Ekaterina Shulman: Flexible, like a caterpillar, hybrid Russia. Flexible as a caterpillar, hybrid Russia Interviewed by Dmitry Gubin

– Now there are calls from everywhere to work with young people. How to work– no one knows, no one really understands who they are or what to do with them. How do you see today's youth?

– The idea that young people are some kind of guides to the future, this is our tomorrow, therefore whoever comes to an agreement with them will be its beneficiary and owner, seems to be based on a certain unchanging course of things. “I’m caressing a sweet baby, and I’m already thinking: forgive me! I give up my place to you: it’s time for me to smolder, for you to bloom.” But at the current historical stage, these seemingly inescapable truths are subject to some correction.

Firstly, ours is with you the youth stratum is small: these are the fruits of the demographic hole of the 90s, which, in turn, became the heir to the previous demographic failure of the Second World War. If you look at our demographic pyramid, you can see these repeating dents - the unborn children of the dead. This hole is smoothed out a little over the years and will continue to smooth out if our further historical development proceeds without catastrophes, but it is there.

Secondly, the idea of ​​generational change is becoming outdated. There is such a story by Kipling - “Little Todd's Correction”, from a collection of his stories about British India. It tells how a small boy wandered into a meeting of the legislative council where British administrators were sitting, and there he recounted the objections of his Indian servants to a proposed law that would require land leases to be renewed every five years, rather than the previous fifteen years. . They boiled down to the fact that in fifteen years a man grows up and becomes a man, his son is born, after another fifteen this son is already a man, and the father has already died, the land passes to the next worker. If you renew these contracts every five years, this means unnecessary expenses, fuss and money for all sorts of duties and stamps.

In a traditional society with a low life expectancy, the change of generations occurs very quickly - in just fifteen years. We are now focusing on twenty-five years, but the situation is changing: life expectancy is increasing. Accordingly, the period of active life increases and the period of childhood lengthens. I do not expect that in twenty-five years I will reach “the age of survival,” as our Pension Fund delicately calls it, and my children will be fathers and mothers of families and heads of households. Most likely, I will still work, and my children may still be studying, looking for themselves, they will not have their own families and children, they will still be young people.

The change of generations has slowed down very much, so from a purely practical point of view, if you want political power and influence, then work with those who are forty. There are many of them - this is a large generation, the children of the “Soviet baby boomers”, they have been on the social scene for a long time and for another thirty years they will manifest themselves socially, economically and politically. From this point of view, young people can be left alone a little.

However, while we have not yet achieved biological immortality, which Alexey Kudrin recently promised us in the next 10-12 years (though not in Russia), generations still change. In this regard, it seems important to me to study generational values, family relationships, parenting styles, the gender contract and its changes.

When you say “youth”, “children and parents”, everyone means something different. We must remember that the millennial generation is a generation of people who reached the age of early social maturity by the turn of the millennium. That is, these are those born in the late 70s - early 80s. Today's twenty-year-olds are the so-called centennials, generation Z. These two generations differ from each other. It is useful to remember that a 45-year-old person may well have a 20-year-old child - this is a social norm. Therefore, when we say “parents”, we should not imagine some gray-bearded elders, we should imagine young people in the range of 40 to 55.

We now have three demographic strata active on the social scene. People 60+, born in the 50s, occupy the upper floors of the management pyramid. There is a generation 40+, their children born in the 70s. And there is a new generation, which is the youth - those born in the 90s and later.

From the point of view of demographic statistics, our demographic failure ends in the mid-2000s. From 2004 to 2014, a high birth rate was recorded. These are the two bricks at the base of our demographic pyramid: those who are now from 0 to 5, and those who are from 5 to 10. When they enter the age of social activity, an interesting moment will come. If you want to prepare for the political future, work with forty-year-olds now, and in ten years wait for the new twenty-year-olds, there will be many of them.

If you want power, have an organization

Since I am a political scientist, any demographics and generational values ​​concern me only as much as they affect political processes and political behavior. When we talk about political processes, the mere number of participants means little. It is important because these are voters, but from the point of view of influencing political processes, what is important is not the number of heads, but the organization of the structure. This is a general law; it knows no exceptions.

The unorganized in the political space does not have subjectivity, the organized does. Power always belongs to the organized minority, but instead of being sad about this iron law of oligarchy (as it is scientifically called), organize and you too will have power. Power is not a needle in an egg; it can be found in all social relationships: in the family, in economic exchange, in production, in creativity. If you want power, have an organization.

There are few young people now, but given that our civilization as a whole values ​​youth and considers the future and the new as positive markers, the participation of young people in any process increases its value. If you have only pensioners, it is considered that you are people of yesterday.

In fact, if you can attract the votes and energy of retirees, they will long serve as political fuel for your needs and goals. With young people it’s like in the game “Scrabble”: if you manage to put your letter on this square, then the cost of your move immediately increases tenfold.

Where is the generation gap?

– On television, with some panic, they realize that they have lost their youth audience, they have gone to uncontrolled social networks. At the same time, quite a lot of young people generally refuse social networks and an active presence on the Internet. Where are they, what are they?

– You are very right about panic. It embraces the administrative machine - perhaps not yet with sufficient strength. When they, or on their behalf, say that “we have lost our youth,” that young people don’t watch TV, or don’t respect the authorities, or don’t go to elections, or don’t want to do anything else, then the youth here are just a pseudonym tomorrow. In fact, those at the top have problems not with the youth, but with the next generation, with their own children. Out of habit, they call them youth, but they are no longer youth. These are people in the prime of social maturity, and they are denied access to decision-making and political representation.

Now all the research into intergenerational and family relationships shows us an interesting thing. We are accustomed to believing that the conflict of generations is a thing inherent in nature: children always rebel against their fathers, that’s how life works. We are not aware to what extent specific socio-historical conditions are capable of smoothing out or aggravating this conflict.

We will now talk about very large communities, within which there will be many exceptions, so do not try to project these observations onto your families. In the most general form, our picture is as follows: people born in the 50s performed their marital and parental functions in a very unique way. This generation has its own special characteristics: the highest level of divorces and abortions, the mode of these divorces and the model of subsequent relationships between parents and children, the specific sexual behavior of the 70s and 80s. We will not go into the reasons now, we will not blame or justify anyone, we will simply record this sociological fact.

This generation was forty years old when the Soviet Union collapsed. Some perceived this event as the greatest political catastrophe, some as a great window of opportunity that had opened, it doesn’t matter now.

It is important that ethics and aesthetics, politics and economics of the 90s largely reflected the ideas about life of this particular generation. When they say that we built capitalism according to the book “Dunno on the Moon” and according to the caricatures in “Crocodile” depicting a capitalist society, and the relations between the Church and the state - according to atheistic brochures turned upside down and Emelyan Yaroslavsky, we must keep in mind that those who built all this, were raised in the Soviet way.

The generation born in the 50s is the pinnacle of Soviet education; they went through a full course of ideological indoctrination: from kindergarten to high school. The war cut off forever the memory of the former Russia, simply physically killing everyone who could remember something, and the post-war generation became a product of Soviet power.

Their relationships with their own children, to put it mildly, tend to be complicated. It is in their case that the generational conflict manifests itself most acutely. Women and, to a lesser extent, men 40+ are the main clientele of psychologists and psychotherapists, and their request is to correct trauma from childhood. In the generation born in the 50s, the generational conflict is most acute.

It is usually believed that forty- and fifty-year-olds are offended by the lack of social and career advancement: the children of generals have grown to general positions, but there is no rotation. But it's not only that. Very often the conflict is due to the fact that the children of this generation grew up in broken families with very specific relationships between father and mother. These are the children of Soviet women with their special understanding of their role, their responsibilities, their rights in relation to children and in relation to current and former husbands.

Children of the 50s generation already have children of their own. And there is no generational conflict between “children” and “grandchildren”, and this trend is not only observed in our country. The smoothing out of the generational conflict between centennials and their parents is noted everywhere. This is a rather unique situation from an anthropological point of view.

What most attracts the attention of researchers is that children and parents speak about each other with tenderness and respect. This seems like the most natural thing in the world - who doesn’t love their children, and it’s common to love parents too. But in the mid-2000s the picture was the opposite.

I remember reading closed women’s communities on LiveJournal, and I had an eerie feeling that I was among my peers, and at that time I was thirty, talking to my parents alone. People were in terrible conflict with their parents: they either did not communicate at all or hated each other, even telephone conversations ended in hysterics, tears and hanging up. It was wild for me personally.

– Typical story.

“But at the next demographic step, this is no longer a typical story. Most generational research is of a marketing nature: it is clear that companies want to know who and how to sell goods and services to. Nevertheless, we political scientists can learn a lot of interesting things from them. In a study that was recently conducted for Sberbank, there is an interesting point: one of the few complaints that children make against their parents is that they do not tell them how to live, they do not give instructions.

– Did they have too many installations themselves?

– Maybe they themselves had a lot of attitudes, maybe they feel that time is changing too quickly. Parents, in turn, say: “I don’t know how to do it, maybe they know better than me.” Usually, the fact that for the first time in human history the next generation knows more than the previous one is written in studies related to digital literacy and network life. Learning goes in reverse order, and this is, to put it mildly, a brain explosion, because our entire culture is built on the fact that the previous generation passes on its experience to the next.

This transfer of experience is characteristic primarily of an agricultural society, where there is practically no innovation, and experience is more important than creativity. After successive waves of industrial revolutions began, and great geographical discoveries expanded the horizons of mankind, a situation already arose when the next generation was better able to navigate the changed conditions than the previous one.

But usually, during the time when living conditions changed, these new generations themselves managed to become adults and parents. This is the first time this phenomenon has been observed in such a short time period. This is a very interesting, new and unlike anything else phenomenon.

The neurotic desire to quickly cram skills into a child so that he is prepared for life has been replaced by the feeling that we cannot install anything into him, because we do not know how the world will change tomorrow.

The idea that before the age of 21 you learn everything you need to know, and then you just work on this fuel, already looks utopian.

On the one hand, time flies quickly, but on the other, there is no need to rush: everyone understands that you will study endlessly, improving your qualifications or acquiring a new specialty. From this understanding, there arises a desire not to waste the years of life together with the child on forcing valuable knowledge into him, like into a goose for foie gras, and in the process spoiling relationships, but it is better to give him a supply of love, a sense of self-worth and acceptance, who will stay with him.

Now I’m not saying that this is a rational or winning strategy: those who received a better education in their youth still have an advantage - not because they learned about the periodic table, but because they have more neural connections in their heads formed in the process recognition of the periodic table, so their brains are better equipped for further learning.

All I’m saying now is that people have a certain feeling that the main thing is, after all, relationships, love. So I give my child confidence, acceptance - and behind this there is a feeling that the training that the parents of the previous generation gave no longer looks so valuable.

When those in power talk about the youth they missed, they are not talking about youth. They missed their children. This formulation is true for a significant number of people of this age, but thank God, not for everyone - human nature takes its toll.

– Who are the missing children?

– These are those who were born by people of the generation of the 50s.

If we are talking about youth protests, these are not protests of twenty-year-olds against their parents. Generations of twenty-year-old children and their parents are united by common values, the main of which is justice. Their protest manifests itself in different ways, depending on age.

Forty-year-olds and older are inclined to protest through legal means, and this is good and effective. These people sign up as observers, submit applications to the courts, write complaints, skillfully pit one department against another in order to get what they want, organize structures that protect the rights of prisoners, women, children, the sick, anyone. They are successful in this activity. The protest of the “grandchildren” is more chaotic due to their age.

Contrary to what people like to say about the Russian people, our level of tolerance for violence is low, including state violence. We may like to talk about Stalin, who is not present, but as soon as real manifestations of state violence begin, few people like it. More precisely, those who don’t like it are much more organized and articulate than those who are okay with it.

Asexuality is a new trend, and the level of violence is decreasing

– You started talking about the morals and values ​​of young people. A contradictory picture is emerging: on the one hand, young people film all kinds of cruelty on video and post it on YouTube, on the other hand, there is a lot of news where some high school student saved someone.

– The inscription inside one of the Egyptian pyramids is often quoted as saying that today’s youth do not want to work, do not honor the gods, elders, only want to have fun, and so on. Worrying about the low moral character of young people and, in general, about greater depravity compared to yesterday is also one of the traditional social mechanisms for transmitting experience. Interestingly, at the current historical moment this statement is furthest from the truth.

All the data that we have, both American and Russian, suggests that the involvement of young people in those practices that were previously considered markers of growing up is moving further and further away.

People try alcohol later and later, start smoking later or not at all, and start having sex later. Generation Z is generally much less interested in sexual topics than any previous generation. Asexuality is a new trend, and it will only develop.

All studies indicate that today's youth are the most correct of all generations imaginable.

All studies indicate that today's youth are the most correct of all generations imaginable.

Growing up, people forgot about this, the concept of violence was blurred, tolerance for violence was much higher. It was believed that all boys fight, this is normal and correct. Does anyone think so now? - No. Does this mean that boys never fight again? No, it shouldn't, but attitudes have changed and that affects behavior.

We are witnessing the very slow death of initiation practices that assumed that at the age of puberty the entire pool of youth is exposed to something that not everyone experiences. Someone dropped out, but those who survived are already part of the tribe with battle scars and are considered a full-fledged hunter, breadwinner, and have the right to sex, property and autonomy. These practices are very deeply ingrained in our consciousness, the subject of a significant number of fairy tales and most works of fiction about growing up.

