I wrote for the centenary of Yury Petrovich article. But decided not to publish it in the days of the anniversary is very much the public tried to get away from the analysis of the fate of one of the greatest Russians of the twentieth century. So offer it to your attention just now.
photo: Kirill Iskoldsky
Four of the opposition
All his life Yuri Petrovich was a member of the opposition.
“How?” — says a reader. Wasn’t he awarded the State prize? Was he not the honored artist? It’s in the Soviet years. Isn’t it celebrated in the new Russia?
Yes. All of this was. But all the years Lyubimov still remained the opposition.
In the USSR, Lyubimov was in opposition, which I would call “friendly”. It was a criticism of the Soviet system, but allowed by the system itself. It was the opposition that was represented by Sergei Mikhalkov with his fables or Arkady Raikin with his thumbnail.
Was options, “friendly criticism”. For example, in the works of Efremov and the Strugatsky brothers describe the future was, no doubt, and criticism present in the USSR. When Lyubimov played in the film “Kuban Cossacks”, depicting happy farm life, he actually criticized the collective reality.
For many years the entire Soviet socialism was officially regarded as something temporary, a prologue to the future. And even the moral code of the Builder of communism Nikita Khrushchev was a special kind of criticism.
But time passed, and the Soviet bureaucracy, especially the nomenclature managed to “settle” under socialism. And any criticism of him has become undesirable. In the system of government remained the only option for the non-systemic critics.
Yuri Petrovich was among this new opposition. Opposition to “critical non-participation” and “active dissent.” He is in the theatre did the same thing Twardowski in the “New world,” Solzhenitsyn in literature, Vysotsky’s poems and songs. It was the second opposition Lyubimov. With the launch of the Theatre on Taganka until his expulsion from the USSR.
When the struggle for the post already removed from office, Leonid Brezhnev, when passivity senile “apex”, intensified the most recent, the most greedy, the most concerned about the preservation of their privileges apparatchiks of the second echelon. To let in the Soviet Union opposition, they could not. Them repressed. They were expelled from the Soviet Union. The third Lyubimova opposition and the opposition abroad.
Over the years this opposition, he developed and honed his talent. Fed his achievements of Western culture. Actively participated in international movement of Soviet opposition. But it is a fact that something is noticeable it is not created. In any case, we in the Soviet Union is not reached.
Perestroika began. Lubimov was one of the first, back in the USSR. And then it became clear fairly quickly that now he has to stay in the opposition.
He approved of power, which began the dismantling of the bureaucratic socialism. But he realized that it was not something that he can participate in. He was far from any kind of privatizations and commercial projects. “Grab” factories, buildings, land for construction. But no one, even a great Director is not a master of building his theater. Same thing with Directors of schools, rectors of universities, heads of scientific centers and design bureaus. Respect them, be petted. But to “sawing” of ownership is not allowed. They were “not his”.
Taganka existed largely through the efforts of a wonderful wife Yuri Petrovich Catalina. The team “survived” is not due to the meager budgetary allocations, and with road trips abroad.
Returning to his native country, Lyubimov, soberly assessing the situation, began his fourth and last opposition. I would call it opposition to the removal of, non-participation in the Affairs of the country’s ruling forces. Neither elections to the Duma, neither the vouchers nor the division of Ministerial seats Lyubimov, like almost all the best representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, was not engaged. No one plays on contemporary Russia, Lyubimov is not set. It was the opposition of the nomenklatura-oligarchic reforms, the Russian version of the nomenclature of post-industrialism. But no criticism of the authorities Lyubimov is not allowed.
It was in the theater, Lyubimov A. I. Solzhenitsyn read his legendary Declaration of renunciation of the highest awards of Russia, which was the only slap in the face to President Yeltsin by the intelligentsia.
Lessons oppositions Lyubimova
On the first opposition. This opposition was undoubtedly strengthened the Soviet system. The fact that pointed out the flaws. And what contributed to their elimination. And, most importantly, the fact that created and have masses, the intelligentsia, and the opposition prospects improve.
