To the page “Social philosophy”

To the main page

 

Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky

 

About the “idea of Russia” – global strategic goal

and priorities of development of the country

 

Attention!

The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

 RUSSIAN VERSION

 

1.

 

Search "ideas" for modern Russia began almost simultaneously with its emergence as an independent state in 1991 (and possibly earlier, in parallel with the collapse of Communist ideology in the late 1980s). The most massive search was in 1996, when Boris Yeltsin through mass media called on to develop the idea for the Russian Federation". Many people have responded and sociologists, and political scientists, journalists, philosophers, and people of other professions, belonging to different social classes, nationalities, faiths.

But in the end as state doctrine none of the developments of those years (as, however, and subsequent) was not accepted - perhaps due to the fact that on the grounds of the Yeltsin call come up a huge amount of "Russian national ideas", which can be summarized as "Russia for Russians".

Therefore, with respect and "the idea of Russia", and "ideas for Russia"and "Russian idea", and state doctrine of the Russian Federation must first agree on terms.

What is the idea of the country"? The meaning of its existence? But the range of opinions on such a global philosophical question is no less or more than the meaning of human existence and humanity. But the "idea" should have a clear, concise and clear language, not objectionable to the vast majority of citizens of this state.

Or "idea" is "the aspirations and the historical mission of the people"? (This option is also offered). But the different layers of the people - different expectations, and the historical mission of the people - a controversial term, as the meaning of the existence of the state.

Maybe the idea of the country" - an ideology? Yes, it is possible, but the latter concept carries a negative connotation, since the times of the USSR (where communism was undoubtedly a "national idea"), and in fact changes nothing and does not explain.

The same terminology problem we encounter, saying "state doctrine", as it is practically the same thing, that "the idea of the state".

So we move on to more precise, clear and specific terms. We will understand the "idea" as a major, global strategic goal of the country's development. This goal, in turn, should define priority directions of development.

We have already noted that the Soviet Union (hereafter, speaking of him, we will bear in mind the relatively stable country Khrushchev-Brezhnev era) had such a global goal is communism, and stopped evolving when  almost everyone was clear unreality this purpose. Thus, Russia's main strategic goal must be real.

While development can also be interpreted in various ways, stipulating that it will be understood as increasing the life and safety of citizens and the country's prestige on the international arena. In modern conditions these concepts are interdependent: on the one hand, countries with a low standard of living (as, for example, North Korea) and unsecured security (as, for example, Lebanon's international prestige will not win, and on the other hand, the country where in the world are not considered, is unlikely to have the resources to provide a high standard of living and security.

Analysis of strategic goals and priority directions of development of Russia we will begin by mentioning the most important fact: the Russian Federation and formally, and in fact is the successor of the Soviet Union. In the less than twenty years from the time of the collapse of the USSR, there was little significant change in social relations, and the psychology of citizens of the former RSFSR. The life of the country is still to define who was born and grew up under Soviet rule, and will define more than one decade.

As we already mentioned, the strategic goal of the Soviet Union was communism - and in one separate country and around the world. It is hardly necessary to dwell on the reasons why the goal was unrealistic - it is important that the unreality of this goal does not allow us to use it as an appropriate goal for Russia. It means that we must consider other priorities for the development of the USSR and try to isolate them from that which would in modern become a new global strategic goal.

Let's not forget that we are talking about priority directions of development of the state, which does not currently exist. Consequently, the directions were both positive and negative, and the last in the end proved to be stronger and led the Soviet country not to develop, and to collapse.

This negative trend, no doubt, was the lack of private enterprise and private property is the most important engines of economic development and incentives for efficient operation of the people. Because of this, and the food and industrial goods produced poor-quality and relevant international standards. The planned economy, built on the state and collective farm" (actually also state-owned) property, without market regulators were unsustainable.

Negatively on the country's development was influenced by the absence of even an illusion of democracy. Enshrined in the Soviet Constitution to provide leadership and guidance the only political party - the CPSU, the elections with a single candidate from "indestructible bloc of Communists and non-party", the almost total absence of a real civil rights and freedoms - all this has deprived the people of the feeling of belonging to the country governance and responsibility to society. Consequently, the quality of manufactured goods (and life in General) is getting worse.