Now, in order to become a man, you no longer have to kill your own kind. Situations when you have to be beaten and you have to survive it, or you have to beat someone and, accordingly, survive it, are gradually disappearing. We will not say now what the consequences will be and how these practices will be replaced, we are simply recording this fact.

Our tolerance for violence is getting lower and lower, so facts that no one paid attention to before become the subject of discussion and outrage - and thanks to technical means, everything is captured and published.

One gets the impression that there is monstrous cruelty in the world - the girls beat another girl and posted the footage on the Internet. Tell me a class where girls or boys didn't hit another girl or boy! It’s just that no one had phones with a camera before.

We don't yet realize the magnitude of the decline in violence, we're just observing it. In general, the global reduction in crime, the great crime drop, is one of the mysteries that representatives of all social sciences are struggling with.

Why did people stop committing crimes? Among the attempts to explain this phenomenon, there are quite exotic ones, such as improving the quality of gasoline and reducing the amount of lead in exhaust. Lead is known to increase aggression.

The American version: a generation of criminals simply was not born, because thirty years ago contraception became available to disadvantaged groups.

The statistics for only two types of crimes have not improved: cybercrimes and, for some reason, theft of mobile phones. The number of cases of street hooliganism has decreased greatly, and one of the reasons given is computer games.

Computer games in general will save us all: these are new jobs and simulacra of war for young people. How can society get by without war, when for all previous generations of humanity it was the main occupation of the elite, a way to resolve political conflicts, and a way of economic advancement? What should the political elite do if the war was cancelled?

Research shows that young people are increasingly interested in food. Have you noticed how many boys and girls learn to cook?

– If earlier “you’ll go to a culinary college” was a terrible curse, now it’s the opposite.

– This is a wonderful, creative and very popular profession, where we will not be replaced by robots for some time. Now, when choosing a profession, you need to ask yourself the question: can a robot do this? If it can, don't do it.

– A chef is generally one of the highest paid professions!

– These are new stars. Nobody wants to see rock musicians doing drugs anymore. Everyone wants to watch Jamie Oliver cooking something in the company of his five children.

Lack of motivation will be a social advantage

– At the same time, they often say that today’s youth have a fairly low level of motivation. I myself feel that I cannot tell my children: “Study well - everything will be fine for you, otherwise you will become a janitor.” I understand that today people who have not even completed ten grades are absolutely well settled and everything is fine with them.

– Lack of motivation can be a wonderful and very relevant characteristic for the generation that will live in a post-scarcity and, possibly, post-labor economy.

Imagine that automation of production has given us an extreme reduction in the cost of everything that people of previous generations were killed for: furniture, household appliances, cars, clothing, and other material items. That, indeed, after the economy of ownership comes the economy of use. That our descendants will look at us with tender pity because we sought to acquire pieces of property and carried them along with us.

Maybe drones, upon pre-order, will deliver capsules with clothes to their door in the morning and pick them up in the evening. They will not have property, their housing will be rented. Objectively, they will be poorer than us, but their standard of living will be higher.

This seems like a paradox until we try to look back at some previous historical period and take, for ease of comparison, the level of consumption and standard of living of the then elite.

The aristocracy had diamond tiaras and palaces, which we do not have, but at the same time they did not have the opportunity to treat their teeth, they died early and terrible deaths, their children died like flies, they physically suffered insanely, lived in discomfort, in cold rooms drafty, they had no sewerage or running water, it was difficult for them to wash themselves - in general, no matter how outstanding a king, count or duke you were, from our point of view your standard of living and comfort was monstrously low.

If this process continues, if it gives the results that economic futurologists are now describing to us, then the lack of motivation to run after the fleeing dollar or the fleeing ruble in order to catch it and ensure one’s life will be very good.

The absence of such motivation will be a social advantage, because a person will need a different type of motivation: motivation for self-realization, for demonstrating one’s uniqueness, something in oneself that cannot be replaced by a robot.

Labor, in our view today, will no longer be needed by anyone, because your labor will only worsen the environmental situation, but your creativity will generate added value and further progress of humanity.

To put it less sublimely, lack of motivation is an extremely valuable quality for people who must live in a society where their work is not needed. In order for them not to feel thrown out of society and not needed by anyone, they must have a different psychology, a different structure of the head. They should not consider getting chips the goal of their efforts. They should be calm about tangible achievements, positions, awards, money - in fact, external signs of status.

We see how humanity is slowly moving towards this. You should always look at the First World and its vanguards, because they set the standards, which will later be universal. There we see fifty gray Zuckerberg sweatshirts, the Scandinavianization of elite behavior, ostentatious modesty and the death of that conspicuous consumption that the bourgeoisie once brought with them when they became the ruling class.

A good person is a profession

The problem of the new century arises: how and what to do to occupy people whose work is not needed. It seems that life with a guaranteed civilian income, when there is no need to work, would be a wonderful dream, but in fact, a person gets sick and dies from this. Research shows that for people who have lost their jobs, the process of self-destruction begins much earlier than the onset of material need.

A person must be included in society, he needs recognition, he needs to feel important and useful, doing something valuable, he needs meaning. If you give him money and say: “Now go and do nothing,” he will begin to get sick, waste away and destroy himself.

The famous economist Robert Skidelsky, a former member of the British Parliament, said the following: one of the tasks of the new era is to teach everyone to live as only the aristocracy lived before, without going crazy. This may not seem like a problem at all, but it is actually a very big problem.

It will be decided by the generation that, thank God, is indifferent to glitz and show-offs, that will finally throw off this yoke from their souls, that now already says that the main value is family, that creating a family is a greater achievement than career success, that what matters is a relationship that values ​​communication skills.

This is very correct, because the robot has the notorious efficiency, a person needs it less and less. Remember, there was such a Soviet expression: “a good person is not a profession”?

Now we are coming to a society in which there is no other profession: there is only the profession of a good person, and all the rest can be automated.

Now we are coming to a society in which there is no other profession: there is only the profession of a good person, and all the rest can be automated.

A person is required to communicate with other people, create and maintain relationships, and organize people. Managerial qualities come to the fore, but not in the sense of getting the most out of an employee, but in the sense of supporting teamwork, making it joyful and satisfying for those involved in it.

This becomes extremely valuable, and in this sense the new generation looks very promising. In general, those who communicate with twenty-year-olds are very delighted with them; as a teacher, I can confirm this.

The value of family will only increase

The boundaries of “male” work and “female” home space are blurring. The increased value of family and family relationships led to the fact that women did not want to leave their children, but they also did not want to leave work. The great dilemma of "family or work" remained in the 20th century: this is the problem for the industrial economy, when your job is either sitting in an office or standing in a factory. More and more people are working from home and traveling to meetings just to be able to walk in their heels.

The value of family will only increase as people live more and more at home. Remote work and the development of delivery brings us back home. In the 20th century, a person, as it were, was never at home: he went to the factory in the morning, came back from the factory in the evening, went on vacation to a sanatorium, sent his children to a pioneer camp for three months to see who lived in his apartment, There wasn’t really a chance. This, on the one hand, strengthened family relationships, on the other, destroyed them, depending on your luck.

Nowadays people live at home and put their relationships with their family first. This is somewhat reminiscent of a traditional society: a hut and a spinning wheel, only instead of a spinning wheel we have a computer. And as vertical farms emerge and feed our cities, communities will become more and more self-sufficient.

We will still see some villages of Old Believers or a village of artists who do not need anything at all: they have a solar panel on the roof from which they get electricity, they drilled a well for themselves, and get water from there.

They have vertical farms where they grow their own food, a drone flies to them and brings everything they need, not to mention the fact that they can print it on a 3D printer, which is right there. Life in cities will change greatly.

A line forms for oxytocin

– At the same time, isn’t there a feeling that queues for iPhones and some special sneakers are evidence of an increased need for markers of one’s social status?

– This is a quest, this is an adventure. Previously, people tried to avoid physical labor because it was a curse and the lot of their inferiors. The higher you climbed the social ladder, the less physical work you did and the more fatty foods you ate. The difference between the rich and the poor was very simple: the rich had long nails, white hands and special clothes that showed that he did not work, and in very traditional societies of the oriental type he also had a big belly (he could afford to eat a lot of fatty meat! ).

Now everything has turned upside down: the poor are fat, the rich are thin. We specifically run and jump, do physical labor and lift weights in order to be healthy. In the same way, standing in line, which was a curse for the Soviet man, sucking his blood, making him aggressive and generally destroying his life, now becomes a wonderful hobby. Look, we are all standing together, we are having an adventure, people buy special tickets so that they can arrange a quest.

– I have heard several times from people who organize quests that young people have some kind of drug addiction from them.

– Despite online, despite the computer games I have glorified, human nature has not changed: man is a social animal, he needs to interact with his own kind. This interaction online is no worse than offline, but a person wants to interact in the real world. Quests give not so much adrenaline as teamwork.

By the way, this is exactly why people go to charity, non-profit organizations, and political activism. Many people think that people go there to sacrifice themselves - this is a very dangerous misconception. Bad things will happen to those who come to charity with such ideas.

You need to understand that people come there for oxytocin - the hormone of happiness, which is produced during successful joint activities. Anyone who has tasted the sweet taste of success in interaction with others will come for it again and again.

In fact, school should give a person this experience. “I didn’t know, I found out, and now I’ve succeeded.” If someone had enough teaching talent to reproduce this experience for students, then children would adore school. Doing what works is a great pleasure.

Forced publicity is a new tool of pressure

– We have a completely ideal picture of modern youth. What problems do they have, dark sides?

– People who look at the ongoing sociocultural processes with unkind eyes call the emerging culture a culture of weakness - as opposed to the culture of strength that existed before.

What bad thing can be said about this culture of weakness? It fetishizes the victim and thereby encourages people to declare themselves victims in order to gain privileges. By reducing the general level of violence, especially physical violence, it develops new forms of violence, the first of which I would call forced publicity.

There is a term “outing” in the corresponding community. There is coming out, when you talk about yourself, and there is coming out, when I tell you that you are such and such. This is a pressure tool of the new era. It is paradoxical, but, as in a traditional society, in a new society everyone turns out to be tied to reputation. Everyone lives in plain sight, everything is open, recorded and can be published, data is available not only to states and corporations, but also to citizens.

“Everything is known about you, starting from the moment when your mother came to the mother’s community and said: “We have some problems with diapers today.”

– Yes, that’s absolutely right, and your photo with and without diaper will never disappear from the global network and will haunt you throughout your life. Accordingly, reputation is everything, and the collapse of a reputation closes all of a person’s social and professional prospects. He cannot say: “Yes, let’s say I’m a bastard and did something bad, but I’m a professional.”

Nobody needs your professionalism. You are selling a product, the central element of which is your personality. If your personality causes disgust and rejection, then you cannot say: “Yes, I kicked a woman in the ass, but I am a good actor.” No matter what kind of actor you are, people come to see you in a film and they should treat you well. If they treat you badly, they won't go to the movie with you, there are many other movies with good people.

– Some kind of Victorian attitude.

– We have already mentioned the specific attitude towards the sexual sphere among the younger generation. We must admit that we are moving at full speed into a culture that views sexuality, if not negatively, then suspiciously.

It would be better for all of us if the standards were set by good old depraved Europe, but in the modern world they are set by America, and America is a puritan country. They literally lived for several decades, since the late 60s, in a situation where sex was considered something more good than bad, and apparently they didn’t like it.

Now we see how American society is returning with great pleasure to the paradigm in which sex is bad. When they were Puritans they said it was sinful, now they say it is dangerous. Sexual communication becomes dangerous from different sides: firstly, you can never be sure that your behavior will not be recognized as violence, and secondly, you are opening up to another person and do not know how he will behave. This has always been the case, but now these risks outweigh the benefits.

With the availability of technological tools to solve this problem, the next generation will find the idea that you need to connect with an entire other person to have an orgasm seem outlandish. They will value relationships, of course, but they will value sex less. So chastity and continence seem to be our everything.

Rights will be defended less aggressively, but more persistently

The new generation may be, by our standards, more cowardly. Going against society will become more and more difficult with each next generation. People have a need to sacrifice themselves, but when so much is tied up in your social relationships and your comfort level is so high, this need is less likely to be fulfilled.

From a political perspective, the lack of a strong motivation to win and achieve and social conformity can make them more passive citizens. But, on the other hand, the idea of ​​the maximum value of self-expression and self-realization, and not the accumulation of material things, will work against the tendency that I described: it is even easier to make a person who is completely dependent on material incentives into a conformist. A person who understands that he will not be socially successful unless he develops his personality, and who values ​​his personality above all else, will be less aggressive, but will guard his boundaries more carefully and defend his rights with greater persistence.

Now there is a text circulating on the Internet about a young girl who was admitted to the hospital with her child, and there she started a fight for her rights because she did not like how she was treated.

Children born in the 90s became parents, and they do not consider humiliating and aggressive attitudes to be normal. The most important thing is that the norm is changing.

The norm can be anything: sacrifice of firstborns, ritual murder, temple prostitution, genocide. Man is such a flexible creature that, depending on conditions and social attitudes, he can behave like an angel, or like a total bastard (and one and the same person). In psychological experiments like the Stanford one, when people dress up as prisoners and guards, they start doing crazy things. When you have to give an electric shock to someone you can’t see for an incorrect answer, people reach what they consider to be fatal tension.

Usually these results are interpreted in the spirit that every person is a bloodthirsty animal at heart. Nothing like this. In fact, these experiments suggest that man is infinitely adaptive, he follows the rules. This is our mental norm: what rules are what we are, therefore changing the rules, changing the concepts of what is acceptable is extremely important. If we see a decrease in tolerance to violence in all its forms, the overall trend cannot but rejoice.

