Glitter and poverty of Sergey Kurginyan
Sergey Kurginyan brilliantly performed December 15 in the program “The Right to Know!” By Dmitry Kulikov. Convincingly defended his Soviet and communist views, made an impression even on the Polish anti-Soviet opponent, who perished under his answers. Yes, Kurginyan can make an impression due to his great political science erudition plus his directing theater practice. He is from the family of the Soviet elite, he knows a lot about the secrets of power from its direct carriers, about the nuances of the fall of the USSR.
Impressed by his speech, I don’t want to object, the opponents in the program didn’t object either, having fallen under his charm, under a hail of facts, maxims and logical conclusions. As in the ancient Greek legend about the ritor, who wrote an acquittal speech to his client. I liked the speech, he paid for it, and the next day he came to the orator in anger: “When I re-read your speech at home, I saw many inconsistencies and exaggerations in it, so that it would rather destroy me in court than save me!” The speaker answered: “And how many times will the speech be read in court?” The same is with Kurginyan.
One can agree with his speech in many respects, but sometimes inconsistencies and tensions come out of it, and in important messages. His thesis about the "entry elite" of the USSR, which sought to enter the Western world, which, in fact, surrendered the country to the West, raises no objections. Undoubtedly, the reborn Soviet elite played a much larger role in the fall of the USSR than the CIA and the US State Department put together. These sentiments in the part of the Russian elite still exist today, but it is not today that it makes government decisions!
When Kurginyan argues that the “entry elite” continues to rule the ball in today's Russia, it contradicts many facts, starting with Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech on 2007, which marked the rejection of the former “entry” policy on the terms of the West and the transition to protecting national interests Russia, to the policy of geopolitical security from the West. Most of the iconic "entrants" have long gone into the West, Boris Berezovsky, so directly into the English land, tied with a white scarf.
The cross on the “entrance” moods of our elite was put by the American coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, which led to the notorious Bandera nationalists. With the reunification of Russia after the Crimea, with the provision of assistance to the insurgent Donbass, the real gulf opened up between Russia and the West, including between the elites. After all, Western sanctions are directed primarily against our elite, some kind of one. The remnants of political "entrants" are being forced into a marginal niche today - these are the Rybakovs, Nadezhdins, Nekrasovs and Nikulins, who are used as a bogey on TV channels.
Kurginyan forgets that in 2014, there was a question about bringing our troops into Ukraine, that is, there was a high probability of starting a war with the West, according to Putin, with the “NATO Legion” in Ukraine. For the "entry elite" is an unthinkable question! By the way, they refused to enter the troops because of the economic unavailability of the country to the military confrontation with the West, came to the conclusion that it takes at least two years to solve the most important economic and military-technical problems, the information was in the open press. In fact, the latest strategic weapons began to arrive in the troops only in 2018 year. This is forgotten to be reminded of Kurginyan when he stretches the life of our “entry elite” to 2020 year!
Therefore, it is impossible to agree with him that today “Russian democracy is a state to enter Europe, the entry paradigm of Russia,” which Russia allegedly “will refuse in fact through 1-2 of the year”. She already refused! Kurginyan insists on this, because he foretells us a new return to Marx and the USSR-2! It turns out, already in 1-2 of the year!
In this connection, Kurginyan’s theory of Marx’s spirit raises big questions. Marx was not, of course, a die-hard materialist, he thought about how to fill the spiritual life of society after the abolition of religion as a public institution. He remembered that the cult of reason and the "tree of freedom" of the French Revolution were fruitless. This can be philosophized endlessly, but in the end Marx came to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as an instrument of spiritual progress.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” says the Bible, and the same thing happened with the good intentions of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”: they eventually led to the party dictatorship in the country and to the rebirth of the Soviet elite to the “entrance” . Kurginyan does not notice that this "sword of Damocles" hangs over his USSR-2 project! Marx resolved the question of transition from the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to the “kingdom of freedom” based on his historical optimism, Lenin, in fact, repeated Marx, speaking of the free work of the working people freed from exploitation, their natural commitment to freedom and humanism. These hopes in the USSR failed.