The attempts of the Soviet leadership to replace the entrepreneurial and democratic incentives Communist ideology failed as citizens become clear unreality main purpose for which this ideology was targeted. In the end, all components of the ideological influence - party and Komsomol meetings, political information, slogans, may day demonstrations, etc. have been objects of irritation and ridicule.

Communist ideology has played for the USSR more bad than good role on the international arena. On the one hand, she was the incentive of joining underdeveloped third world countries (Cuba, Angola, Ethiopia, some Arab States and so forth) to the Soviet military-industrial-political blocs, but, on the other hand, it opposed the Soviet Union, a powerful and highly developed States of the "first world". In the result, the country was drawn into the arms race and came in a de facto international isolation, heightened by the "iron curtain" - the prohibition of free entry and exit of citizens.

However, frantic attempts of the Soviet leadership to pull the country out of the ongoing economic crisis and overtake the US in an arms race led to the rapid development of the two "non-market" production complexes, very useful in the modern world: oil and military-industrial. From the Soviet gas largely depended the whole of Europe, and the name of the designer Mikhail Kalashnikov has become the world's the same character of the USSR as, for example, the Kremlin.

Good or bad that the Russian Federation inherited from the Soviet Union the economy skewed towards these industrial complexes - a moot question, and the answer we can give only analyzed unambiguously positive components of the Soviet legacy.

What is positive and what is not, is a question not less controversial: looking to compare. There was, for example, in the USSR low level of corruption? Compared to modern Russia - undoubtedly Yes. In comparison with Italy those times - probably, Yes. Compared with modern Italy is unlikely. As compared with Germany or Japan, and that time and ours, definitely not.

Therefore, as the positive components of the Soviet legacy will cite only those that were clearly "ahead of the whole planet".

These words by Yuri Vizbor, as we know, belonged to "the field of ballet". In other words, art. In the same lyrics were not so famous, but also quite precise words: "the Soviet art in the age stronger all the missiles.

Of course, this song was a joke, but seriously, the Soviet art (and preceding Russian art, apart from which the Soviet never considered) was, if not the best in the world, it is because the concept of "best" in this area not applicable. Who is "better" - Pushkin, Goethe or Shakespeare? Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky or Coppola? Rublev, Leonardo, Poussin, Velazquez, Turner, Repin or Picasso? You can ask hundreds of questions and to receive on each of them hundreds of responses.

Keep in mind this situation, it is very important for our research, and we will try to answer this question: what the Soviet Union was still absolutely objective and certainly the first?

 

2.

 

The answer is very simple: on-site.

With a certain reduction, but it is the Soviet legacy (inherited from the Russian Empire, to be exact) got the Russian Federation. And almost all of the territory, except for a small strip of the Far North, the climate is quite comfortable to stay. But needless to say its huge natural wealth?

About the size of Russia is often said with a condescending smile: that country is so huge, and whether to boast that, when it and something is wrong and it is not so...

Yes, every "wrong" very, very much. But we must not forget that in the modern world, where the state border almost everywhere stable, the area - hardly probable not the main wealth of the country and the key to its development (remember, as Israel, the Netherlands and Japan are fighting almost every meter of land). And Russia should not be ashamed to boast of their wealth: it did not fall from heaven, and was conquered by the labor and blood of many generations.

The fact that a considerable part of the territory of the Russian Federation is still virtually untapped, and even absent a year-round road trip from Moscow to Vladivostok, Magadan and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky - the only question of time. The modern world is changing very quickly. What, for example, at the end of the 1940-ies was an Africa on the territory of which there were only three independent state? Now 53, and many of them are developing quite dynamically.

But remember: the territory of Russian Empire was 21.8 million square kilometers, USSR - 22,4, and the Russian Federation - 17. Of course, it's still far more than the second-ranked Canada (10 million), but the reduction is obvious. And the most unpleasant, that this territory no bevel: former Soviet Union national Republic in accordance with the "Leninist principle of the right of Nations to self-determination" had separated themselves (of course, catalysts that office has served on many factors, including international, but in the end Republic made it yourself).

In Russia too many national territorial entities, including countries with well-established statehood. Do not lead if they themselves as well as former Soviet republics? After all, the right of Nations to self-determination, although not guaranteed by the constitutions of most multi-national States, but everywhere has many supporters and widely used in international practice as a constructive and destructive purposes.