– Now there is a great hunger for militaristic values.

– I apologize for jumping straight to conclusions, but as we can see based on research data, this seems to be the last tour of the 60+ generation.

The main principle of parenting, as in medicine, is to do no harm.

– My children are 9 years old, 5 and a half and 2 years and 3 months old. I’m still at that idyllic stage when I’m not required to do any special parenting feats to improve relationships. In this sense, it is good to have many children, because, according to a wonderful formula belonging to my husband, all happy families are like a farm or a small nursery.

When there are more than two children, this is no longer a completely private life, it is such an enterprise. The production element simplifies life in many ways, relationships are built around this production necessity in a fairly healthy way: there are many of you, I am alone, there are some things that need to be done, everyone understands this and integrates into it.

While this complicates life logistically, it simplifies it morally. I think that people who are locked alone with their only child, who are thinking about how to develop him, how to communicate with him, how not to suppress his personality, perhaps, to some extent, lead a more complex and nervous life.

– What main skills and competencies would you like to impart to children? Alexander Arkhangelsky, is the ability to act in a new way and look for a way out in new situations. We cannot give the full amount of knowledge, because they will become different, but we can teach them to adapt to changes.

– As a person who grew up in a family of teachers, I can say this: teachers themselves do not really believe in education and really believe in heredity. Parenting is great, but a child grows up to be like his parents. We all just live together and since these are my children from my husband, I don’t think that they are somehow fundamentally stupider than me. They will upgrade their own skills.

I don’t believe at all in the idea of ​​competition between people: people are different and want different things, so if they compete for one object, most likely one of them doesn’t need this object, he just hasn’t figured it out yet. Hoffmann has a short story called “The Bride’s Choice.” The bride had three grooms, they all wanted to marry her. Then the fairy came and invited everyone to fulfill his wish.

The reader has a question: how is it that they all want this bride?! As a result, one of them gets a bride, the second gets a wallet that never runs out of money, and the third gets a book that can be turned into any kind of book (Kindle!) at will. One of them loved a girl, another needed money, and the third wanted an endless library, while they all competed for this same bride. I think this false bride is the driver of the false idea of ​​competition.

I don’t believe that it’s possible to train children to be competitive. As practice shows, the main obstacles to success and happiness in life are not a lack of skills and knowledge - they are acquired, but one’s own psychological deprivations. We are hampered by anxiety, fears, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anorexia, and the like. If all this does not happen, if a person is psychologically healthy and prosperous enough, then he will achieve everything he wants.

It seems to me that I have already done everything basic for my children: I gave birth to them from the best possible father, I am raising them in a prosperous family where no one offends them, and if someone tries to offend them from the outside, then I do not encourage such behavior. That's all, actually. The principle of “do no harm” is basic in both medicine and parenting.

It’s easy to cause harm - humanity has accumulated a lot of experience in this matter, but it’s difficult to let a child grow whole without poking him in sensitive places along the way. I would rather watch myself in this regard. As they say these days, no matter how you behave, your children will find something to complain about to their therapist. I accept this fact - let them complain to the therapist. Those who had a mother at home will complain that the mother was present and hovering all the time. Whose mother worked for - that she was not there and was not enough...

– Sometimes you are afraid that you will yell at your children, and this will start their trip to a psychotherapist in 15 years.

– As Aristotle said, take care of the tears of your children so that they can shed them on your grave. Don't make them cry while you're alive, let them cry when you're dead.

Photo from the personal archive of Ekaterina Shulman

This is the radio station “Moscow Speaks”. My name is Yuri Budkin. Our guest is Ekaterina Shulman, political scientist and associate professor at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Ekaterina Mikhailovna, good afternoon.

E. SHULMAN: Hello.

Y. BUDKIN: At the beginning of this hour we talked about the idea of ​​“United Russia”, that workers will control the salaries of top managers in state corporations. There is already a bill, it has already been submitted to the State Duma. And Andrei Isaev, first deputy head of the United Russia faction, said that in this way the issue will be brought under the control of the workers. Some doubt it. And you?

E. SHULMAN: I think that the salaries of top managers are the last thing that should actually be of interest to employees of both state corporations and workers in general. These kinds of measures are intended, as I understand it, to mask the absence of working trade unions and, accordingly, a working system for protecting workers’ rights. It's not that a top manager gets paid a lot that violates workers' rights, although that can be annoying. These rights are violated by illegal dismissals and fines in the workplace, which are very common in our country - despite the fact that they are directly prohibited by the Labor Code. But many employees do not know that you cannot fine anyone for being late or for some other things; there is no such form of punishment. The rights of workers are violated by all sorts of games with the basic salary and bonuses, which may or may not exist. Thus, a person becomes dependent on the will of his superiors. Discrimination of the rights of women, for example, those going on maternity leave, that is, non-compliance with the rights that are guaranteed to them by labor legislation.

All this should be the subject of attention and concern of trade unions, which, in general, if we had a politically free system, would be one of our main political forces. Because if in your country the overwhelming majority of people are hired workers, and at the same time fairly low-paid hired workers, then if you ask, as they say, with your eyes closed: “Guess which political force should be the most influential in such a country?” - firstly, it will be a leftist movement of socialist orientation, and secondly, it will be a trade union. We have neither one nor the other.

At the same time, the number of labor indignations, let’s say, speeches regarding violations of labor rights is growing, it grew very much in 2016, and this is known, among other things, to the United Russia party. This data exists. They are, in general, quite open. And sociologists know this too and share this valuable information. Therefore, I think that there is an idea to slip something like this to citizens under the guise of a fight for equality and labor rights, whereas in essence this is not a fight for equality and labor rights, but it satisfies a certain latent sense of justice: “Look - the bosses are getting fatter, and you will have the opportunity to somehow control them.”

Y. BUDKIN: Wait, you are talking about a latent feeling. No, they openly say: “Unreasonably high income differentiation between the top management of enterprises and organizations and the bulk of workers.” This is a frank question. And they say: “We want to solve it.”

E. SHULMAN: How can workers here change the situation? Will they vote to decide what the director's salary should be?

Y. BUDKIN: “We proceed from the fact that the collegial bodies will include representatives of workers,” says Isaev.

E. SHULMAN: So this is called a “tripartite commission”: employers, employees and, accordingly, representatives of trade unions. I’ll repeat my simple thought once again: the director’s salary does not violate the rights of workers. Although it is clear that inequality irritates people. And this is also understandable, and in general even explainable. But this measure in itself will not improve the employee’s situation. If your director receives less, it does not at all follow that you will receive more or that you will not be fired unreasonably.

Y. BUDKIN: Why don’t trade unions work here?

E. SHULMAN: I am afraid that they do not work for us, so to speak, through the forces of deliberate state policy, because there can be no other explanation. The Federation of Independent Trade Unions, which is the heir to the Soviet trade unions, including the heir to their rather extensive real estate, sanatoriums and all other property, as they say, holds this “clearing”, not allowing any other movement to grow there, which, I repeat once again, if it grows , will be extremely influential.

The story with the “left flank” of our political spectrum is organized according to the same scheme. There is a party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which is headed by the same person; more or less the same people have been in leadership there for the last 25 years. Its task is to keep its share of the electorate, not to let it shrink too much, but also not to let it grow too much, and most importantly, not to let some other, so to speak, independently generated left movement, left party, grow in this place.

Y. BUDKIN: But speaking about trade unions, you said that in 2016, despite the existence of the trade unions that we have, the number of protests for our rights - for the rights of workers - increased.

E. SHULMAN: Yes, they mostly happen outside of some kind of trade union structure, which is actually bad. Because what are trade unions good for? They institutionalize (to put it in a scientific term) this very protest activity - accordingly, they make it legal and, so to speak, well, roughly speaking, safer. Because if the citizens themselves gather at the entrance and want to punch the authorities in the face, then this is not very healthy. And if negotiations take place through trade unions... The trade union is a moderator, you know, a mediator between the employee and the employer, this is its role.

The trade union movement has a dramatic history; many people fought against it. Many people also watched films about the mafia, about America in the 20s and 30s. There was a fierce struggle between mafia structures and trade union structures. Sometimes, on the contrary, they merged with each other. There were all sorts of interesting twists and turns along the way, but nevertheless, everyone more or less understands that this kind of structure for protecting the rights of workers is necessary, because they actually stabilize the situation in conditions of inequality, really...

Y. BUDKIN: Well, if these don’t work well enough, then it would seem good if something else appears nearby. You say: “No, it’s bad.”

E. SHULMAN: It would be good if a real trade union structure appeared. But if it appears, it will be extremely influential. This is scary from the point of view of the existing political mechanism. It’s scary to get some new players on your head. It is much better to deal with the good old FNPR, the familiar one, whose main function is to distribute vouchers and organize May Day demonstrations. Accordingly, the price for this is inevitably, for economic reasons, an increasing number of unorganized, well, spontaneous riots, if you like, these same labor protests.

Y. BUDKIN: And there will be more of them?

E. SHULMAN: Well, look, we don’t have mass unemployment. Here, too, there is some kind of agreement between economic entities and the state, according to which mass layoffs are not allowed.

Y. BUDKIN: Wait. Are there separate economic entities and a separate state? It is customary to say that our only economic entity is the state.

E. SHULMAN: He is not the only one, he is the most powerful. And it dominates the economic system as well as the political system, that's true. But nevertheless, some division, well, between state corporations, state banks and state enterprises - not even state enterprises, but accordingly, the so-called oligarchs (remember the word of the previous era) are also included in this agreement - and the political leadership. There is a mutual understanding between them - not to allow mass layoffs, not to allow mass throwing of people onto the street; It’s better to go for a shorter work week, part-time work, unpaid vacations, but not fire people en masse.

Sometimes this agreement is violated, especially in the case of so-called monotowns - respectively, with cities concentrated around one enterprise. There may be... Well, following the example of Pikalevo. Maybe you remember the case with Pikalevo? These are the hot spots where this kind of thing can arise. But in principle, maintaining some artificial employment is something that our state machine is very concerned about. She does this in different ways. Therefore, this, as is generally rightly believed, somewhat reduces social tension. Because real, big performances are when many people find themselves on the street at once.

But nevertheless, even besides layoffs, people have something to protest against: against salary cuts, against these actual layoffs, that is, unpaid leaves. There are a lot of things people are against. And I repeat once again: well, yes, according to objective data... Including there are centers in my native Academy of National Economy and Public Administration that are engaged in monitoring. Yes, many people do this. This is all, in general, fixed. There is an increase in the number of performances, yes.

Y. BUDKIN: About the role of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia and what happened with the Soviet trade unions, the 510th writes: “You don’t like the Soviet Union - firstly. And secondly…"

E. SHULMAN: There could not be effective trade unions in the Soviet Union, because there was only one employer - the state. And trade unions were also state-owned. Again. The trade union is an intermediary, a mediator. He acts, stands between the employee and the employer. If you have one and only employer, and he organizes a trade union for you, then the trade union...

Y. BUDKIN: The employer was then the director, and the trade union...

E. SHULMAN: The employer was the state. There was only one employer. You could no longer work for anyone except the state. All enterprises, organizations, any structures were state-owned. Accordingly, how can you protect your rights against this single employer? What's your alternative? You have no alternative. Therefore, from there we inherited...

Y. BUDKIN: The Communist Party is an alternative.

E. SHULMAN: An alternative to what?

Y. BUDKIN: Well, if the trade union cannot find the truth from the plant director, it can contact the city party committee.

E. SHULMAN: You can come, yes, and you can complain at party meetings.

Y. BUDKIN: Also.

E. SHULMAN: This was also a wonderful toolkit. Again. In a different economic situation, when in our country the state is not the only employer (although our public sector is too large, but nevertheless it does not cover 100% yet), we have inherited this Soviet system, in which the trade union - this is, once again, the organizer of holidays, Christmas trees and May Day festivities. We don't really understand what a trade union really is.

Well, having said that, I’ll say the following. Independent trade unions do exist, real independent trade unions. Industry trade unions are functioning. As those who are interested know, for example, oddly enough, in the Ministry of Internal Affairs there are two trade unions that compete with each other (and not without success) and defend the rights of their workers. And workers in law enforcement agencies have very no rights. They have a lot of rights regarding the tax-paying population...

Y. BUDKIN: That is, if there was a desire, there would be more such trade unions? So, it turns out - there is no desire.

E. SHULMAN: Hello! What does “no desire” mean? Desire to eat. All people have a desire to have their rights protected. I just suspect that police officers, firstly, are more familiar with the law - out of necessity. And secondly, maybe this is a narrower corporation, which is easier to organize itself within itself. Well, it's just that I know that they have such a thing. But for some reason other workers don’t have such things. Every unfortunate office plankton is very much oppressed and offended, I repeat once again, with illegal fines, dismissals, and all sorts of idiotic demands. Not to mention the fact that in our latitudes it is not customary to be indignant at some absolutely illegal dress code, which is also used to terrorize mainly women and employees.

Y. BUDKIN: Mikhail immediately writes to you: “How else can employees be disciplined and motivated if you say that they cannot even be fined for being late?”

E. SHULMAN: Oh, really! And also, you know, corporal punishment is prohibited. What a problem! What about the employees? It’s difficult, you know, difficult, not easy! Only with a kind word... and a gun, nothing else.

Y. BUDKIN: Then also, look, about public sentiment. You have already said that there are many states in the economic market. Well, either almost everything, or a lot of the state as a player in the economic market.