Its main basis was the General position of the system. We live in a time of transition, dealing with something transient. There is a bright future. And compared to him all our troubles seem not so bad. Let — a wonderful poem about Kuznetskstroy and the people of Kuznetsk “unimportant wet comfort” and it is necessary to chew “moist bread.” There are present and future “stodolny giant” with “sitnam without rations”. But ideals are more and more recede into the misty distance, and instead offered real socialism.
Second, the opposition — the opposition of active resistance. It was the most effective.
It was during the years of work in Lyubimov Taganka launched in his productions to the criticism of the Soviet model of socialism. A crushing criticism. Criticism comprehensive. And the first days of October. And quiet dawns of the great people’s war. And Soviet interpretations of Russian history. With reference to “the Master and Margarita” by Bulgakov. An appeal to the best heritage of world culture — the same Brecht.
And with each new production Lyubimov gave me a sample of how how to fight in the harsh conditions of censorship and pressure.
What is the main result of the second opposition?
First, was formed Lyubimov himself. Second, grew stronger under his “beginning” a galaxy of actors, which became a model of persistent rejection of Soviet values. This and Vladimir Vysotsky. And my classmate’s ECTACO MSU Alla Demidova. And Nikolai Gubenko. And Veniamin Smekhov. And many others.
But the main thing — the third. Changed the thinking of thousands and thousands of spectators.
When in the first years of the great anti-socialist revolution of 1989-1991 I was looking at a sea of demonstrators in the squares and streets of Moscow, of course, I understand that there are millions of those who have received thanks to Khrushchev first personal apartment. And those millions who, thanks to Brezhnev got personal garden plots. And those hundreds of thousands, which, thanks to Kosygin became owners of personal “the Zhiguli”.
But I knew that the main guiding force of these demonstrators are the ones who brought the songs of Vladimir Vysotsky, the performances of Yuri Lyubimov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. In the rise of millions of Soviet citizens to storm the strongholds of bureaucratic socialism, the second opposition, one of the best representatives of which was Yuri Lyubimov, has played a crucial role.
Unfortunately, this opposition has not fulfilled another important task. She didn’t offer people options for a new structure of society. For the first time in the history of Russian intelligentsia has left his people without developed models of the future. Unlike 1917, when Russia has received from its intelligentsia comprehensive program for the future — the right and the left SRS, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, anarchists, cadets.
About a third of the opposition Lyubimov. Abroad.
As a creative worker, he worked successfully. Won authority and respect. But he and all our foreign opposition were not any noticeable factor either as initiators or as participants in a great national campaign for the abandonment of Soviet society.
Third, the opposition has shown that the error was the consent and Solzhenitsyn, Lyubimov to leave the Soviet Union.
It is no accident so desperately struggled in 1917, back to Russia by Lenin and Trotsky. What Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov lived in the Soviet Union with his people, allowed him to become one of the leaders of the revolution, which began in 1989. But a delay of years with a return to Russia, Solzhenitsyn almost knocked from the saddle of this great son of our people.
And today is an example of Khodorkovsky, bravely kept in prison and had all chances to become one of the leaders of the opposition, but to go abroad, shows that the opposition from abroad, never in Russia will not be effective, no matter how sincere was himself immigrant.
The fourth opposition. Lyubimov could not help his people to overcome the sea of troubles that brought down on him the ruling nomenklatura and the oligarchy. But the opposition of indifference, the opposition of non-participation allowed Lyubimov and all the figures in our culture who have gone this route, save in the eyes of the people his good name. Allowed — by and large — to save the honor of the Russian culture.
But to save in the way of survival, not development. This is the fourth merit of the opposition. But we must realise the extent, price and size of this merit. Fourth, the opposition was eliminated from future searches for Russia.
Thinking about the future
Why in the USSR the most effective was precisely the non-systemic opposition?
Once the chief of the Royal gendarmerie spoke of Belinsky: “In the absence in Russia of the ability to rebel in the squares he rebelled in the journal”. In the USSR itself the power, suppressing opposition and in the ruling party and the state, have left one area — culture.