Theoretically nothing wrong with the right of Nations to create their own States do not. But in practice this principle is in conflict with another basic principle of the territorial integrity of existing States. And the choice between these two principles, or proportions of their application is solved in different ways - and in each historical period, and in the specific conditions of the international situation and in the conditions of each country and nation.

We remember the pain, with some tragedies took place the collapse of the USSR. Remember the blood in Tbilisi, Vilnius, Karabakh, Sukhumi, Alma-ATA, Osh, Baku, and in Moscow itself. We remember the millions of refugees, remember the poor elderly and homeless children, remember the distribution of "humanitarian aid"...

Therefore, in modern conditions the choice for Russia is clear: not the right of Nations to self-determination and territorial integrity. This is a necessary condition for civil peace, stability and effective development of the country.

And since, as we have said, in the modern world territory - the main wealth of each state, guarantee of its successful development, the conclusion is that since Russia by quantitative and qualitative indicators of the territory is undoubtedly the first in the world, and historical development prospects of our country in comparison with other countries the most favorable. When one main condition - if we manage this territory to preservethat is a very difficult task in conditions of negative inertia caused by the very recent (and that the history of twenty years!) the collapse of the USSR.

According to article 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, "Russian Federation guarantees the integrity and inviolability of its territory". Not empty if this Declaration? Can the society and the state to perform this task - both in the near and distant historical perspective? Simply put, will ever Russia its territory?

The territory can be lost or when a military attack from the outside (but in respect of Russia with its nuclear weapons is still equally unrealistic, as it was unrealistic in respect of the USSR), or under the influence of separatist tendencies. The latter, in turn, can "feed" both outside and inside the country.

And who "feed"? Enemies? Yes, of course. But a search of "enemies foreign and domestic," sooner or later degenerate into naive statements soldiers from the novel by Alexander Kuprin "Duel": "Vneshnimi enemies are all those same States with which we have to wage war. Frantsuz, Germans, Atalanta, the Turks, evropeicy... unutrennimi enemies we call useh resisting law... It's rebels, studenti, horse thieves, Jews and poles. (Should specify that Poland was then part of Russia?).

And in our time, the naivety of these words is not only in non-literary language and the list of specific "enemies", and first of all in the fact that, by and large, search global strategic opponents barren: if a country is strong with her in one degree or another co-operate almost everything - and outside, and inside this country. If a country is weak, the enemies are activated everywhere. Unfortunately, that is how our imperfect world in which the gain strong is primarily due to the weakening of the weak.

Power in its primitive understanding - military - in our time a minor, against a country purposefully take a stand all the world community, it would not survive, even with the most modern weapons. Her death (at least, change of political system, as in Iraq) - a question of time. The Russian Federation in this case, most likely, will cause the game, as has disorganized the USSR, much stronger than the paramilitary, but taking on itself the most part of the civilized world.

And therefore, we make an important conclusion: the main strategic purpose of development of the Russian Federation, "the idea for Russia" - the preservation of its territorial integrity.

Ways to save - improving the life and safety of citizens and the country's prestige on the international arena. This priority directions of development of the country. All contributing to the processes occurring in the world, the state and society, is positive. All processes, directly or indirectly leading (or potentially could lead to the disintegration of the country, is negative.

 

3.

 

Consider specific actions that would be useful in the context of marked our priorities.

The first direction - increasing the level of life of citizens. And it first of all goes about using in these purposes within the territory, more precisely, its natural resources.

Many believe that the development of oil and gas complex inhibits the development of other sectors of the Russian economy. Sometimes you can hear something like: "how to extract oil and gas, it would be better affair started.

But in fact, one does not interfere. On the contrary, oil and gas revenues - is the possibility of restructuring various distortions of the economy, while Russia inherited from the USSR. While in the womb has oil and gas, while they demand on the world market, while humanity has not switched to alternative energy - they should be used to the maximum. The same applies to all other minerals - gold, diamonds, uranium, etc.

And as to use the subsoil should be the maximum, for it is desirable their nationalization - the income from them received to the accounts of offshore companies in foreign banks and directly to the state budget (hereinafter, speaking on the state budget, we will have in mind and regional budgets, as the establishment of proportions is also the task of the state). Perhaps government officials will not be able to effectively manage the extraction of minerals, as private owners, but in the end, as they say, would be cheaper.

