This is, in general, a fascinating genre: a post replying to a post, then a post replying to the reply to the post, then a post replying to the reply that replied to the original post. And before every Russian March, this genre becomes especially popular. As a regular participant in this discussion, I want to note that we all go around in circles a bit and repeat ourselves, but if the discussion keeps coming back again and again, there must be a reason. So, I wrote a post about the Russian March, where I explained that I would not be taking part in it this time, but nevertheless consider it a legitimate political event that deserves support and to be brought out of the margins. In response, the wonderful writer Boris Akunin made a statement saying that a politician who does not condemn the Russian March cannot be supported in any way, and that such a politician has not yet matured into a real politician, and therefore should not be supported: Here is the text: http://navalny.livejournal.com/877154.html Its meaning is this: Navalny will not go to the “Russian March,” but in fact he strongly approves of the event. He urges everyone not to hesitate, but to go and march. Well then. It turns out I was mistaken in thinking that nationalist nonsense was just a youthful illness for Alexei Navalny, one he had already outgrown. He has not. And that means (at least for me) that he has not yet grown into a politician of nationwide stature. Maybe in time. He has the ability for it, but ability alone is not enough. Sorry to repeat such elementary truths, but in a country where many nations live, any political movement with an ethnic bent risks pogroms, or even the breakup of the country. Russia needs something diametrically opposite: a common cause, a common project, a common goal—something that unites all the country’s residents, rather than sorting them into ethnic compartments. And until Navalny understands this, he had better remain a fighter against fur vaults, corrupt kickback schemes, and dishonest housing and utility tariffs. These are all important, necessary matters and safe for the country. But as a leader of a broad democratic front, in my opinion, this politician is not suitable. As a temporary ally in certain specific areas of activity—perhaps. But no more than that. Perhaps that is for the best. We have had enough of rallying around leaders; it is time to unite around ideas, programs, and platforms. That is somehow more reliable. Others have also written about this quite interestingly: Sergei Parkhomenko: the post is a mistake, and the flirting with nationalism must stop. Andrei Loshak: what “respectable nationalism” are you even talking about—just read the lyrics of the band “Kolovrat”. This argument will be especially popular today: the Russian March is happening right now, and by lunchtime there will be plenty of photos of signs saying things like, "Boromir, raise your axe for Holy Rus in the name of Galadriel," and everyone will start reposting them with comments like, "Navalny, and these are the people who are supposed to create civilized nationalism?" Mitya Aleshkovsky: we have a ton of problems and the police are all drug addicts, and yet you’re getting distracted by the Russian March—this is all artificial and spiritually barren. Anton Nosik: enlightened nationalism is fine, but I don’t believe the Russian March will help bring it about. Read them—it’s interesting and useful. Here is what I would like to say: We all need to work toward understanding that political pluralism, democracy, and genuine parliamentarianism—the things we strive for—mean not only "they stop hounding us," but also "we do not seek to hound anyone else". After all, Boris Akunin, whom I love and respect very much, is essentially declaring in a rather totalitarian way: nationalism is unacceptable in our country and must be banned. No need to argue with me; these are elementary truths. Otherwise Russia will fall apart. Okaaaay. Then let’s take his text and replace “nationalism” with “liberalism”: Well then. It turns out I was mistaken in thinking that liberal nonsense was just a youthful illness for Alexei Navalny, one he had already outgrown. He has not. And that means (at least for me) that he has not yet grown into a politician of nationwide stature. Maybe in time. He has the ability for it, but ability alone is not enough. Sorry to repeat such elementary truths, but in a country where many nations live, any political movement with a liberal bent risks pogroms, or even the breakup of the country. Russia needs something diametrically opposite: a common cause, a common project, a common goal—something that unites all the country’s residents, rather than sorting them into ideological compartments. And until Navalny understands this, he had better remain a fighter against fur vaults, corrupt kickback schemes, and dishonest housing and utility tariffs. These are all important, necessary matters and safe for the country. But as a leader of a nationwide front, in my opinion, this politician is not suitable. As a temporary ally in certain specific areas of activity—perhaps. But no more than that. Perhaps that is for the best. We have had enough of rallying around leaders; it is time to unite around ideas, programs, and platforms. That is somehow