E. SHULMAN: A lot. And it has become much larger over the past 10-15 years.

Y. BUDKIN: But this seems not enough to the citizens of the Russian Federation. I look at the results of a VTsIOM poll - and it says: “Russians have a negative attitude towards the oligarchs and believe that their property should be nationalized.” Read - citizens want there to be an even bigger state.

E. SHULMAN: There are two terms in this question, both of which are evaluative. The term "oligarch" means "a bad person who stole a lot of money." This term has no other meaning in ordinary usage.

Y. BUDKIN: This is “an owner different from the state.” This is also the meaning of this word.

E. SHULMAN: And the second term - “nationalization” - is not understood by people as “nationalization”. Nationalization presupposes, again in the minds of citizens, the return to the people of what was taken from the people. If you ask people: “Do you think that there should be more state property than private property?” - I assure you, the results will be different. Even in this excellent VTsIOM survey, if you look at it carefully, you will see that the positive attitude of citizens towards entrepreneurs has been improving over the years and has already reached a fairly high proportion. That is, if we say “entrepreneur,” then people say “good.” And you say “oligarch”...

Y. BUDKIN: No, even 27% say that they want to become entrepreneurs.

E. SHULMAN: Here, 27%. It is in our conditions that people want to open their own business. This is an absolutely fantastic figure, which speaks of courage and the spirit of entrepreneurship, which cannot be killed at all. VTsIOM in general... Well, our survey industry is a separate issue. But VTsIOM regularly asks respondents the same question: “Girl, do you want to go to the dacha or have your head torn off?” Here is their favorite wording. And with undiminished pleasure they report to us about the results. Approximately 86% prefer to go to the country...

Y. BUDKIN: Wait, after all, even if... You say that the question is not formulated very correctly or people are incorrect...

E. SHULMAN: The question uses evaluative terms. This is generally a rather monstrous mistake from the point of view of sociology as a science.

Y. BUDKIN: Okay. But how can the same people vote for government property (read: even public property) and the same citizens say they don't like what government corporations or their executives do?

E. SHULMAN: They can do it very well. Again. Nationalization is the return to the people of what was stolen from the people. And state corporations...

Y. BUDKIN: And then there will be state corporations...

E. SHULMAN: And state corporations are “fat cats”.

Y. BUDKIN: They don’t understand this?

E. SHULMAN: No, they don’t understand. And in fact, you don’t have to understand. Therefore, the great art of these very people who conduct surveys is to use whole series of questions ... to try to get into the respondent’s head in such a way as to at least extract from there what he really thinks. Because if you ask questions head-on, once again: “Are you for everything good or for everything bad?” - then you will have people for everything good at once: for nationalization, and for private property, and for entrepreneurship, and for the president, and for friendship with everyone...

Y. BUDKIN: Political scientist Ekaterina Shulman. This is the "Jackets" program. Right now the news, then some advertising, and we will continue.

Y. BUDKIN: We continue. This is the radio station “Moscow Speaks”. Today is March 3rd. My name is Yuri Budkin. Our guest is Ekaterina Shulman, she is a political scientist and associate professor at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Live broadcast means you can join by phone: 73-73-948 (area code - 495). The SMS portal is open: +7 925 88-88-948. You can write to the user govoritmskbot via Telegram.

I also wanted to ask you about this story with five-story buildings. Today Galina Khovanskaya told the news (she met with Mayor Sobyanin) that the Moscow authorities want to provide city residents being resettled from five-story buildings with more spacious apartments - if not in terms of living space, even in terms of total area, but at least a little more. What is this story? Why did she make so much noise?

E. SHULMAN: This is an extremely large-scale story. This noise is just beginning. I think that this will be one of the main topics (certainly the main topic for Moscow) of the 2018 mayoral elections. As we remember, not only the president is elected here in 2018, but also the mayor of Moscow. This is a fairly significant topic for the whole of Russia, but for Moscow it’s just a topic of topics. What is planned is amazing in scale. Now I won’t terrorize anyone with numbers, but, as far as I understand, about 10% of the total housing stock in the city of Moscow...

Y. BUDKIN: And 10% of the population, yes.

E. SHULMAN: ...these are these same five-story buildings that are supposed to be demolished. As always, at the beginning of a great plan there are extremely many ambiguities. What kind of houses will be included? In what order, in what order? Will they demolish it first and then provide new housing? Or will they somehow build it first and then move it there? It’s, you know, a little like the old riddle about a goat, cabbage and a wolf, which must be transported on a boat. First, people need to be resettled somewhere, and then demolished. And in order to resettle people, there must be some places that will be created when old housing is demolished. That is, there are difficulties here.

Y. BUDKIN: They are already saying that there will be some kind of maneuverable fund.

E. SHULMAN: Yes.

Y. BUDKIN: They are already saying that work is underway. Khovanskaya says today that bills in this regard will appear very soon.

E. SHULMAN: There will be changes in legislation that should serve this previous... upcoming mega-pogrom in Moscow. I immediately don’t like this as a person involved in the legislative process. I really don’t like the rapid adoption of changes to suit someone’s specific needs. If you are not able to do what you want to do within the framework of current legislation, then you should not do it. Just because you can pass almost any amendment to the law does not mean that you should. Therefore, what you are planning is, generally speaking, illegal. The current legislation does not provide for this; it is impossible. They say: “Now we will quickly fix it.” The Duma says: “Yes, come on, great, it will be adopted before the fall,” that is, during this spring session, which began in January. I don't like all this extremely.

Speedy lawmaking is generally our misfortune, an ulcer and a disgrace. In the course of this acceptance, “faster, faster” is simply accepted as hell. Then they begin to edit it immediately, immediately after acceptance. Sometimes it is discovered too late what was done in a hurry. There are many examples of this. There are examples of things that were quickly accepted and then had to be quickly cancelled. Well, for example, the well-known package of amendments to the Law “On Advertising”, which, incidentally, banned advertising on cable channels. They accepted it in the summer of 2014, and canceled it in January 2015. “Yarovaya Package” - they accepted it, a lot of things were dumped in this package, a hodgepodge of all sorts. Then quickly I had to edit and postpone, postpone, postpone and postpone the entry into action. And now it is no longer clear when it will join. The demolition of the stalls, which we remember, shocked Moscow several months ago - it became possible thanks to an amendment to Article 222 of the Civil Code, which was also quickly and, in fact, quite secretly carried out as part of the adoption of a completely different bill, introduced in the second reading, as they like to do in the Duma when they want to hide something bad. Now we are talking about something much larger than any stalls.

YU. BUDKIN: But for now these are some assumptions based on previous experience.

E. SHULMAN: What are your assumptions? If we have leadership, the Duma says: “We will adopt changes to the law,” this is no longer an assumption. As far as I understand…

Y. BUDKIN: Any changes to the law that are introduced quite quickly according to this principle are bad?

E. SHULMAN: Any changes to the law that are adopted quickly, faster than provided for by the regulations, are bad. Large-scale changes to the law to suit a specific need are bad. The law is not a quick response tool. The law is not a tool to satisfy the needs of a particular mayor. The law is for everyone. Again. If, within the framework of the law that we have in force in the Russian Federation, you cannot fulfill some very valuable fantasy of yours, then you need to adjust your valuable fantasy, and not change the law.

Y. BUDKIN: Vitaly writes: “But what’s wrong with demolishing five-story buildings? These barracks should have been demolished a long time ago. Service life - 30 years. In fact, some are 55. And you say it’s not working out well.”

E. SHULMAN: So, once again. I'm not talking about five-story buildings as such, I'm talking about the principle.

Y. BUDKIN: But in order to demolish them...

E. SHULMAN: Why suddenly, in order to demolish unsafe or dilapidated housing or housing that does not meet the parameters, do you need to change the law so radically? This is not why the law needs to be changed. The law needs to be changed in order to change the rules for providing you with new housing in exchange for your demolished one.

So, let’s not forget... We are talking about some five-story buildings, as if this is some kind of, I don’t know, state program - Khrushchev built it, and Sobyanin demolishes it. Actually, it's your property. And ownership is not only for housing... that is, not only for your square meters, but also for the land under this house, if you have it registered. Unfortunately, very few people have it formalized. Now knowledgeable municipal deputies are advising us to urgently run and register the land under the house. But I'm afraid they won't give it to you. This was difficult even in “peaceful” times, and now it will be especially difficult.

Full version:

Political scientist Ekaterina Shulman, fashionable in liberal circles, gave an interview to the Myslo.ru portal, where she explained some aspects of the election period.

Ekaterina Shulman is a political scientist whose articles and speeches rightfully attract a lot of attention in the public space. She is a candidate of political sciences, associate professor at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. She was also born and graduated from school in Tula. Her first place of work was the Department of General Policy and Analysis of Social Processes of the Hero City Administration. As they say, not a stranger. We asked Ekaterina Mikhailovna to give us a political science lesson.

– The New Year and the holidays “overshadowed” the main event of the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018 – the nomination of candidates for candidates for the President of the Russian Federation. In the New Year and Christmas relaxation, people are not interested in applicants and candidates. Why did this happen? After all, this is the election of the first person of the state!

– Let's start with the basic point: it is quite difficult to interest anyone in a competition with a predetermined outcome. Not many people want to look at this. Why do people even come to the polls? One of the main reasons is political tradition and political culture. People can go to elections even when there is no special dynamics in the election process, simply out of habit.

For example, in Europe, tradition and habit ensure high turnout in elections, but in America they do not. A very recent example is the elections to the German Bundestag in the fall of 2017, with well-known participants and more or less expected results, with a higher turnout than the US presidential elections, where there was plenty of drama, intrigue persisted until the last moment, and in general, it would seem, the fate of the world hung in the balance by a thread. However, turnout was low in the US (54.7%) and high in Germany (76.2%).

But if there is no stable culture of political participation, then in order for people to be really interested in elections and candidates, at least some kind of plot is needed. We don't have any plot yet. Therefore there is no special interest. However, the previous presidential campaigns were 2012, 2008, 2004. – were also not very incendiary, and there was no need for great intelligence to predict the result.

Some increase in interest is possible when debates begin between candidates, especially new faces - Sobchak, Grudinin, not new, but well-spoken Yavlinsky.

And yet, if we are talking about real, and not imagined participation, then in the absence of real interest in elections, only political habit can give it. How is it with us in Russia? Traditionally, turnout is higher in personal elections than in elections of collective bodies. That is, more people will come to the elections of the president, governor or mayor than to the elections to the State Duma, local or regional legislative assembly.

There is a general trend towards a decrease in turnout at elections in cities and central Russian territories. Why is this happening? Residents of these cities and territories are not represented in the political system, they do not see candidates close to their aspirations and needs, they do not hear their agenda in election programs. And as a result, they do not come to the polling stations.

So, on the whole, we can welcome the unspoken rejection of the initially announced official “norm” – 70% turnout with 70% of the votes for the main candidate.

Overall, God willing, turnout in these elections reaches 65%. And in large cities, anything more than 50% will be a good result for the organizers.

– Generation 40-50 plus is the main electorate. It is not uniform. Some claim that nothing depends on them, so they will not go to the elections at all. For others, the current president is “our everything” (there is food in stores, clothes too, everything in cars and apartments), what more do you need?! What do you think needs to be said to these people to motivate them to go to the polls and make an informed choice?

– To begin with, we note that ensuring turnout at elections is the task of the Central Election Commission, and not specific people, even with an active civic position.

As for the generation of 40-year-olds, yes, this is indeed the main part of voters. On New Year's Eve, the RBC agency, based on statistical data, compiled a portrait of a typical Russian citizen. So this is a 39-year-old woman. She is married, has two children, has a two-room apartment and a domestic car. And she works in the trade sector. There are many such people. These are the children of those who are now 65-70 years old, that is, that large generation born in the 50s of the last century.

An amazing paradox: when you talk about a 40-year-old woman, for some reason people imagine her much older.

It is believed that, for example, advertisements for mayonnaise with nostalgic Soviet pictures and the annual New Year's show "The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!" are intended specifically for her. In fact, there is and cannot be anything specifically “Soviet” in this typical citizen of the Russian Federation! She started school in the mid-80s and was still a child when the Soviet Union collapsed. She may have lived through the social dramas of the 90s. Or perhaps everything turned out well for her family, and these dramas passed by or were not tracked by her young consciousness. That is, “the horrors of the 90s” may or may not exist for her. But for 65-year-old parents, “horror of the 90s” is a universal horror story. However, even 65-year-old citizens are no longer familiar with Soviet reality. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, they were in their prime, and it was they who built our present life in the “dashing 90s.”

40-year-olds are the hardest working generation; they have to work on two fronts. They have parents who already need to be taken care of, and children who still require guardianship and care.

A very interesting demographic transition is taking place now, although for now it is mainly interested in demographers and anthropologists. But it is this transition that will greatly affect our political reality. The consciousness of the political elites is torn between two pictures - the “Soviet pensioner”, for whom the state propaganda machine is tailored, and the “mysterious youth”, about whom they know nothing, but about whom they worry too much. But we need to think about those who are 40-50. This is the most numerous age stratum (from the Latin “layer”, “layer”. – Author’s note), the backbone of the nation. Now their 65-year-old parents are in power, and they occupy all the upper floors of the administrative ladder. They look at the “mysterious youth” and flirt with them, and often have a bad relationship with their 40-year-old children.

Do 40-year-olds vote?

In general, only administratively dependent electorates are guaranteed to go to the polls, regardless of age.

These are employees of budgetary organizations, government agencies or law enforcement agencies. If you have a choice whether or not to vote, you probably won't, no matter how young or old you are.

None of the political elites talk to 40-year-olds. Those who find an approach to them will receive big bonuses in the near future.