The problem of attraction for mining and processing of mineral resources of foreign companies, which is currently solved by the participation of the latter in the authorized capital of the mining and processing of Russian corporations, can be solved much easier and more controlled way of concessions, i.e. commissioning on certain conditions, natural resources, enterprises and other facilities belonging to the state. So it was in the Russian Empire, and in the early years of Soviet power to the beginning of the Stalinist industrialization, based not on people's interest in the results of their labour, and slavery coercion (ostentatious enthusiasm lasted so long). V.I. Lenin rightly wrote on concessions: "We bring the sacrifice, giving foreign capital millions of precious materials...but at the same time, we must gain required benefits, i.e. increasing the number of products and, if possible, improving the life of our workers as employed on concession enterprises and the unemployed".

Forests also have to declare a state property, but to stop their exports, and domestic market drastically limit their consumption by a significant increase in selling prices for timber. Forest - guarantee of good ecological situation in the country. Their cutting can be performed only in cases, if you want to build roads, power lines and other infrastructure.

Nationalization of mineral resources will significantly increase the budget revenues from their sale. Where should the money go?

In the USSR they were overblown military-industrial complex. About adequate proportions of the complex for Russia we will discuss later, but it is clear that the country is in any case should not be drawn into a new arms race, and therefore money "from the bowels can be used for much more. Increase of pensions, allowances, wages in the budget sphere, construction of roads and other infrastructure, urban development, environment... All this should be done, but the main focus of this money should be reduced taxes (lost income from the decrease should be compensated with money "from the depths").

How it will reduce taxes, depends on how revenues will rise budget from the nationalization of mineral resources. (Ideally leaving the minimum turnover tax and as the minimum social insurance contributions). In any case, citizens should not have the desire to be paid in "envelopes", and the businessmen - to hide profits in offshore companies.

What will such a drastic reduction of taxes (of course, with the legislative guarantee that they will not be promoted in the foreseeable future)? Give the main thing - a huge influx of investment in the economy. And that new jobs, lower prices and stabilization of the ruble and thus, increasing the level of life of citizens.

Of course, there is a risk that, during the transitional period when taxes are reduced, but production is not yet working, and the budget is formed mainly at the expense of revenues from extraction of minerals, - the prices of the last will fall in connection with any another global economic crisis. But global crises do not occur so often, and I suppose that before the next we still have time. And during that time should start working production - both industrial and agricultural. In any case, such a task should be put, and its implementation is absolutely real.

And for the safety net in case of similar crises can be continued financial policies of recent years - the creation of the stabilization Fund. Yes, while the stability of the ruble is not provided with their own economy, the stabilization Fund will continue to keep the dollar and other world currencies. But the dollar accumulation in no case do not mean that Russia supports the US economy, on the contrary, any dollar in the pocket of a citizen or to the Bank account of the state means only that the United States must provide the goods on the dollar bill.

Perform the same tasks - strengthening of the ruble - should contribute to the reduction of import customs duties. (This reduction can be carried out proportionately lower taxes and also will depend on how revenues will rise budget from the nationalization of mineral resources). Yes, the Russian market will swing cheap imported goods, but also from domestic producers would be so light tax regime that they will be able to withstand this competition. And in the end, the competition between domestic and between foreign manufacturers will lead to further reduction of prices - and, hence, and to stop inflation, and the strengthening of the ruble.

Such development of the Russian economy is subject to proper use of its main wealth of the territory. A strategic goal of this development is preservation of the territory as a pledge of further development. The circle has closed. More precisely, it is not a circle, a spiral of increasing the level of life of citizens. Partly - and improve their security.

Why partially? But because we only spoke about economic security of the people of Russia - about the strengthening of the ruble, guaranteed jobs, fair pay, high pensions and allowances, the safety of savings, etc. people's Health is another important component of their security is also closely related to the economy: will the state money - will and a high level of public health.