In fact, an attempt to completely eliminate social and class inequalities by the power of the state apparatus led not to the “kingdom of freedom”, but to equalization and stagnation in the lower classes of society, and to the dictates of the party bureaucracy from above, and to the “entry elite”. In the USSR-2 Kurginyan everything can happen again from the beginning, why not? In fact, Kurginyan proposes to continue the construction of the utopia of communism after Marx and Lenin, taking into account the experience gained. But he does not draw any conclusions from this experience, and only repeats Marxian hopes for a certain “public spirit”. His utopia turns out to be no less beautiful, but, apart from words and hopes for progressive humanity, nothing rests on anything, like Marx’s.
The question is, how does Kurginyan think of building the USSR-2? Democratically or under the control of the movement “The Essence of Time”, or some “dictatorship of the proletariat”? In the theater, the director, as is known, the dictator, this is required by the creative process of staging the performance, is it really less difficult to build a new USSR-2 society? Marx was not a director, but he understood this problem and came to the direction of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And what are the chances of building, thus, a beautiful society of the USSR-2? At best, it will be possible to repeat the USSR-1!
When Kurginyan talks about the development of human creativity - it is good in the theater, but this is hardly a good way to solve the problems of the modern world. Despite the messianic name of the movement “The Essence of Time” Kurginyan, staking on the “potential of humanity” does not tell us anything about the essence of solving the problems of humanity, passing their decision to the future, following Marx and Lenin.
Marx’s criticism of the capitalist “old world” is relevant in many respects, many economists now admit that they agree that “the world can die according to Marx”, but they add that he will be saved if he is saved “not according to Marx”. The same can be said about Kurginyan. He, in fact, proposes to resume the construction of the communist utopia of the USSR-2 according to Marx and on a democratic basis. And Marx's rakes again hit us on the forehead.
At the same time, you can applaud Kurginyan's foreign policy analysis, his aphorism: “The Anglo-Saxons never give up power - this is the law!” His criticism of Western postmodern society, the time of the big game, is remarkable; By the way, these are all the characteristics of Western modern “democracy”, which will surround the construction of the USSR-2, supposed by Kurginyan. Perhaps the USSR-1 was in a less aggressive and hostile environment.
Impressed by his speech, I don’t want to object, the opponents in the program didn’t object either, having fallen under his charm, under a hail of facts, maxims and logical conclusions. As in the ancient Greek legend about the ritor, who wrote an acquittal speech to his client. I liked the speech, he paid for it, and the next day he came to the orator in anger: “When I re-read your speech at home, I saw many inconsistencies and exaggerations in it, so that it would rather destroy me in court than save me!” The speaker answered: “And how many times will the speech be read in court?” The same is with Kurginyan.
One can agree with his speech in many respects, but sometimes inconsistencies and tensions come out of it, and in important messages. His thesis about the "entry elite" of the USSR, which sought to enter the Western world, which, in fact, surrendered the country to the West, raises no objections. Undoubtedly, the reborn Soviet elite played a much larger role in the fall of the USSR than the CIA and the US State Department put together. These sentiments in the part of the Russian elite still exist today, but it is not today that it makes government decisions!
When Kurginyan argues that the “entry elite” continues to rule the ball in today's Russia, it contradicts many facts, starting with Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech on 2007, which marked the rejection of the former “entry” policy on the terms of the West and the transition to protecting national interests Russia, to the policy of geopolitical security from the West. Most of the iconic "entrants" have long gone into the West, Boris Berezovsky, so directly into the English land, tied with a white scarf.
The cross on the “entrance” moods of our elite was put by the American coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, which led to the notorious Bandera nationalists. With the reunification of Russia after the Crimea, with the provision of assistance to the insurgent Donbass, the real gulf opened up between Russia and the West, including between the elites. After all, Western sanctions are directed primarily against our elite, some kind of one. The remnants of political "entrants" are being forced into a marginal niche today - these are the Rybakovs, Nadezhdins, Nekrasovs and Nikulins, who are used as a bogey on TV channels.