What do 40 year olds care about? Yes, the same thing as the youth: an agenda of generally understood justice - social and economic. They are concerned about all social issues: healthcare, education, safety, comfortable urban environment. Foreign policy and militarism may be automatically approved by them as something about which “the authorities know best,” but does not arouse interest or enthusiasm. And women are always annoyed by unproductive expenses and waste.

– Your recommendations for NGOs, and simply for people with an active civic position, are to group with like-minded people and enter into dialogue with the authorities. And the dialogue must be meaningful and equal. But for the most part this is not the case. An example is the situation with a non-profit ceramics center that burned down, we help the whole world, the authorities stand aside. How to interact?

– Before entering into a dialogue, you need to find like-minded people with similar interests. And then see how you can promote this interest. You will have to interact with authorities. And in this interaction, you must always respect your own interests, then you will not be in danger of what many fear - that you will be “used”, “divorced” or otherwise deceived and abused. Always remember what you need, and then no one can ever use you, you yourself use anyone.

In 2017, interesting changes in the functioning of our political system became noticeable: more opportunities appeared to interact with government bodies, introducing ourselves into them. This was demonstrated by many activists who ran and won local elections (Moscow and Pskov). This was also demonstrated by NGOs that were members of various councils, working groups and other seemingly formal advisory bodies in power, which as a result managed to promote their agenda and influence decision-making. Examples include reform of the guardianship and adoption systems and palliative care.

These opportunities will continue to be provided because it is becoming increasingly difficult for our political management to control everything around us. There are not enough resources, and the economic situation and mood in society are not conducive to unification and easy controllability.

I advise those who have become municipal deputies or joined various public councils and working groups to take advantage of all the opportunities that this or that status provides, to fill every possible space, to know their rights and to actively use them.

We often hear: “in politics you have to be able to lose.” I would say that it is more important to be able to win, that is, to be able to take advantage of all the advantages of the winner. The main strength and weapon of a civil activist is connections with society, with supporters, listeners, and fellow members of the public organization. And the main resource, the main power that a civil activist, municipal deputy, member of a public council has is publicity, the strength and power of which only grows over time.

It is very important that the dissonant voice be heard, otherwise a crazy and unrealistic feeling of total agreement arises. They often say - what’s the point of asking questions to the president at a big press conference or at the Human Rights Council, to be outraged by arrests and imprisonments, will anything really change?! Will change.

Why is it generally useful and necessary to be publicly outraged when you hear some kind of disgrace? This is necessary so that a different opinion can be heard in the public space – that this is not possible and that it can be done differently.

There are well-known psychological experiments: the subject is shown a black stick, which six previous respondents called white. Most people, alas, agree to call black white if everyone around them also calls it white. Such is the power of the norm. Or what we accept as the norm. Agreeing with the majority and observing what is required is not cowardice, but a social instinct. But it often turns against the interests of the individual and society. So, if among the six respondents (it is clear that these are dummies) at least one tells the truth, then the percentage of respondents who begin to admit the obvious is a black rod! – increases sharply.

One can completely agree with Ekaterina Shulman, but it is important to remember our history. Elections in Russia have never decided anything. What then? Revolutions, coups and wars. Unfortunately, Russia has not yet gotten out of this historical rut. Remember this when you decide on your participation (or non-participation) in the presidential elections...

Subtitles

With us today is Ekaterina Shulman, political scientist, associate professor at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, hello Ekaterina Mikhailovna, good afternoon, let’s still talk about local self-government, what is the topic that flows over with us and ask the smart guys to broadcast on another broadcast throughout the week exactly because it’s us.

What worries us is that local self-government is itching, this is the topic they are talking about in the coming years, we will talk more and more, why are you so confident because this is the base floor of the pyramid of power, this is the level that is closest to the people and it concerns the agenda that people are on actually interested as people start.

To realize the connection between the quality of their life and the decisions of important bodies, their gaze naturally turns to those people who make these decisions, since our political system is structured in such a way that the higher the floor, the less connection and the paradoxically, at least while the level of abstract trust is higher, then there are claims not addressed there conditionally.

Speaking to the president, he is a symbol of all that is good, such an unchanging polar star, hope, my earthly compass, that’s all, and therefore, as of now, no complaints have been addressed to him, but they must be addressed to someone, so they are addressing systems that can be reached at the level of local government This is where I reached, in principle, this is the first one.

The second reason is that with all the control over the election process, the lower the floor, the more opportunities there are to somehow get into this system and still try to play with it at least some election games or to force the departure through protests It’s getting more and more difficult for any person to be elected there, at least as a municipal deputy, or mayor.

It’s more difficult because these elections are simply cancelled, in general, to somehow get inside the system and try to influence it from there from within, the level of self-organization increases, people basically learn to act together and therefore they practice these new skills, of course, on those who are closer; this is not always linked directly to I mean local government.

Solving problems locally because people will learn a wonderful mechanism of how it works, you need to write directly to Putin and after that the local authorities will move if you go out to protest, you don’t have to choose someone, a miracle you can go out into the street and block access to the landfill x and after that you can achieve removal The heads of the Volokolamsk region are correctly protesting with the aim of removing them.

For anyone, this is also an option for joint action, as for writing to the president after which everyone should move, this is not exactly how letters to the president work, letters to the president by themselves do not force anyone to move at all, according to our bureaucratic rules, any complaint is forwarded to the person we are complaining to, that’s actually all so one letter will not help you.

People have already more or less guessed that a comprehensive action is needed, which includes going out on the street without this, nowhere and letters, not only the president, doubling the law enforcement agencies, what is the cross-complaint to everyone about everyone and some kind of media company to attract publicity and a company on social networks if you have these.

Toolkit together, that is, organizing some kind of legal component, which includes complaints and possibly going to court and publicity, there is a chance to draw attention to your problem and solve something about fifteen years ago, I remember when they implemented federal law 133, the law on local self-government was a lot gossip and reasoning about how good it would be to decide.

Problems on the ground and then this law was essentially passed down from above and the comrades said, let’s govern ourselves, it didn’t work out why now maybe they didn’t say anything like that behind the sword, the laws are all passed down from above, that’s how our system of the legislative process is structured, law 133 is changing continuously, it’s constantly ongoing reforms, it’s happening exclusively in one thing direction volume.

The local government has the resources and the amount of powers it has, and plus, for the paving of the situation, so to speak, this is the maximum abolition of direct elections at the local level, so that no one is allowed to govern themselves closely, so I think, more precisely, the carcass without I think I would like to hope that now this wave of protests for a variety of reasons.

A variety of regions will lead the architects of our political system to think that it would be good to at least shed responsibility by distributing it to a lower level, that is, to give some part of the powers down to everyone so that you are responsible to the people so that you can at least say this is not our area of ​​responsibility is not us.

The federals are their municipalities, let them decide now, occupied what they can decide because they don’t have money a and b they don’t have the powers, but this is sharing power, but here there is a whole Charybdis to a certain point, you know, catch at the institute is such a trap 22 Of course, I want to shed responsibility, but I don’t want to give up authority, this is an eternal problem.

For the state authorities, on the one hand, I don’t want to answer the teeth of the country, I want to dispose of them, I don’t know what to do about this, more so, if we talk about the federal authorities, then they have problems as if there will be no more problems on the ground, so there is a feeling that this, first of all, is not possible I will very much agree at the regional level between the governor and they will not be in.

They are delighted that the municipality will be allocated additional powers; they have a political role; they cannot be delighted with the current situation; you had a governor of sparrows some time ago, which means he is responsible for any problems in his territory. still him and him.

He understands this, so to speak, as the primate for the region in front of the federal center, his task is to ensure a certain level of splendor here, if splendor does not arise or, once it arises, it is violated, then he will be to blame and he has problems with his appointment, which we have and mystically called elections, so he I am interested, on the one hand, that everything is somehow there.

It was quiet and good, but on the other hand, he would be interested in saying that this is the municipality and they allowed us to do this and that means they did not solve the problem, or at least he would be interested in there being some people who could I wish I could go out and talk to the protesters, where he gets stabbed when he goes out there, it’s somehow not very good for everyone.

Snowballs are perceived and snowballs happen at this time, this is even before the snowballs, this is all the lyrics in general, I want to draw the attention of dear listeners to the extent to which our protesters behave in a civilized and peaceful manner, but somehow we don’t particularly value any mass gathering of citizens, they begin to call it scary Maidan and the prologue to mass unrest while people behave.

Ideally, if I want to remind you that gathering peacefully and without weapons is one of the basic forms of, generally speaking, the political life of citizens, there is absolutely nothing extremely terrible and there is nothing that shakes the vertical in this, this is normal, they do not burn down the administration buildings, they do not rush to the riot police on it, the National Guard, which they are brought out against them; they do not beat each other on the ground.

There is a disagreement in the goals, they generally behave in the highest degree law-abiding and they are called some kind of terrible things that the former governor of Tuleyev said, troublemakers do not mean you value the civilized behavior of our people, it can change, I put myself in the place of the governor of the Moscow region, Vorobyov, now he is right away feel discomfort and eat.

There is a certain discomfort, but now I can come to Volokolamsk and the district of the Moscow region to talk with the head of the district to say that you, the person, couldn’t, didn’t cope, kindly write a statement of your own free will, if there is no such opportunity, she if in place and there the head of the district x will come what - the head of the district.

Roizman, from not having such a conversation, such a conversation did not work out with the mayor of Volokolamsk, let me remind you that the Volokolamsk situation is interesting, there are direct elections of the mayor, and I will remind you that from the centers of the federal subjects from the regional capitals, we have seven cities left that elect the mayor directly right now Ekaterinburg fell off in the sixteenth year they were there.

There are nine left, seven are left, this is how, in truth, the queen produces blacks here before them and it is becoming less and less, and in cities that are not regional capitals, more or less somewhere else, Volokolamsk is one of such cities, they removed the head of the district, that is, the one who They could have removed it altogether; I’ll remind you.

Then in the Moscow region, under the leadership of Governor Vorobyov, a rather large-scale municipal reform took place and continues to take place, in which these units of local government are replaced by districts subordinate to the regional government, this is the trip of the governor, this is what he generally came to his position about, what he continues to exercise in general.

I have already practically introduced a connection between the destruction of local self-government and the emergence of these very massive targeted protests for some reason does not enter my head. I’ll look again at the architects of our political system, but in vain the presence of a municipal level responsible to the people and an elected name dampens this kind of discontent, which is all.

It is limited exclusively to the central government and at the regional level to the regional government makes this dissatisfaction easily carried out and it runs up vertically with placement at the speed where the snowballs actually come from, so Volokolamsk has at least an elected mayor who and the people go to these rallies together and who likes we know from it.

They offered their own stories to move to the regional level, they offered them this very place for the head of the Volokolamsk district, he refused because it’s like, my city can’t get away from the voters, so it seems that this person is kind of like somehow he’s resisting, that means the governor actually actually saves him because he is with his people.

Voters are one of the factors that this whole process is acquiring; I will repeat once again the highly peaceful goal of the convenient form that it is acquiring so far, but it is interesting if you read the testimony of those correspondents who are on the spot and in general I am telling you what is happening there; it is interesting the desire of people to comply with the law in everything up to.

Little things they were forbidden to put up barbecues there to warm up, they stopped putting up a barbecue and then the man living next door set up a Mongol himself in the yard and there he lets the whole of Greece drink tea, that is, there we demonstrate in general, once again I will repeat the best qualities that people can have here self-organization, mutual assistance and obedience to the law, but with us it is situational.

I definitely thought it was more likely that it was more likely systemic, it could disappear situationally if people are brought to a bad state, but generally speaking they will be left to their own devices, they tend to obey the law, and Ekaterina Mikhailovna here there are subtleties of Volokolamsk, this is an example of a problem and when this problem is already taking people out on the street, specific questions are asked requirements people by.

At the very least, they believe that they know what they want, but even if you dig deeper and don’t go far from home, then my personal example is that for a month now they haven’t been able to choose the person in charge of the entrance precisely because no one in the entrance needs it, it seems like the same system of self-organization and self-government, but there are no problems with which we now need to fight, so no one needs it.

Additional hemorrhoids, that’s all why I’m talking about the situational nature of this request, this speaks of the situational law of obedience, this speaks of the situational nature, because the organization itself does not arise simply when it does not have a goal, people want to be self-organized, the average understand why they are not pioneers, this is understandable when you have there will be a problem in.

In the houses that will need to be solved, believe me, there will be excellent candidates for whomever you choose, I’ll come over there, but at least to sort this out, it’s clear that it’s generally amazing that people are protesting here, returning to this same garbage theme, they’re protesting so that they are given the right to sort garbage, and of course it’s amazing I guess I don’t know where this thing is in the world.

Such amazing protests, we demand that you be allowed to cross the road when the light is green, no, the authorities say, I won’t put a traffic light on you, you won’t be able to cross, let the car hit you, well, what is this, it’s already more or less clear to everyone that the next step is the need for sorting garbage and its processing accordingly is clear to everyone what it will be.

This should already be introduced, moreover, under this information background that has intimidated everyone, and not without reason, people will go for it willingly; at least in the large cities of Moscow, certainly people in general are ready for this; they are less ready, probably, for the fact that export tariffs will be increased garbage and this will also be they they think they are ready because it doesn’t have it yet.

Directly related to them, but if you know it’s not such a big problem, we’ve learned to let pedestrians pass at crosswalks, we’ve learned a lot over the past 10-15 years of systems that people have become less hungry and, accordingly, a little more inclined to think about inedible things like it’s gone and sort garbage too It’s great to learn, you don’t have to immediately demand that.