But the safety of citizens, there are other components associated with the need for personal protection from attacks on the country from the outside, and from crime and terrorism, and illegal actions of law enforcement bodies, and on the unjust proceedings, and from bureaucratic arbitrariness... 's Main strategic objective is the preservation of territorial integrity is also closely connected with the personal security of citizens. After all, if the country falls apart, then, as we have said, there is again a refugee shall pour the blood - and which then may be people's personal security?

Protection of territorial integrity and personal security of citizens provide the army, the military-industrial complex, courts, police, prosecutors, intelligence and other departments, whose content is expensive. So expensive that the economy of the USSR of these costs has not made, and its development instead of upward spiral started to decline. Do not wait if the same fate as the Russian economy?

No, not waiting in case the number of simple sentences, allowing to achieve an optimal balance between effective protection of citizens and the country - on the one hand, and high living standards.

First of all, it is necessary to significantly reduce and optimize the army, leaving only strategic nuclear weapons and complete arms "rapid reaction force" (including aviation, fleet, auxiliary troops, etc.). This will be enough and that no one in Russia had attacked from the outside, and in case the country will be dragged into any local conflict.

From the legacy of the USSR, Russia inherited in this field, special attention should be paid to the military-industrial complex. It can and should develop to the extent that its products will require advanced Russian army and competitive on world markets. Then the army will be equipped with modern weapons, and the state budget will receive additional revenue from the export of arms, without which our imperfect world with a lot of "hot spots" yet cannot live.

You must take drastic measures against the bodies of internal Affairs, which in Soviet times have negative attitudes do not prevent crime and to act on the notorious principle of "Contact us when you get killed". Obvious and overwhelming inflated staff number of the police (where else in the civilized world can be seen on the streets of many guards, and on the roads so the inspectors?) to the detriment of quality training. And the arrogance, lawlessness and corruption among a large part of these efforts, particularly in the provinces, too, were a byword in the USSR.

So, the challenge is to fully reduce the human factor in the work of the bodies of internal Affairs. Modern electronics provides ample opportunities for that. Widespread installation of surveillance cameras, complete computerized database of all citizens of the Russian Federation, the compulsory fingerprinting (good for her now, it is not necessary to smear his fingers with ink), the removal of other biometric data... up to the implantation of previously convicted citizens of microchips under the skin, providing the possibility to track their location and activities.

Law-abiding people, these measures "total surveillance" can be unpleasant? Yes, but be a victim of a crime - even more unpleasant. We are unconcerned about the fact that airports are video cameras installed, even in the bathrooms: all understand that this is to prevent terrorist acts. And just like people will understand that fingerprints are removed for their own safety. And once in a lifetime pass biometric analysis is far less offensive than a lifetime to contemplate on the streets bored militiaman.

If the offense could not be prevented, it is disclosed. It is impossible to intimidate criminals toughening criminal law (which is constantly offering many hot heads, often populist)if there is no certainty of punishment. And here it is necessary that the technical methods of investigation, using the achievements of modern electronics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. were used by law enforcement officials not only in detective TV series, but in life.

 

4.

 

But all these and similar measures will not be effective if in law enforcement (and even in the state apparatus) will continue to flourish corruption is perhaps the only negative indicator for which Russia is unequivocally "ahead" of the USSR. In many ways, corruption is vague and inadequate laws and regulations, but it is not only in them. The years of "stagnation" - 1990s has created a negative momentum with which to fight very hard, because corruption is like drug addiction: easy to begin but hard to stop.

Here is a simple example. As in district N road markings applied so that not to go into the oncoming lane impossible, but this departure is punishable by deprivation of a driving licence, it is either all N-ski motorists has long been deprived of their rights (which it is not), or N-ski Department of traffic police are corrupt and take bribes. And if the road markings to make adequate, then corruption and bribery in the police Department will be significantly reduced by themselves, without interference by own security service or the Prosecutor. But since the road marking is also in the hands of the police (not the Prosecutor's office, in fact, draw lines on the road!), nothing changes. Vicious "vicious circle" is closed.

But fellow N-ski police, virtuoso gesture poke bill received by the cuff mittens, is the official authorized representative of Executive power of the Russian Federation! In other words, a bribe from the driver takes Russia itself, with all its republics, territories and regions, forests, fields and rivers, towns and villages, mills and factories, the President and the government! And how should then refer to their country residents of the district center N? Will they take any effort to support the state, allowing police to strip citizens?