more reliable. Funny, isn’t it? All of a sudden it no longer sounds like Boris Akunin, but like something halfway between Putin and Yarovaya (a hardline pro-Kremlin politician), with a sprinkling of Burmatov (another pro-Kremlin figure) on top. So Putin comes out and says: the white-ribbon people (anti-Kremlin protest supporters) must be banned, they’ll destroy the country. And then we come out and say: nationalists must be banned, they’ll destroy the country. How about we stop banning things? Free political competition. Everyone gets into parliament, conducts a difficult dialogue, forms a coalition government acting in the interests of the majority of voters. That is exactly what I want to see, and that is exactly why I oppose driving any ideology underground. If politicians are not calling for violence, then they should be allowed to participate in the political process. Whether we like it or not, the political spectrum will always include people ranging from “take from some and divide it up” to “Mother Mokosh, protect the Russian people” (Mokosh is a Slavic pagan deity). At the same time, experience shows that voters, in most cases, choose moderates. But where are these moderate nationalists? Putin? Rogozin? And where are the nationalists who are against corruption and for the rule of law? Let’s give them room to develop and evolve. They will appear—the demand for them exists in society. I will never agree with the position that “in Russia, nationalism is frightening and must be banned.” Right now in France, the "National Front" is going through a period of rapidly growing support. Hard to believe, but Alain Delon has endorsed Marine Le Pen. Similar processes are underway all across Europe. So what now—shall we boycott French croissants? Or say outright: the French are allowed this, but Russians are not? Among nationalists, an extremely difficult and painful process of ideological differentiation is underway, and of course we should all support those who speak in favor of equality before the law and respect for human rights. There are many such people, and the majority at the Russian March should be exactly that kind. Let me object to Sergei Parkhomenko, who says that the current leaders are not moderates but bad, ugly, terrible people. Well then, let’s put liberal leaders before the court of public opinion too. People will say they’re terrible as well. And yet liberals are prime ministers and ministers every other one, while nationalists cannot crawl out of the underground. Where are they supposed to acquire good manners and experience? Let’s compare not Vasechkin and some ideal, but Vasechkin now and Vasechkin five years ago. The dynamic of change is obvious and very positive. If you keep crushing Vasechkin, then, finding no sympathy, he’ll go back to marching with a Boromir flag. Or worse. Do we want that? It is important to understand that people do not go on marches for no reason. If they came out, that means they have a problem. If they are shouting, there is a problem. If they are protesting, there is a problem. The danger is not nationalism; the danger is banning and tabooing the issues raised at the Russian March (even if they are raised there in dubious wording). Ban the march, push the nationalists out, refuse to discuss it (so as not to inflame things).
That is not how this works. Kondopoga, Biryulyovo, Sagra, and so on have proven that to us many times over. 4. (last point) What I agree with Boris Akunin on 100% is this: "*We have had enough of rallying around leaders; it is time to unite around ideas, programs, and platforms. That is somehow more reliable". * Absolutely wonderful. No one wants to put an end to the endless dissection of “the case of Komsomol member Navalny” more than I do. My ideas and views, in the part that for some reason is usually labeled the "nationalist agenda," are clear and straightforward: the law should be the same for everyone. The police do not stop a law-abiding Caucasian person simply because he is from the Caucasus. But neither should they let an offender go because his uncle is the prosecutor of some Nozhay-Yurt district and a friend of Kadyrov (the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya). budget equality, or at least movement toward it. There should be nothing like this:
http://calcsoft.ru/transportnyy-nalog-calculator an end to supporting and encouraging a clan-based offshore state within Russia (Chechnya) that does not obey the laws of the rest of the country. an end to the Islamization of the Caucasus and some of the ethnic republics of the Volga region. automatic Russian citizenship for all ethnic Russians and representatives of peoples who have traditionally lived in Russia and do not have their own state, upon presentation of a USSR document (their own or their parents’) with the “nationality” line filled in. restricting migrant entry into Russia and introducing visa requirements for the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. Those are my answers to the questions being raised at the Russian March. Let’s all answer them honestly, rather than discussing “a common goal and a common project” in the abstract. That is how we will sort ourselves out—and then, who knows, we may discover once again that we are all taking part in the same march.