It was 6 different bags in Europe, but at least separating the paper, glass and metal is absolutely normal and the most important thing is this, so to speak, and household waste, food garbage, which is what actually contributes to this terrible situation in landfills, what is rotting, where does this gas come from? It doesn’t come from plastic, but it comes from these very food and food wastes like this.

It was called under the Soviet regime and well, in cultural places and in general they shred at first it’s a shame to think that this is all a resource, it’s still the same that people pay money in other places to extinguish plastic they brought you that they don’t recycle, let alone paper and cardboard which is all recyclable not to mention metal that costs money.

There is in one place they pay for it in another place, just like now in the Moscow region the governor is frantically trying to find at least some place where you will be allowed to take your garbage and everyone refuses to go this way, by the way, this will be an interesting factor in regional separatism, he’s like you don’t see us your Moscow rubbish manat is not necessary acting already said worldly.

They said it seems that now the Yaroslavl ones are accepted, well, as soon as people find out about this, I’m praising them, they will also start to come out with mattresses, this is generally interesting, they don’t like Moscow that much, but here it’s such a clear thing, that is, it’s like Moscow is a source of money, for that we are ready be patient, and when she’s still a source of garbage, then I’m not ready to love her at all, but.

If the garbage comes with money, perhaps the local authorities will diode of course, of course you will have to pay for it all, but if you pay only to the authorities, then people will only see an increase in the amount of garbage and accordingly I will say that we will have something like Volokolamsk, I don’t let you go back to local government opinion Ekaterina Mikhailovna Shulman.

There is a request for local self-government in the localities, it is not formulated in this form and people are not obliged to formulate it like that and it is formulated by political scientists, but what the request is for is absolutely a request to take into account one’s interests when making a decision, this is again the language of political science, but I’ll tell you the basic basic political request is a request for political participation.

And political participation is necessary so that your interests are taken into account when making decisions, people want them to be asked about anything when a decision is made to open a landfill or close a landfill, to raise tariffs, this is political participation, which is why all political scientists laugh so sadly when they are asked this is a political protest or you know.

Is this a socio-economic process or when they write, what kind of protest is this, this is the writing of petitions, that is, there is no real thing here about cramped things like this, you know, there’s a heat in the soul, no one wants to set the administration on fire again, comrades, this is an absolutely senseless division, there is no political protest meaning of protest request for participation request.

For participation, this is a political request, then the next question arises: it turns out that the whole problem is only in the architects of the political system who have not yet given the go-ahead or what they must give in order for this system to work at all, who is in the way, but theoretically in Moscow, municipal deputies have been elected, quite a lot of opposition ones are there turned around.

Active activity and no one forbids doing this in others it is quite difficult to develop active activity because they do not have powers in Moscow, too, the local government system has been destroyed, look when we talk about the fact that it’s all about the architects who do not understand how the changed circumstances operate to a certain extent. really they don't.

They will understand until there is enough active public pressure, not when the architects do nothing, or more precisely, never, no political elites want to change anything; they, by definition, because they or you occupy the top position in the social pyramid they occupy.

They cannot want any changes to the maximum advantageous social position unless it is not in their nature, so when we talk about no to a request or, you know, for reforms, they will never have a request for reforms until they start to get hot, speaking in non-scientific language, when the socio-political situation changes when on one side.

External conditions change, mainly economically; on the other hand, pressure from below begins, and then the political elites, ruling groups, interest groups begin to realize that something needs to be changed; another factor of change is quite often competition between elite groups, so in fact, we all look from heaven with pleasure when.

They begin to energetically eat each other, competition among themselves is some driver of change, one of the possible factors, let’s say, of these same divers, on the one hand, competition makes you think about how not to protect yourself from someone who wants to bite my head off, on the other hand, it forces all future outsiders to apply to the public.

Opinion as a tool, that is, to talk about people wanting this or that, or people supporting me, so it seems to them that they are using this very public opinion or even shaping it because they have the illusion that the small rulers of the information space are actually nothing like that in reality they commit themselves to the same thing.

In public opinion, this again, sorry, is not the only factor, not the main one, but it also exists, it must be taken into account as Putin, one of the key areas of work, the development of competition in Russia, Putin emphasized without solving problems in this area, we will not do anything from today, for what reason? than we were there, the State Council was held today and he raised the question of what we need.

Competition is necessary in all areas, well, well, I remember, I remember a friend of his making a statement about competition, as if he was talking about why our universities occupy low positions in international rankings, then he said that this is one of the tools of competition, so they have a better rating of their own. She draws understated and therefore competition can.

To be understood in a peculiar way, but in fact, generally speaking, and here, again, looking at all the phenomena of existence from my professional interests, I will say that political competition here is even more important than economic competition because it triggers it anyway, local authorities have a choice There is an alternative, instead of expanding powers, you can appease any protest as long as you can crush it.

Negotiate or intimidate, see how this is done, usually mixed tactics are used, these are quite well-established strategies of action, generally speaking, we have a lot going on with our protests, they often do not come to the attention of the media because the media is waiting for something that happens only in Moscow or some other -that’s what they think is political, that is.

There are protests with personnel demands and therefore she doesn’t really look at a third of the protests thematically, but those who study them, that is, the research centers that do this and keep these statistics, they know that there are actually a lot of them. The most massive type of protest in Russia is from the labor protest against violations of labor rights; their number is growing quite actively.

The middle of 14th year, the most protest year we had was 16-17, a little less because a slight decrease in income was slowed down by the economic situation, it became a little better, they fed state employees with something, that is, there were some social distributions, but here does what the authorities do when something like this happens against Spurs, I repeat quite a bit.

The technology has been developed and, for the time being, is quite effective, and the demands of the protesters are almost always satisfied, that is, in fact, what people demand they get, this fact is very much hushed up, which, as they say, has not become tempting, but generally speaking, it is known that there are these people who want them not to be fired, not to be closed.

They reduced salaries, then this basically happens, and then they donate to some local officials, a ritual sacrifice is made, and targeted repressions occur against activists. In the example of Volokolamsk, we see the ideal cue, it became very public because it is close to Moscow, b one of many cases, and c right after the elections when this is it.

To freeze it to freeze and the situation before the elections ended, only the elections suddenly passed, as if everyone had exhaled and then everyone was a priest, and so, in this example, we can see very clearly how this happens, but this happens in principle everywhere, which means that they are not satisfied with the reception of garbage, it is said that it has stopped that there will be reclamation there before gasification.

Some Dutch will come there, put a torch there, dig a well, it’s hard for me to judge now as a non-specialist how effective this measure is, how much it’s just talk about, nevertheless, such promises will begin to be made and they actually stopped calling there for trucks with mousse, that is, this is a fact that is meeting ritual requirements the sacrifice has been made.

In which district three of the most active were filmed, the detainee for 14k gets 115 gets another in his business comes there, and that is, everything is as it should be, that is, once again, the satisfaction of the requirement, a ritual sacrifice, a targeted babble, everything happened, so far, I will repeat again, this is a mixed tactics in which more .

Concessions than repression, but repression is also present, it is generally situational, it works when it stops working, when in two cases when the systems run out of resources, that is, it satisfies the requirement of not carrying out repression with anything, and when the number of these cases increases so much that it becomes a quality system not manages to satisfy everyone c.

The Moscow region is similar to the second scenario, but until it comes there are a lot of protests, there are also enough protests, except for Volokolamsk there is a column in particular and therefore there are not only columns there is an excellent map of garbage protests there, there are just a few, I think there are a dozen, but these kidneys in which there are protests Let's look at these features carefully for now.

We are watching process after process with us Ekaterina Shulman political scientist Associate Professor of the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration We will now part for the duration of the news release, after that we will return, we will continue, but also towards the end of the program we will receive phone calls, I just remember how you can interact with us for now .

Write plus 7 925 8888 94 8 or via telegram says mask bot news 15:35 on air program smart guys at the microphone Vladimir Karpov is with us today Ekaterina Shulman political scientist associate professor of the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration we are talking about local self-government and in continuation Topics you can talk about are political reform.

Which will either take place in Tallinn, will now take place, I will express my opinion very carefully after the presidential elections of the Russian Federation, your colleague experts have repeatedly made statements that were very similar to verbal interventions that most likely there will not be a transit of power in the Russian Federation as such, but there will be reform of political institutions Russian.

Federation in order to slightly tease the presidential institution and transfer its powers either to other branches of government or, for example, to go to the localities and give something more to the authorities and in the localities too, these were their judgments. Now this problem, against the backdrop of requests for local self-government, seems to have become actualized but I do not see.

So far there are no signs that those same architects of the political system have done anything similar to strengthening local power, delegating powers, or intending to do so in the future, but look, there are two types of reform of which we can say the first is and those changes that in a certain degrees were declared before.

Elections during the election campaign and these are the reform plans that were immediately written by different government groups in one way or another, created in this regard, I would pay attention to what the center for strategic developments wrote and continues to write, so to speak, the Kudrin group, there are a number of other groups that are there concentrate around there will be a change.

Titov who are associated with Sergei Glazyev, assistant to the president, all of these are around power groups of varying degrees around power, which one of them is not oppositional, while none of them is not any of them has a 100% guarantee or even 70% that their ideas will be accepted and especially since they will be embodied in life; this is the first type, so to speak.

The very reform plans or attempts, if we live to try the second type of change, and this is what they also talk about, but never with reference to any specific name, I will never patch a specific responsibility, this is a change that is necessary if they are necessary to implement the transit of power, that is, the transfer of power if we stay in.

Within the framework of our pension system and our political regime is quite rigid and does not like any sudden movements, no changes, I will remind you that even this one is so inconvenient and the parameter for one person to occupy the post of president for no more than two terms in a row has not been changed, at least not yet Yes, now we can of course refer to Chinese.

An example there was removed from the charter of the Communist Party of China, this norm can, of course, be removed, but it will be in our conditions, in general, such a fairly serious reform, I will repeat once again, our system does not like serious reforms if we remember what changes to the constitution have been made to us since 1993 then we will see that except the change is associated with.

To the subjects of the federation, there is an increase, a decrease, a reduction, a unification, the appearance of suddenly new and essential changes concerned the treatment of the term of office of the President and the State Duma until it was four years, four years became 6 years and five years, respectively, so if we return to the beginning, actually my thoughts if we remain in .

Within the framework of our console design, then this line should be the last for the current president. Transit of power is the Achilles heel of all non-democratic regimes. Only democracies have the great secret of how to transfer power to maintain stability. They alone know how to do this. If they knew how to do autocracies, they would take over the world, but they have not yet. .

It is especially taking over the world, they have a problem in this place, especially this problem of personal regimes, that is, regimes in which power and resources are concentrated and in which power and resources are concentrated around one person, for the record it is called, I do not consider our political regime to such an extent personal skin as usual I believe that you and I have power.

Belongs to the widespread bureaucracy to the bureaucratic class of the armed bureaucracy of the civil bureaucracy of the power bureaucracy of the economic I don’t think that in our country the whole system is tailored to such an extent for one single person, it seems to me that this is rather a picture that is created by the forces of propaganda and in fact, the transit of power is possible maybe be.

The great secret is that it will generally pass more easily than everyone believes, nevertheless, what the collective mind of the system will come to after some time, what kind of reality they will have to face, the reality is that the amount of power that the president had, which he believed in his youth and the strength of our political regime.

And this is not today, it was already some time ago, it has passed its highest point, it is indescribable in full, its distribution to some extent is already happening, this is what we have seen in recent years is not a concentration of distribution between power groups, basically this is not a very good scenario from the point of view From the point of view of the benefit of Russia from the point of view of benefits for society, what power is up to this.

The power actors have the degree, however, we will not give out commands now, we are just trying to give reality as it is, so this distribution is already happening in a creeping form if we talk about the fact that power needs to be transferred from person x to someone else it will become clear quite soon that such a person cannot exist as an elite group.

They will agree on one person, they will be afraid of transferring such a volume of power to one person, therefore some kind of distribution is necessary, it can take on very different forms, well, there is all this muddy talk about how let’s pump up the State Council with additional powers at the expense of us, we will have a representative council national leader and give him a name, we start xiaoping and he.

He will rule forever and then there will be a president a little less full of power, a little more technically, I will still be the prime minister and the larvae, we’ll come up with something else or we’ll destroy the prime minister altogether, we will have it like in America, but there is no government, there is an expanded presidential administration, this is served under the slogan, let’s analyze what the ace is This happens to us if we have something like this.

The court system, let us have this court and as a government for, strictly speaking, different ideas are established, it can be called a public space, almost there, the creation of some kind of monarchical form of sums will be exactly the same, it will still be a distribution of power between different groups and different organs.

If this is some kind of collective body like a great council, I don’t know what to call it. We now have a state council, but it’s not particularly functioning, and the security council is very interesting, Sasha is not a public structure in which a number of key decisions are supposed to be made, especially foreign policy ones, maybe it will become new center of power and that's all for now.

The conversation is vague because the system lives with a very short planning horizon and the task is to stand overnight and hold out for a day and, generally speaking, not change anything what we were talking about before the break for the river, yes, this is some kind of absolute reality, the ruling groups do not want any changes, they want to keep everything as it is when they encounter.

The confrontation of life itself with the fact that you can’t stop the clock hand, you can’t freeze time, that’s why they start trying to change a little bit so that you can change something so as not to change anything, so these changes will not be of a planned nature, not the nature of some kind of strategic reforms but I think that the character is very situational, that is, it is the most domineering.