Such examples are countless of the various spheres of civil relationships. Why - is clear: officials are infected with the virus of corruption", not thinking about the interests of citizens or the country as a whole, but for himself - or rather his pocket. But what can you do to make them think not only about yourself?

Let us take one more question. It is impossible to stop the training of all crimes, it is impossible to reveal all the crimes committed. Hence, the need to ensure that people do not wish to commit crimes. What are the methods?

Another question. Any increase in the standard of living of citizens is not the same for all. Still, some will live better than others (not only in the material but in a moral sense), and it has at all times been a source of social tension. How to make people perceived this situation calmly and try to live better themselves, and not to make others lived worse?

During Soviet times, these and other similar questions were answered simply: it is necessary "ideological education". This "education" was about as follows: "Dear comrades, wait a bit, work honestly, think not only about yourself but also about your Soviet country, and you for ever will each according to his needs". This naive? Irrelevant? Yes, but in our time, can offer in return?

In principle, "the idea of Russia", i.e. above the main strategic purpose of development of the country, is quite suitable for direct ideological influence - and for teaching on "the lessons of spiritually-moral education", and for posting on billboards slogans like "Russia! The territorial integrity of your country - and its pledge, and your prosperity!". But this is not enough. The citizens of modern Russia is only too well remember the days of the Soviet ideology, and, if any, even the most highly moral and relevant, the idea of "planting the top", they quickly develop mistrust.

 

"...And you led us

from victory to victory!

And toast screaming

the glory of victory:

Well, maybe not today,

So tomorrow,

so on Wednesday!

Debate! Detroite!

'd press! Will time!..

And we, by the way,

And we, by the way,

Long ago - put on your victory!"

 

Therefore it is necessary that these ideas were, as they say "from the heart". And for this we need to raise the cultural and moral level of people. Other way is not here.

In any society , the economy, politics and culture are closely related and one cannot exist without the other. For example, if the culture is destroyed and people "from childhood" have no concept of honor, conscience and decency, the theft in a society objectively invincible (to each potential thief can not put a policeman). In turn, where theft, there is widespread non-payment of taxes - in fact, why pay if you still officials have plundered? (Usually, however, the last name is not theft, and corruption, but the essence remains the same). As a consequence, the beggarly pensions and wages in the budget sphere.

The same can be said in relation to, for example, terrorism. If a child is attached to the humanistic culture, the probability of its involvement in a terrorist group is significantly reduced. And this is the only really effective way of combating terrorism. All other measures as malaktualigis, as increasing the number militiaman checking the documents of the citizens. And it's not even that any terrorist has the perfect documents. The fact that the global strategic initiative in the war against terrorism today the enemy.

This is another "vicious circle" of social relations. And at the root of all these circles is, anyway, culture. Human life starts with education - similarly, the society begins with culture. And in parallel with improving the lives and safety of people, the main concern of the state should be introducing in consciousness of people to the cultural, spiritual and moral values.

Probably, if the money in the budget surplus enough, any social problems in theory can be solved at the level of "bread and circuses" in Ancient Rome. To give to the entire population social guarantees, benefits and allowances, "spiritual gum" in the form of series and pop concerts, and most will be quite pretty (although this is not an axiom, as the social stratification, corruption and other vices of the society will remain). But in Russian special budget surplus money was not, even when the price of oil exceeded the boldest forecasts.

And in raising the cultural level of the people to paraphrase the famous saying about politeness: nothing is the state so cheap and appreciated so expensive as culture. Appreciated and within the country as a cultural people and do their work better, and crimes less do, and on the streets less litter, and more tolerant towards people of other nationalities, and cost less money as ready to work for the future, not for the sake of expediency... Appreciated on the international arena.

The international authority of the state is impossible to win only the "stick" (the military - in the form of atomic weapons, a powerful army and so, economic - in the form of large volume of exports, convertible currency, investment penetration in all developed countries, etc., political - in the form of membership in various international organizations and so on). Necessary and sticks: the country should feel good about world opinion. The famous words of the Emperor Tiberius: "Let them hate, just afraid!" in our time, not applicable: we have said that if the country will hate all over the world, sooner or later it will "choke". (Perhaps the majority of problems faced by the US, are connected with the fact that in recent decades to that state no longer really good about citizens even allied countries).

