), or is so pitiful and marginal that it takes a laugh. In addition, with the "anti-fascist" tasks, the competent departments are much better than any anarchists. In other words, the red-and-black guys do not have to fight with anyone, and the subjects for political speculation have to be sucked out of your finger (it does not matter - you will not believe - to the "ultra-right" "Other Russia").
In addition, it is worth remembering that left-wing anarchist organizations do not now become sufficiently massive, especially in societies with dominant statist sentiments. Their electorate in our country is estimated by the miserable tens of thousands of young people, whereas even among Russian nationalists, the bill goes to millions. In such terrible conditions and with exactly one serious thinker among the successors of the Bakunin and Kropotkin case in Russia - Pyotr Ryabov - there is no future either for the "People's Self-Defense", or for the "Autonomous Action", nor for smaller associations there can not be.
2. The actual problems of Russia and the United States differ too much
Even without me, you understand how different the social problems are in countries whose GDP per capita differs almost 7 times. Let us also recall the health care system, the structure of production, ethnic diasporas, arbitrariness on the ground, corruption. Advanced Russians are more concerned about the spread of AIDS, the dying Russian village, the low level of art for the mass audience, bureaucracy, monocities, dumps in the suburbs, and not the unfortunate Chechen transgenders. What can we say about the "common people".
Therefore, when degenerates from the Higher School of Equality write that "Lukism" is "one of the most acute problems of modern Russia," I have nothing to answer but explosive laughter. Prices for gasoline are better than check, not privileges.
But from the more obvious things go to the less obvious: if the agenda of the left-liberal in Russia, unlike the US, is irrelevant, then the reasons for which they are gaining popularity with us are different. Reading the following lines, you should understand that I am making a considerable simplification: no doubt, a lot of factors influence the fate of this or that idea - especially the political one, but there is no need to do their detailed analysis now. Therefore, it is worth abstracting from most of them, highlighting the most important.
I am not an expert in American politics, but as far as I understand, movements like SJW are not very much tied to theory. No, I know about the Frankfurt school, Foucault, "materiel", gender studies and other delights. But I think that politically active political forces in the United States were formed as such for "mechanical" reasons, like products of youth political activism, youth subcultures and acute American problems. The left-wing intellectual mainstream is more likely to play a much more complex role than the one attributed to it by my comrades-in-arms who harass tales of "cultural Marxism." Somewhere, it forms and reproduces Western discourse, and somewhere itself is its derivative, in general, easily and naturally embedded in the paradigm of student protests and dreams of a "melting pot".
As for our country, here the reasons are rather "intellectual" than "mechanical". And they completely coincide with the reasons for the popularity among various intelligentsia of national Bolshevism, liberal democracy, libertarianism, Eurasianism, national democracy with a taste of English cryptocolonies, monarchism. The fact is that all these directions in different periods of time were able (or at least had the opportunity) to move the paradigm of social thinking: from socialism - to liberalism, from liberalism - to conservatism and back to liberalism. One can, of course, link their elevation to a reaction to quite concrete events: right-wing ideas - to the decay of the Union, the "red-brown ones" - to decay, the collapse of the country and "dashing nineties," conservative ones - to disappointment in everything preceding and enrichment of citizens to zero , the renewed liberal - on the fatigue of the notorious "stability." However, it should be noted that the solution of the vital problems of Russians lies not in the plane of Dugin's philosophical search, European values, books about Eddic, the ethnogenesis of Russians, imperial aesthetics and anarcho-capitalist off-road. And even more difficult to find it in the bulb, the menning, blackface, viktimbleming and the rest of the stream of disgustingly tasteless experiments on the English language.
One should not forget that life, including political, does not stand still: when the bearers of this or that ideology lose in the struggle for power or withdraw themselves from it, they cease to update and expand their worldview positions, as a result of which they cease to attract new clever and active followers - then their ideas recede into the background, or even completely forgotten. Old ideas are replaced by new, modern, more complex and interesting ones. Including left liberalism. He is like that "first McDonald's", the turn in which is quite understandable and justified.
3. Some Western trends have reached us faster and have already exhausted themselves
I mean, of course, the antithesis (or rather call it "anti-Christianity"), Richard Dawkins, a new wave of scientism (more accurately call it "science"), the popularization of science.
Again, I will not reveal a big secret if I say that sectarians who believe in the Scientific Method, who respect the Holy Evolution and pray for the Holy Martyr Richard (in the world - Dokens), have long occupied the Internet space. But have you ever wondered what cultural artifacts they left behind for so many years of active existence? Pastafarianism is a sample of bad taste, which is the fruit of the imagination of an American scientist. Mem "dumb verun," which is used with pleasure by Orthodox, ridiculing close critics of religion. Memes "Docens", "schoolchild-atheist" and others, used for the same purposes. Stupid images, monetized public accounts of the "MDK" level Vkontakte, illiterate whining about the "innocently murdered Giordano Bruno," endless discussions of vagabond popularizers with little-known clerics about creationism, a few boring videoblogs. In general, almost nothing.