The vertical will not care as some kind of settling suhrob, but it will not realize that this is not happening, it will not be declared in the form of some kind of reform course on the one hand, on the other hand, I think that some targeted reforms from the same Cuban set you and I We will see at least according to what is declared in the next two years, but then it looks like a process.

Absolutely uncontrollable and the same proposals sound exclusively like well-wishes, nothing more, such a picture is emerging again, it will look like uncontrollable processes inside it will seem that we are holding the situation back, and now we have almost completely kept some vague individuals from for now we agreed not to pay any attention to it.

This attention, I would rather imagine such a picture and of course, at the same time, the competition inside will intensify, we will already see this later with every last obsk and landing, we will see this stuff, a lot more security forces will eat each other, not a business unrelated to security actors, in general, does not exist Therefore, there is no need to imagine the picture of what evil security forces mean.

Village of herbivorous merchants there are no herbivorous merchants this is a clientele a1 of a power group or a wedge of the body of another power group and options in general, based on the results of the last six eight years, in fact there are no left until they will continue to eat each other but this struggle for power then we will not leave the salary This is a struggle for resources and...

The resources of power are close to that of her, in any case, then she leaves out of brackets all those well-wishes that were expressed, including by the center for strategic developments alexey kudrin and that’s all but what we get from you and I the leading part of our conversation talked about the fact that this internal Competition may be one of the drivers of change; it is one of them.

Accept in the struggle, each of the groups in general is weakening, I repeat once again, they are all trying to appeal to public opinion, some kind of public good, at least for urologist variations, at least at the level of declaration, these are the proclaimed slogans, acceleration of perestroika, but perestroika in our country was not proclaimed, acceleration was proclaimed yes they must be expressed in some way.

In government decisions, what was said in the President’s message, I mean the first part, so to speak, the civil one, not the second part, the military one, they must be implemented, these are the laws of bureaucratic existence, before from the message an order is made from an order, a government decree is made, draft laws that are carried to the state, some of this must to be something.

This is the way it was implemented and here this very Kudrin agenda, I repeat once again, very precisely will reveal itself in the form of what administrative decisions there are 15 minutes left, usually this is the time for how we distribute questions to the questions of our audience, I suggest now to the listeners and turn to remember how you can interact with us by phone.

Live broadcast 737 394 8s plus 7 925 8888 94 8 our telegram is working says mask bot let's go listen to you carefully now yes hello good afternoon good are you seated please Ekaterina you know but you say things and all that but it seems to me that life is a little bit like I would say more primitively than you said Haiti, if you were watching.

For our houses, this was seen in Vorobyov’s speech at a meeting of the State Duma, where he very coolly hung, so roughly speaking, a new south to Zhirinovsky, and what happened in Volokolamsk, in many ways, it doesn’t seem to me like a sparrow from the side of especially the last comrade Duganov and Zhirinovsky organized from the beginning of the war on landfill and then kicked out.

People should appear, but you know, this is a very familiar approach, this is conspiracy thinking, it affects almost all power actors and, unfortunately, some citizens too, because this is the disc from which they do not hear in large quantities from the media, so they repeat everything; it is impossible to organize a social process.

This is firstly and secondly if you want to anger a specialist in any field of knowledge tell him as if Borges just said nothing, the only thing we know about the universe is that it is infinitely complex social processes extremely complex Russian Federation super complex education what is happening here is absolutely not simple so when you start talking to.

It seems to you from experts that he is speaking, not just vaguely, but somehow very generally, because charlatans give accurate forecasts, only charlatans give definite estimates, if you want to remain within the framework of basic scientific integrity, you will be forced to speak enough, let’s say so, but quite high level of generalization therefore there are no teeth and.

Zhirinovsky is among them players and the relationship also happens in Volokolamsk, moreover, look at where this kind of thing comes from, there really is a governor of sparrows, there is any governor in the world, he has enemies, there are other powerful actors who wish him harm, they want to remove his positions, sum up his experience, a criminal case and so on they use any.

The reason for strengthening one’s position and for promoting this very goal does not follow from this that they are the reason for the appearance of reasons for the manifestations of people’s contentment, but as soon as this kind of center of discontent arises, then various interested people naturally rush there; in most cases, they have no influence on what's happening and I don't do anything.

This is what you write on exceleram channels, but since inside the government people see only each other, only other important factors, they are citizens, and they take the effect for the cause, it seems to them anonymously, the telegram channel is actually all that is happening in Volokolamsk because they pay Paying attention to each other is natural in the sad Jurassic.

Kamenkov writes that the case with Roizman showed that if there is no foundation of strong independent local self-government, then you can reverse the political process with a click and the opinion of professionals, the opinions of citizens, no one is particularly interested in the situation in St. Petersburg, it’s very sad, it was a bad, senseless decision, I don’t say that often because it’s wrong often.

Some unambiguous events happen, usually any phenomenon in the social and physical space has many different sides, so the abolition of direct elections is simply bad and it’s impossible to find any positive side here; they took away the powers of the elected mayor and could have rested on the fact that people can choose at least this one for themselves.

In general, frankly speaking, Roizman’s function as a public advocate was reduced to the fact that he was receiving the population. I tried to help people somehow, relying not on his power resource, which he does not have, he does not have his own fame and connections, that is, he behaved like a public figure, they are like an administrator because that he was not deprived of quality to the registrar and leverage, so he conducted the reception.

Citizens wrote about this Facebook and even this is considered by the authorities as a threat to the night, now they have a common point of dissatisfaction Yekaterinburg is a very active city with a rich political tradition with good opposition organizations with quite a large number of people known, including political activists at the federal level, so in general well, well, well, well, in vain, in vain.

Don’t do that, but so far the protest looked pretty black, so you wouldn’t even notice it, which means it looked quite appropriate for the city of Yekaterinburg, well that means there were quite a lot of people there and this is just the beginning Alexander writes if you’ll allow me a couple of questions about the upcoming mayoral elections in Moscow 1 does our Moscow opposition have a chance to hold a full-fledged one?

The primaries will nominate a single candidate or will the comrades fight with me again 2 will the next one in the next electoral cycle in Moscow be the same as in Yekaterinburg in the sense of abolishing direct elections of mayors, but as a version that this could happen, for example, well, it was decided to give cities the right to eat of federal significance choose your own mayors and there the mayor is from the real mayor.

He has, if not all of this, in general, he has serious complete power, so no, it doesn’t look like it for the distant future, we won’t speak for now, it doesn’t seem like there are no signs of that, as for the elections of the mayor of Moscow, this is an interesting story, I’ll start while the municipal filter exists, then this main tool is not admission which power in general.

It ensures the necessary election results for itself, it also operates in Moscow, that is, you can prevent anyone from admitting it, it is possible that in Moscow the choice will go according to the presidential scenario, that is, well, so to speak, they have a wolf and seven little goats to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and a candidate from the government and a certain number of comic figures this was done in the presidential elections.

Let's face it, and this was one of the factors, not the only one and not the main main factor, it was the demolition of voters who were unconscious at their place of work, but when they were already shown a ballot on the first day in which they did not have the opportunity to vote for no one other than the main candidate, it is possible that the same will be in Moscow.

Scenario but Moscow is still not the president of Russia, he is the leader and so to speak, or than one of the interest groups there are other interest groups that they are interested in giving him such preferential conditions, that is, he is still, I repeat once again, not the president, why should he be allowed It’s so easy to get elected, I don’t participate at all in taking over companies.

As the President of Russia did this, therefore, there will be other groups and these are not Moscow oppositionists and not even Moscow citizens, which is sad, who will want the service to be honey after all, so some candidates representing an alternative, not a comic alternative, can be registered then we can try .

To repeat history in 13, as it was in the Moscow mayoral elections in 13, the protest potential in Moscow is very high, Moscow is the capital of the Russian Federation, it has the most literate, most organized electorate, the highest Internet penetration of social networks, opposition media, foreign media, that is, it can be called here you can work here, but that’s the same.

And these same circumstances complicate this work, I’m not sure at the stage now that the movement of a single opposition candidate is definitely a good tactic, maybe it’s a good tactic, maybe it’s not, there’s no need to think about memes and carry around corpses like an opposition union or a temple on the contrary, there should be no separation of positions.

Guiding action until we have thought about the goals and methods of achieving these goals is the second stage, so to speak, of this very thinking, that is, we must proceed from the fact that the candidate from the government will win, this is a reality that must be taken into account if we build unrealistic plans and will not lead to anything good Let's come and the second point is what we can achieve, it seemed to me that.

You can strive to reach the second round or bring the situation when they are in the second round as it was in the thirteenth year, this is an important goal if it can be achieved because the mayor who won by a small margin and who barely avoided the second round is not at all the one who won with 7 10 percent and his closest pursuer received eight percent.

These are different, two different political situations, new ones have already described the tactics that can follow after, namely, the satisfaction of demands further from us, that ritual sacrifices should be made there, and the third point is to disperse the most Ottovich and targeted repressions, but this is the tactic that is used for the Russians to extinguish the protests here. a little different.

The situation here, the result of the elections, can also be perceived as a kind of protest, but what will happen after that, for example, you are saying that this will be an important signal for the authorities and if the candidate from the authorities wins not with a result of 70 percent but 50 or so, this will follow Such a reaction as you describe, this result should be perceived as a common threat.

A threat to the power machine, I repeat once again, the mayor of Moscow is one of the political actors, there are other political actors who do not wish him well, in a paradoxical way, civil society becomes an ally of extremely unpleasant people who do not wish him well, but they also do not wish well for their colleagues, so to speak By.

This elite tangle of political process in non-democracies looks like this, in general, I have to express solidarity in an implicit form with those people with whom you would never sit down in real life in any case, but they didn’t want you to sit in the same chair simply you have time to tactically coincide or call 737 394 8 direct.

Ether we are listening to you attentively yes hello good afternoon and how to roll the canon in general how to open a new one as well as an item of the Brent Ufa brand I think no put it on the horse breeder are made as if in the depths of my soul it seemed to me that we had already passed with the May decrees there is no point in orders we didn’t get through to the end because they are accepted and the trouble is not that they were not followed.

They ignored them, carried out as best they could, and this practically broke the backbone of the regional budget and this drove them to other regions, which the Ministry of Finance is now trying to cope with in different ways, and we have, we will look at budget plans for the next three years, our section which is responsible for the most internal we will achieve is increasing and reaches 20 in the budget of 19 and 20.

Quite a few percent of the problems are not that they don’t do it, they do it as best they can, and from this it happens later that for some reason no one foresaw in advance, now we have some new portion of distribution of all sorts of social carrots planned, since not a single election campaign can do without it, it seems that considering and carrying reality.

The economic situation cost little blood, that is, some kind of one-time payments and this sudden increase in salaries for public sector workers who suddenly discovered that they received two to three times more than usual, but this happiness will apparently last two or three months and then stop from the point of view of people This is sad from the point of view of general well-being in general, probably.

It’s good that the second series of May decrees didn’t happen, that is, such a large-scale distribution of elephants between us, speaking no, let’s go even further then one question 737 394 8 then we listen to you carefully, yes, good Mikhalych, look, let’s go back to the thin old ones then a liter like you’ll break head of the Moscow region administration.

What do you call the governor, I have never ruined Milena, only in short, Mikhailovich Rosie, why does he say that we will build a mattress yesterday, burn down the factories that are making money, but if you want, we will be taxpayers, say when a representative of the Moscow region says this, you mean that Moscow and the Moscow region.

Why don’t we hear the chapter about garbage, or as you say to the mayor of Moscow, Moscow garbage, why Moscow doesn’t build waste recycling plants for you, they like 3 not factories accepted, why is it garbage for some and expenses for others because it exists, well, because no one wants to bear the costs, understandable Everyone wants to take their garbage somewhere, pay for removal and forget about it.

It is really difficult to build waste incineration plants on the territory of the city; for this they must be like in Japan, that is, from which nothing comes out into the atmosphere at all, and in order for the garbage waiting plants to be safe, only sorted garbage should move into them; this again leads us to the problem of waste sorting, or rather the problem a k.

Inevitability to the same Japanese who even wash bottles before throwing them in the trash exactly because at least we have yet to get to the point where the bottle is separate, the jar is separate, paper and cardboard are separate, and organic garbage is separate, if it comes to that, then we have already You will no longer see happiness in our beautiful Russian Federation, falling from the heights.

The need for a terrible swamp of the political situation and whether there is a conflict between Moscow and the Moscow region, and this is also one of the drivers of what is happening in an era of conflicts, we seem to be entering exactly because you have been in it for a long time, I will continue to be in it, and this is also superimposed for a universal era.

Transparency, therefore, all these terrariums, its inhabitants are visible to society very well, they themselves do not realize to what extent they are clearly visible, perfectly I will be waiting for us with us was Ekaterina Shulman

Ekaterina Shulman

Political scientist, associate professor at RANEPA, columnist. Specialist on problems of lawmaking, nominee for the “Politprosvet” award for publications in “Vedomosti” and on Colta.ru

- It is generally accepted that politics is thoroughly saturated with deception. How is the relationship between a politician and his listener built?

- I would like to somewhat object to the thesis that politics is somehow more saturated with lies than other spheres of human activity. In politics there are no more lies, but publicity. Politicians are considered more liars than, for example, used car salesmen or real estate agents because their lies are constantly recorded and they are addressed to an extremely large audience. And this audience is more inclined to share their impressions than people who were sold a car, saying that it had almost no mileage and was not damaged at all, and then it turned out that it was very damaged.