And the most effective "key" to the hearts of people around the world culture and its most important component - the art. If the first Association arising from foreigners in Russia, sound like a "Vodka, Mafia, Prostitutes", - so, it's bad. If "Pushkin, Chaikovsky, Repin", everything went well.

 

5.

 

The Soviet government had with Stalin's attitude to art as an "ideological front" and attention it did not leave. One of the creators elevated, others were killed or driven away. But as you know, the art or to expel or kill not, so the result was the opposite: very few people in the Soviet society was indifferent to the problems of the world of art. And since the events in the USSR has followed closely the whole world, the attention of Soviet society meant the attention of the whole world. People are worried about the fate and Joseph Brodsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Oscar Rabin, and Sergey Parajanov, and many other persecuted artists.

In other words, had a strong "promotion" art of the USSR and the "Soviet"and "anti-Soviet", and "neutral". And in this art from the times of the Russian Empire were especially strong is the humanistic tradition. And these enormous "achievements" of the Russian Federation may use very, very long time. And they have many decades (if not centuries) can serve as the country's image in the eyes of the world community. It is only necessary to preserve and develop these traditions.

But culture is the culture of hatred, and the art is not just art.

In the 1990-ies died away the first "Art-Myth", "Russian Sotheby's" and "Art Manege". Gone to the country and the world the films of Andrei Tarkovsky, Alexis Herman and Alexander Proshkin. It was built several buildings with a modern style and with beautifully blend with the historical environment... And it seemed that a little more, a little bit, " and the tourists go to watch not only the Kremlin, the Bolshoi Theatre and "afanasevskiy" Arbat with dolls, but the new art of new Russia. And this art is, as before, with the triumph go around the world.

But in parallel - at the same time, in the nineties - little by little began to break shoots very different image of Russian art. This image can not be called even Asian - Asia Asia discord, in the end, Japan is also in Asia. Rather like this: Asian in the worst sense of the word. Or more precisely: appearance of the "third world". And at the end of the nineties there was a "radical change", and a lot of money from the state budget flowed to support this "art". For the erection of monuments type of the Moscow "Petr I", to promote emasculated "the traditions of Russian realism", for the construction of an eclectic buildings and personal museums those creators who "make nice", that is, tradesmen magnificently and clumsily.

Of course, it is tempting to blame the capital's mayor Yuri Luzhkov and his team say that he deliberately mutilated Moscow - Russia - incompetent monuments, merchant turrets and personal museums of their favorites. And be complacent. They say, a subjective factor worked. That would be Luzhkov intelligent, but artistic taste it would have been better... But in Russian regions are experiencing the same thing in Moscow, often in hypertrophied forms. That, where the "subjective factor" - all the governors, without exception?

Moreover, the negative trends in the arts have Parallels in other spheres of culture. For example, the attitude to museums in all regions of Russia are identical: the financing of "residual principle". The attitude to preservation of the historical environment of Russian cities, too, almost the same everywhere: the neglect (another word does not pick up, especially when you think of the "Ice Palace" in Kolomna or future Gazprom's skyscraper in St. Petersburg). The same attitude to the majority of architectural monuments.

The last statement to some it may seem controversial, as there is a specialized public TV channel "Culture". Yes, it exists, but it applies to lines that art critic and poet William Mayland in the late 1990-ies dedicated it to print to the brother - the newspaper "Culture":

 

Long was hungry and believe,

But, what you grey!

 

But recently the situation with the TV channel "Culture" has become even worse, as he began periodically to show documentaries about how we created the atomic bomb, ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, etc. If it went through the channel of the Ministry of defence "Star", no questions would arise. But such a theme on "Culture" Willy-nilly, the memories of the times of the Soviet threat, and it is even less conducive to improving the country's image in the eyes of the world community than the dominance of "merchant of kitsch".

And that is because of the subjective factor officials of the higher, middle and lower levels? Something a bit too much turns out the subjects that form the subjective factor. Maybe this situation is the same objective?

Yes, so far, unfortunately, objective, as in Russia in the "timelessness" of the 1990s has developed a negative tradition: the state is inclined to grant the culture to evolve according to the laws of the market as trade or production. This does not exclude the support from the state budget (after all, in trade and in the production, too, there are investments that are granted preferential credits, encouraged innovation, small and medium business and the like), but in the conditions of market support is provided primarily where there is a chance sooner or later to obtain material gain.