But thinking about the future of the opposition, I still primarily consider the major development of the opposition in traditional forms, that is, system.
The main database system of the opposition makes democracy. Democracy comes from the fact that the power of the people must be deprived of the omnipotence of the state.
And the first way — the separation of powers. Into three branches: legislative, Executive and judicial. To them in the post-industrial society is added the fourth power — the media, especially electronic.
It is essential to ensure the full independence of each branch of government from each other. Each of them should receive all the powers from the people. Judges and journalists. Each of the authorities must be provided with their taxes, itself to collect and distribute them, set their own salaries and pensions, to have their awards, etc.
It is easy to see how a real state system of Russia is far from ideal.
Another important pillar of the opposition in a democratic system — the presence of several parties. This must work without any “payments” from the state. All without any restrictions to participate in the elections. All people have to decide. If it is necessary to have two or even three stages of elections.
The third pillar — the promotion of democracy within the party. In a democratic state can emerge only fully open parties to respect democratic principles from top to bottom.
The fourth pillar is the availability of two ruling parties. Both the party in power. But they, one after another, become a powerful instrument of control over each other, and a guarantee from the fear that the loss of power over to the ruling persons tragedy.
Finally, the fifth pillar — the eternal opposition. Party, never having prospects become a power. But they — the eternal critics and supervisors. Without them, the opposition will not be a major factor in the development of the country.
If all the reserves of democracy are implemented, the non-systemic opposition will only need to nominate full of problems, radical changes in the entire state and social system.
Modern society brings a flood of problems. In this society, you can shoot dozens of innocent people. It can spend huge resources to rescue some of the people of Africa from the infection, and then to condemn rescued from death people to hunger and misery. For the future — the example of the barbarians, for centuries nabrasyvanija in Ancient Rome, the storm significantly more prosperous countries of the world. Modern society with its slogan “be fruitful and multiply”, with its cult of consumption and fashion, with its populism, of equality of votes “drowns” the small intellectual layers, which can only look for a companies way of overcoming its contradictions.
It is in the world. What are the prospects for the non-systemic opposition in Russia?
The moment can be defined as a sort of compromise between the state and the best, the main, creative part of the intelligentsia, its “brain”, its “soul”.
The essence of compromise is simple. The intelligentsia does not interfere in the Affairs of the bureaucracy. Does not prevent to divide, “saw” and “prihvatizirovat” the socialist legacy. A bureaucracy provides a creative intelligence almost complete freedom. Freedom is intoxicating — especially the part that remembers the shackles of Soviet life.
How long will this compromise?
First of bureaucracy.
There are fundamental factors that determine a hatred of bureaucracy, even the most intelligent and talented, to “co-ordinate”, limiting its main value is power. The fact that someone is not something that can live better than you, but just to live without your command, unbearable. I’m not talking about the elementary envy or greed.
And not surprisingly, the campaign is particularly precarious feeling of bureaucracy on independent and potentially rebellious more than logical.
But besides this General trend, the Russian bureaucracy is, and situational factors.
A major and decisive is to reduce the “basket” of resources bureaucracy. Russian bureaucrats turn their nearly thirty years of billions “currency”, but have not built any factories for the manufacture of devices for the modern equipment, nor the thousands of kilometres of high-speed Railways or network of channels of irrigation systems or exploitation of millions of hectares of forests. The resources of the bureaucracy — the export of natural raw materials, especially energy.
But the world has been steadily reducing power consumption. Peace replaces non-renewable hydrocarbons with renewable solar, water, wind, and bioproducts. The world seeks to protect the natural environment. Sooner or later the world will begin to tightly control the population and limit mindless consumption.
All these processes have one term — “basket” of income of the Russian bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is not producing, mining and trading, will be reduced.
There is a situation known for the Soviet past. When the price of oil has fallen and Gorbachev did not remain resources for the maintenance of the army and the bureaucracy, the fate of the Soviet system was solved.
When the government loses its backbone, it is not up to compliance with the agreements of neutrality with the intelligentsia.