Kurginyan forgets that in 2014, there was a question about bringing our troops into Ukraine, that is, there was a high probability of starting a war with the West, according to Putin, with the “NATO Legion” in Ukraine. For the "entry elite" is an unthinkable question! By the way, they refused to enter the troops because of the economic unavailability of the country to the military confrontation with the West, came to the conclusion that it takes at least two years to solve the most important economic and military-technical problems, the information was in the open press. In fact, the latest strategic weapons began to arrive in the troops only in 2018 year. This is forgotten to be reminded of Kurginyan when he stretches the life of our “entry elite” to 2020 year!
Therefore, it is impossible to agree with him that today “Russian democracy is a state to enter Europe, the entry paradigm of Russia,” which Russia allegedly “will refuse in fact through 1-2 of the year”. She already refused! Kurginyan insists on this, because he foretells us a new return to Marx and the USSR-2! It turns out, already in 1-2 of the year!
In this connection, Kurginyan’s theory of Marx’s spirit raises big questions. Marx was not, of course, a die-hard materialist, he thought about how to fill the spiritual life of society after the abolition of religion as a public institution. He remembered that the cult of reason and the "tree of freedom" of the French Revolution were fruitless. This can be philosophized endlessly, but in the end Marx came to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as an instrument of spiritual progress.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” says the Bible, and the same thing happened with the good intentions of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”: they eventually led to the party dictatorship in the country and to the rebirth of the Soviet elite to the “entrance” . Kurginyan does not notice that this "sword of Damocles" hangs over his USSR-2 project! Marx resolved the question of transition from the “dictatorship of the proletariat” to the “kingdom of freedom” based on his historical optimism, Lenin, in fact, repeated Marx, speaking of the free work of the working people freed from exploitation, their natural commitment to freedom and humanism. These hopes in the USSR failed.
In fact, an attempt to completely eliminate social and class inequalities by the power of the state apparatus led not to the “kingdom of freedom”, but to equalization and stagnation in the lower classes of society, and to the dictates of the party bureaucracy from above, and to the “entry elite”. In the USSR-2 Kurginyan everything can happen again from the beginning, why not? In fact, Kurginyan proposes to continue the construction of the utopia of communism after Marx and Lenin, taking into account the experience gained. But he does not draw any conclusions from this experience, and only repeats Marxian hopes for a certain “public spirit”. His utopia turns out to be no less beautiful, but, apart from words and hopes for progressive humanity, nothing rests on anything, like Marx’s.
The question is, how does Kurginyan think of building the USSR-2? Democratically or under the control of the movement “The Essence of Time”, or some “dictatorship of the proletariat”? In the theater, the director, as is known, the dictator, this is required by the creative process of staging the performance, is it really less difficult to build a new USSR-2 society? Marx was not a director, but he understood this problem and came to the direction of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. And what are the chances of building, thus, a beautiful society of the USSR-2? At best, it will be possible to repeat the USSR-1!
When Kurginyan talks about the development of human creativity - it is good in the theater, but this is hardly a good way to solve the problems of the modern world. Despite the messianic name of the movement “The Essence of Time” Kurginyan, staking on the “potential of humanity” does not tell us anything about the essence of solving the problems of humanity, passing their decision to the future, following Marx and Lenin.
Marx’s criticism of the capitalist “old world” is relevant in many respects, many economists now admit that they agree that “the world can die according to Marx”, but they add that he will be saved if he is saved “not according to Marx”. The same can be said about Kurginyan. He, in fact, proposes to resume the construction of the communist utopia of the USSR-2 according to Marx and on a democratic basis. And Marx's rakes again hit us on the forehead.
At the same time, you can applaud Kurginyan's foreign policy analysis, his aphorism: “The Anglo-Saxons never give up power - this is the law!” His criticism of Western postmodern society, the time of the big game, is remarkable; By the way, these are all the characteristics of Western modern “democracy”, which will surround the construction of the USSR-2, supposed by Kurginyan. Perhaps the USSR-1 was in a less aggressive and hostile environment.
Information