In the end, it turns out that the state is primarily supported either self-sustaining activities (entertainment TV shows, series, pop concerts, construction lush and clumsy buildings, indulging nerazviti taste of customers, and the like), or primitive ideologies that people of Soviet times has developed a strong immunity (pseudo-Patriotic monuments, "saber-rattling" from TV screens and so on). And all the rest of "residual principle".

Of course, as said Polonius from Shakespeare's "hamlet", in this madness has its own system. But still, from the point of view of the main strategic development targets of the Russian Federation madness. What else is so inefficient waste of money, virtually condemned to extinction color of the Russian culture and in no way relevant problems of humanization of the society and increasing the country's prestige on the international arena?

And to meet these challenges only culture humanistic orientation, improve relations with Russia the world civilized community. It's the necessary support from the state budget. And when selecting the objects of culture and cultural activities literally every penny you should answer two questions:

- on humanistic whether the objectives money allocated?

- whether it improves on that money allocated, the image of Russia in the civilized world?

This is in no case does not mean that all cultural phenomena that do not meet these goals, it is necessary "Soviet-style" disable if only it is not a direct propaganda of extremism, violence, violation of territorial integrity of the country etc). The task is different: the creation of a humanistic culture and true art of optimal conditions for penetration into the minds and hearts of the citizens. A commercially attractive "mass culture" and so will not disappear, it simply must, as they say, a little push back.

Similar goal - humanistic orientation and improvement of relations with Russia the world civilized community must pursue fundamental science and education (in the broad sense - too components of culture), and similar issues should be the state, allocating funds for their development. Here, too, a very strong positive traditions of the Soviet times (suffice it to say that the one who according to the world standards "doctor", - in Russian, as in the USSR, only "candidate"), and should preserve and multiply, until it is too late.

And it will be too late when the leave the last generation who caught the Soviet Union in the slightest adulthood. After that, those who want to change something for the better in culture, science and education (and in Russia as a whole)will be forced to start from scratch that much harder.

If a country is weak (and in political, economic, military, and cultural), then sooner or later its citizens directly or indirectly, in one form or another, will become slaves of other countries, since the ancient times have changed forms of slavery, but not his essence. Therefore, Russia must be strong.

Recall that under the power we mean the combination of high standard of living and security of citizens and high prestige in the international arena. And if we manage to implement all the measures proposed in this article (including the raising of the cultural level of the people as a guarantee of the effectiveness of their work, a successful fight against corruption, crime and other vices of society), then the country will have enough power to perform its main strategic goal - the preservation of the territorial integrity in our complicated, ever-changing world.

If a country is strong, but weak, its culture, its citizens will also become slaves, but not at the "alien"and "its". And not only in that country, in this case, you can establish a political dictatorship. Anarchy on the model of Nestor Makhno, and Russia 1990th years, is also a form of slavery, but the "owners" are bandits, oligarchs, corrupt officials and law enforcement officers... and not only they, but generally any stronger to weaker.

And for most people anarchy worse political dictatorship. First, the dictator - well, as a gangster or a corrupt policeman. Secondly, in the case of dictatorship at least have someone to complain, and if anarchy complain to no one. If there are no other options, as they say, of two evils they chose the lesser.

And only raise the cultural and educational level of citizens to avoid any of these two evils and political dictatorship, and anarchy. Probably not in vain in the 1920-ies, during the mass "literacy", the first words that are written, students of all ages, were: "We are not slaves".

Indeed, educated and cultured citizens of Russia will not be slaves. No other foreign country, or by "their" dictator, nor promising "Golden mountains" irresponsible populist politician, no bandits, no militiaman, no head, or a neighbor.

The only acceptable for the dictatorship of educated and cultured people - the dictatorship of the law, based on observance of the constitutional rights and freedoms. Only such citizens, bearing in minds and hearts "the idea of Russia - global strategic goal and priorities of development of the country, will be able to preserve for future generations the great country and its great culture.

 Moscow, 2009.

 © Sergey Zagraevsky

 

 

To the page “Social philosophy”

To the main page