There is another important situational factor. Each new generation of Russian bureaucrats, deputies, governors, mayors, chiefs of all levels — came to power, reveals that even before they nearly all split, already has a masters. Even free land is almost there. “The young wolves” remains to deal with the predecessors.
And in the fierce fight within the bureaucracy is not neutral intelligentsia. On the contrary, it will try to “ride” and “use” all the units of the bureaucracy.
Which, by the way, we are already seeing. When you strangle private kindergartens, schools, universities. When in the reorganization of science do not put the problem of scientific independence from the bureaucracy. When there is a campaign for any independence of art.
So there is only one perspective — the total attack of the bureaucracy, the intelligentsia in General, and creative first of all.
Well, will respect the neutrality itself intellectuals? As the most intelligent part of the people, it cannot fail to see that the government is not prepared to the realities of the twenty-first century.
I talked about this and Lyubimov, and Kapitsa, and with the deceased in the days of immensely talented Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, and with other — to use the term American psychoanalysis — the “think tanks”. Will try to summarize the result of these conversations.
First. Intellectuals do not wish in any form nor to fight for power or to support any “power-hungry”.
After all, if even in the most democratic elections and the support of the masses, the opposition will come to power, they will have perspective or to be “hobbled” by the bureaucracy (as the President of trump), or retirement (as once did I), or — more often — to join the ranks of the bureaucracy. Trotsky the prospect of rebirth is considered the most likely. And we have seen the fate of such a powerful populist like Boris Yeltsin.
Intellectuals the conclusions from the tragedy in 1990 when it supported the campaign of the Russian “rebels” on the government and contributed to Russia’s choice the worst option out of the socialist nomenklatura-oligarchic.
Second. If not the Executive power, it remains a variant of the “eternal opposition” of the minority in the representative bodies.
Of course, to eradicate corruption such eternal opposition can not. After all modern society without the oligarchy and bureaucracy can not exist. And, accordingly, without corruption. But the eternal opposition can substantially “clean” the whole state machine. Therefore, we should welcome attempts to create a perpetual opposition. In this opposition to many devotees to the ideas of individual freedom. Many young enthusiasts. But in its ranks are usually those who are or are not able to become a successful physician, scientist, teacher. Or those who have used up their potential of an artist, actor, journalist. Or just active the “average”. In General, those who have, for a very succinct expression of Leo Tolstoy, “denominator” of the fraction — of their claims and self — exceeds the “numerator” — their real potential.
Therefore, intellectuals should welcome all attempts to create “eternal opposition”. And her struggles. But it will not participate.
The prospect of power, in which intellectuals can take the attitude of positive opposition, it is logical to consider only as a purely hypothetical.
A more realistic prospect that its growing expansion of Russian bureaucracy will reach the limit beyond which the intellectuals will not remain nothing but active opposition, as it happened in the epoch of late Brezhnev.
This is an extremely dangerous prospect. Dangerous for intellectuals — it is and in the seventies, will have to start a fight with the government, not yet having formed the concept of alternative order. Threat for the bureaucracy — because in the era of post-industrialism in the fight against the intelligence of society, it is doomed to fail.
The most important lesson of the past opposition of the late twentieth century — not to fight, having no positive program. Therefore, the best future option for the intelligentsia — cooking program non-systemic opposition throughout the post-industrial system and its civilization.
The Opposition Of The Great Alternatives. And modern civilization. And modern state. Not the accumulation of things and money, and the accumulation of knowledge. Not a Consumer society, and the society of Mind. Not a populist equality for all, but something like “Empire scientists” of Ancient China. Not of territorial nation, and the nation’s cultural autonomy. Consumption reasonable is plundering the planet’s resources. And more what our creative community is only beginning, but on development which will take years.
And while intellectuals are not ready to present options for concepts for the future of all the people — she is “in opposition” will not go.
Therefore, the option “neutral opposition” is not preferred for one year. But, in the words of Marx and Engels, in Russia already began to “Ghost” a new, completely different from all previous, non-systemic, antipatriarchal, anti-bureaucratic opposition.
I think in the centenary year of the great opposition leader — Yuri Petrovich Lyubimov.