Nevzorov and Ponasenkov alone, belonging to the category of "talking heads", broadcasting for people who do not have any little knowledge of erudition, nor the rudiments of analytical thinking, but not related to the youthful science-motivated movements, produced more interesting things than the aforementioned motions, if they were thrown out of a dozen or so adequate people and a beautiful crow from the cover of "Protection from the Dark Arts."
And in contrast, Kuraev's wonderful lectures on the history of the church, the communities of young people critical of the situation, unusual content-makers and, in part, new conservatives, arose. But the woes of scientist missionaries do not end there either. First, a whole layer of scientists is experiencing, if not obvious dislike, then, at least, a disregard for yesterday's students who rushed to carry the "light of knowledge" to the "dark people". Adequate scientific staff, unfortunately, is almost not audible, because these are people who went to their field not for media, but for the sake of the region itself. Secondly, in the most advanced part of the heterogeneous environment of the science philosophers there appeared the disappointed "fifth column", whose voice was Victor Wachstein. And this is an alarming bell for those who are seriously interested in the sect of lovers in someone else's intellectual work.
Obviously, the obscurantists who call themselves "enlighteners" have reached the limit, and their discourse has lost the charm of novelty. Other things being equal, the further fate of Russian popularizers and anti-heroes is a departure into nonexistence and a generation change that takes into account the errors of the predecessors.
4. The Russian right alternative has received political subjectivity earlier than the left
I will say at once: of course, I am talking about the right-wing new generation, which has virtually no continuity from the previous one, but I'm not talking about the ultra-left new generation that is the continuer of the Marxist tradition of the Soviet Union. After all, the former largely represent an alternative to modern Russian discourse, while the latter are not.
Speaking about our wing, it is worth mentioning that recently, not only the media resource and human capital have increased and the amount of good content has increased, but also some rightists have received subjectivity and place on the political field of the Russian Federation. ЛПР has held a smart meeting in defense of Telegram, breaking out of the shackles of marginality, and is now busy expanding its influence and recruiting an electoral base. Different groups of moderate nationalists engage in civil activism, help the citizens of Novorossia, expand social networking, and develop new projects. Since 2012 year, a remarkable corporation "ENOT", which has an impressive "track record." A small and ridiculous movement "Identists of Russia" is carrying out meaningless, but stylish political activism. And this is not counting the adequate organizations of the "old right", like the "White cause" and "Two-headed eagle." All of the above associations, of their own accord, implementing various strategies, are fighting for the electorate and pursue certain political goals. That is, they have political subjectivity.
Finding it for various kinds of "fighters for social justice" is quite difficult. Who from the Russian political department has a summons, at least similar to the one promoted by SJW? Sobchak? But she obviously lacks independence. Bulk? He lacks radicalism: although he uses the left populism, but still remains very moderate. And instead of the "open borders" in its program visa regime with Central Asia. Smaller figures? They are not to be seen or heard as dozens of nationalist organizations throughout the country.
In general, the agenda of the leftists of the Western type does not go beyond the borders of the media sphere. At the same time, we can see that there is already a serious political counterbalance to them. But in the States the situation is exactly the opposite. Not to mention people like Bernie Sanders, whose many years of work predetermined the processes that are taking place in America now, the youth left movements, as far as I know, took the current form even during the Obama presidency. Whereas the opposing Alt-Right was before the Trump campaign a marginal and little-known current.
5. Neo-Marxists do not unite with left-wing liberals and, quite possibly, nothing will change later
If in Western countries we observe a tendency to unite the ultra-leftists with the liberals, in Russia the process is rather the reverse. Which, however, is absolutely not surprising, because in fact there is no class struggle in the well-known protest movements, and with ideology, in general, it is rather weak. Not to mention totalitarian thinking, sectarian discourse and other fine features of American and European left-wing liberals.
And the degeneration of the same feminism in the Russian Federation goes side by side with its strengthening. The ridiculous support of Shurygin, the ridiculous activism with giant vaginas, the monetization of primitive, poorly drawn comic books and almost the creation of one famous blogger of his own brand, the hatred towards men from a significant number of feminists, the struggle with beauty contests - the delights of the Western world are rolling on us with waves, right to point a finger at the Socialists and say: "Look, these are all of them!"
It is difficult to believe that in the ultra-left wing there will in future be a sufficient number of people who refuse to fight for a "bright communist future" and join the circle of young opportunists. Still, unlike the US, Russian followers of Marx have some kind of continuity from Soviet theoreticians and an opportunity to analyze the negative experience of modern left movements abroad.
A few words at a time
I deliberately did not say about the difference between the structure of American democracy and ours, because I still do not understand what the Russian regime will do (and what can it do!) With the current situation. Consciously did not mention the limited potential of the electorate of different forces, because there is a change of generations, and the further, the more everything depends on the effectiveness of the selected strategies and their implementation.
In addition, I did not try to do two things here: I did not focus on the activities of the ultra-left (and they, in my opinion, now have more chances to change something in Russia than anyone else) and did not make forecasts. It is difficult to foresee what will turn out, but one thing is certain: the movements of fighters for equality and brotherhood in our country will develop in a different scenario than in America and, most likely, Europe. This means that the experience of the Western Right for us can be useful only in special cases, but not in general.