Accordingly, the curse of politics is not so much lies as such, but the openness of these lies. As far as I understand, representatives of various social sciences spoke within the framework of this. I look at this from a political science point of view, and political science can be characterized as history in real time, in the present continuous mode. Therefore, my interest is to see how the very concept of truth and untruth is transformed in a political context and what it will look like in the near future.

You and I, dear comrade listeners, live in the information age. You hear this term often, but you may not fully understand what it means. With the transition from the era, which is usually called the industrial era, to the post-industrial - or information - era, several monopolies in the socio-political and, accordingly, in the information sphere were destroyed at once. The monopoly on public speech and the monopoly on content creation were destroyed. If we turn to the 20th century, we will see that in both democratic and totalitarian regimes there was a complete or partial monopoly on speech. In a totalitarian state, everything is clear: there is only one megaphone, it is in the hands of the state, the state imposes its absolute truth, those who do not agree are buried somewhere on the sidelines. This is how the relationship between truth and untruth works simply.

In a democratic state the situation will be milder, but nevertheless there will still be a certain corporation of content holders, masters of discourse. This is a conventional academia: educated people, scientists who know the truth and tell it to you. Another group of monopolists are the owners of the media. Not even the owners, capitalists and moneybags, but the actual speakers who speak on behalf of television channels, newspapers, and radio stations. They are also the masters of discourse. Everyone else is an audience and their right to speak is limited.

What happened with the advent of the information age? A single megaphone, which was in the hands of the state, or many large megaphones in the hands of corporations, multiplied in a completely geometric progression. Social networks give each of us the opportunity to speak out. The number of sources of information has increased in an incredible way. I repeat once again: this is a very serious historical change, the meaning and greatness of which we do not fully understand. Its closest historical parallel is the invention of printing.

I remember it like yesterday. When Gutenberg invented the printing press and it gradually began to spread throughout Europe, there was a lot of shouting that it was the end of the world. And I must say that not without reason. The first printed products that began to be produced on a mass scale were not even sacred books (although this is an important point), but sheet music (music) and pornography (erotic picture books). And this broke the church's monopoly on the printed word. If earlier manuscripts were written by specially trained people in monasteries - there were few books, they were expensive, monasteries were centers of education - but now suddenly every owner of a press could print his own fascinating book.

At first there was a lot of outrage that this was spreading immorality and eroticizing our youth. After this, more serious consequences came - namely, translations of the Bible into national languages ​​appeared. This spurred the process of reformation, which in turn led to the destruction of the single "baptized world", Christendom, and led ultimately to the formation of nation states. Thus, the Gutenberg press truly destroyed the old world.

Approximately the same thing is happening with you and me. A huge, innumerable number of sources leads to an innumerable number of facts and to the democratization of this discourse. Everyone can say whatever comes into their head, everyone can find listeners. And the listener is no longer just a listener, he is also a commentator, he is also a distributor (and the competent authority also comes to him for this and says - why did you share a bad post). Accordingly, he participates in this entire discourse.

The consequence is the destruction of the monopoly on truth and further erosion of the very concept of truth. Therefore, when we say: “Everyone lies,” we do not even mean that there is a truthful me, but you are telling a lie. This means that the number of facts is so great, and there are even more interpretations, that any concept can be built from these myriads of facts. Accordingly, it becomes not only impossible to establish the truth, but it is no longer clear why.

The paradox here is that, on the one hand, information technology has ushered in an era of universal transparency. It would seem that fact-checking has never been so easy and enjoyable. It seems to be easy to find out how everything really happened - but it turns out that this is not really necessary. People are looking not for the truth of fact, but for the truth of emotions; people will unite not according to the principle “we together know how it really is,” but according to the principle “we feel the same.” This desire for emotional connection leads people to populist politicians or populist parties, radical parties, on which political phenomena as diverse as the far right in Europe and the banned Islamic State in Russia are based. Accordingly, such associations are practically invulnerable to accusations that they told lies.

Fact checking shows: dear comrade Trump, you lied all over in your speech. It doesn't matter. His audience, like the audience of other populist politicians, does not expect exact facts from him, they expect him to express the emotion that she herself experiences. This combination of transparency and elusiveness of truth is one of the most mysterious and peculiar features of the current historical moment. I would also quote the late Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, who in one of his last interviews said that a new era is coming, we will no longer feel comfortable in it, but our children will. About our time, descendants will say that it was an era of continuous lies, but the next era will be so transparent that constant lies will no longer be possible.

This statement is interesting because he, in general, knew what he was talking about, this is a person about whom even the decision of the High Court of London says that for him truth is a relative concept. He belonged to an era that made it easy to say anything because no one would know anything about you. It seemed to him that the time was coming for universal life in glass houses or crystal palaces. We ourselves mark where we are, write about ourselves, what we are doing and with whom we dine, and we ourselves photograph our plate. No special services are needed to collect information about us. This is true. But at the same time there is a devaluation of the fact and a dissolution of the very concept of truth.

- That is, in the speeches of politicians, what is important is not the truth in the literal sense, but what stands behind it - some kind of big idea?

“We, like all over the world, have politicians who tell lies, and somehow they are forgiven for it.” But there is one point that must be kept in mind. This celebration of disobedience, this democratization of discourse that I am trying to describe, is a kind of superstructure, or growth, or mold, if you like, on the basis of stable social relations and sufficient economic well-being.

If you have low trust, every action costs you more. You maintain an army of security guards, law enforcement officers, accountants, lawyers, bandits

There are societies with a low level of trust and with a high level of trust. This is a sociologically quite measurable thing. To what extent do citizens trust each other and to what extent do they trust supermarkets - anyone? There is a direct correlation between the level of trust and the level of economic well-being. Roughly speaking, societies with a high level of trust are progressive, developing and fairly wealthy societies. These are societies in which a certain level of basic security has been achieved, based on which citizens can carry out all these transactions. Societies that have a low level of basic security, have a low level of trust, are prone to economic stagnation, and they are also poor countries. Why?

A low level of trust is not just an unpleasant feeling that everyone around you is a bastard and has been deceived. This is a permanent tax on any of these - I will repeat this intrusive word - transactions. If you have a low level of trust, then every action costs you more. You maintain an army of security guards, law enforcement officers, accountants, lawyers, bandits. Exaggerated bureaucracy, overregulation, a huge number of papers that you are forced to fill out, submit and receive - these are all derivatives of a low level of trust. These are derivatives of the presumption of guilt: it is assumed that everyone is a swindler and a deceiver. Therefore, in order to buy an apartment, you need a stack of papers, and even this does not guarantee you that tomorrow a person will come and say: I am registered in this apartment, I was in prison, give it back. You are forced to go to court, and the court will also be unfair. In order to compensate for the dishonesty of the court, you hire security. You are generally obsessed with security. Everything you have, you invest not in development, not in progress, but in savings and protection. The main thing you have in the country is security, that’s what you do. And your president is the same, and your entire political regime is the same.

Paradoxically, poor countries with low levels of trust should be more truthful than rich ones, because they cannot afford this public lie, because the reserve of trust that is eaten away by this populism is very small. In reality, unfortunately, everything happens the other way around, according to the cruel principle “those who have will have more, and those who have not will have what they have taken away.”

Rich countries can afford populists. They, these populist politicians and populist parties, even if they win elections, fall into the system of checks and balances that is a working democracy. Accordingly, they won’t do big things there. Now we are seeing this situation with the famous “Brexit”, a referendum on the UK’s exit from the EU. We voted and got an unexpected result. Everyone is grieving, the pound is getting cheaper. After some time, it turns out that the exit is planned not now, but sometime in the distant future, and what it will consist of is not very clear. The pound is growing a little, the end of the world has not happened again. Why? Because there is a mature, developed party system, because there is another newspaper for one newspaper, there is no monopoly on, again, a propaganda mouthpiece. Because public opinion exists, because everyone has the right to speak out. Here people have spoken out who want to turn back the clock and leave the EU, and other people also have the right to speak out on the same topic in the opposite way. And in general, these issues are resolved by a referendum, and not by a mass fight. Accordingly, no catastrophe occurs.

In poor countries with undeveloped, decorative, imitation political institutions, this kind of thing is much more expensive. A decision made by a narrow group without expert opinion, without any consultations, begins to be immediately put into practice, there is no one to object to - accordingly, the consequences come immediately to everyone’s heads. And they are much more tangible and much more serious than any pranks that citizens and politicians of the first world can indulge in.

- But how is it that in countries with low levels of trust, populists not only exist, but are also successful?

Throughout the world, the audience and the public politician exist in a specific relationship with each other. People don’t come for the truth, as they would to a religious teacher (and thank God), they come for a show, the price of which is, in general, more or less known to them. Therefore, this trust, which seems so absolute, actually has very serious limitations. This is true for all countries of the world. I'll try to tell you what it looks like in our case.

When you look at the results of opinion polls, it seems that the power of propaganda knows no barriers, that public opinion is absolutely manipulated. Today respondents call America the main enemy of Russia, tomorrow - Ukraine, the day after tomorrow - Turkey, then Turkey is again the best friend, and the enemy is probably Syria, and then they forgot about them. It seems that the picture of public opinion is a mirror standing in front of the TV.

But let's look, for example, at people's consumer behavior. We will see that as soon as the infinitely gullible audience feels that the ruble is falling, it rushes to the stores and begins to buy household appliances and other goods. This is exactly what happened in 2014. From the point of view of the larger economy, this consumer panic is quite harmful: it burned out consumer demand for the next few months and spurred further commodity inflation. Now imagine if there is such a person in the Russian Federation - the president, the patriarch, Grigory Leps - who can come out and say: citizens, do not exchange rubles for dollars, trust your native ruble, do not buy two coffee grinders, it is better to get all the rubles from under your pillows and take them to banks, support our banking system. There is no such person. When it comes to their pockets, people become smarter.

People easily change their minds on issues that do not concern them. As soon as the hostility with Turkey was somewhat canceled, people immediately ran to buy trips. Some part of the public was indignant: they shot down our pilot. But most people don’t care about this at all, they just want to have an inexpensive vacation.

There is an international sociological study called “Eurobarometer”, which has been conducted in Europe since the early 70s, and in Russia since 2012 by the sociological center of the Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. It studies strong and weak social ties. Strong social ties are, roughly speaking, close relationships, relationships of people who can borrow from each other, for example. Weak social ties are more distant acquaintances, that is, for example, relationships in which you can recommend a good place, where to relax, or which school to send your child to. That's what it is. People are asked questions like, “How quickly do you think you can find a job if you get laid off?” How quickly can you raise such and such an amount if you need it?

Since 2012, we have seen a literally explosive growth in both strong and weak ties. People feel more and more connected to each other, and this increases their own optimism to such an extent that it is even negatively correlated with their economic situation. People's incomes are decreasing, while their sense of well-being is increasing. This has its own dark side: people, being euphoric from this feeling, begin, for example, to take out loans more easily. But social optimism is growing. People feel more independent from the state, they feel more secure - they will be helped if anything happens.

It is believed that the main task of the first year of a child’s life is to instill in him this very sense of basic security. It assumes that, in principle, everything will be fine, and if it’s bad, then they will help you. If a child has such a feeling, then he begins to develop further: he eats cat food, sticks his finger in a socket - in general, he progresses, as he should. If he doesn't have this, his development will be delayed. All our humanistic parental practices - picking up children, not leaving them alone at night - are aimed at exactly this, so that the child feels that if anything happens, he will be supported here.

There are societies that, following the results of the 20th century, have not developed any sense of basic security, and they do not develop, they sit in the corner and protect their security, their precious resource. Paradoxically, they also become easy victims of populists. This is the picture of global injustice that I am forced to paint for you.

They sell us some kind of mixture of the Romanovs, Stalin and the atomic bomb, Soviet power and the Russian Empire

- What do populists rely on in such cases?

- One of the most effective traps can be called counterclockwise rebellion, the desire to return to the past. The present and future seem unreliable, incomprehensible, chaotic, and the past seems stable, solid and black and white. This is a kind of mythologized picture of past historical greatness, different for each country. They are selling us some kind of mixture of the Romanovs, Stalin and the atomic bomb, Soviet power and the Russian Empire. In America they are selling America, which needs to be made great again, great again. In Britain they are selling an island that can exist on its own, as it supposedly happened before, although this has never happened. Ever since the Danes arrived there, it has been a world center of trade routes, which has grown rich and developed precisely due to its openness. Yet they too are sold this idyllic picture of small rural England. To France, as far as I understand, they are selling a mono-ethnic Gaul, populated, apparently, exclusively by Asterix and Obelix, without alien national admixtures.

All this, of course, is a monstrous lie. However, people buy it because the past seems cozy: what everyone is actually being sold is the concept of security. I want to hide my head and say: mind me, I’m in the house, let all your progress go through the forest. The bad news is that for countries that aren't making much progress anyway, this nostalgia game, this reconstruction mania, is costing more than others.

It is clear that large countries will not leave the world stage: they are the world stage. It is clear that this isolationism will remain at the level of talk and no one will build a wall. Moreover, between us, no one will leave the European Union, no one will evict all Mexicans from America or all Muslims from France. It's all talk. Those listening understand that this is chatter, but they enjoy listening to it.

In the case of countries that, let’s not point fingers, account for 2% of world GDP, this kind of dreaming can be much more dangerous. Because if, I repeat once again, large countries have nowhere to go, then countries with insignificant economic turnover may find themselves in a dusty corner of history. The Great Silk Road, or, if you like, a large pipeline passes by them, but does not flow to them. While the fat one dries, the thin one will die. This is why poor countries must be more honest than others, because they are less able to afford this luxury of public lying.

One more phenomenon needs to be mentioned. This is the so-called information bubble. The main media for most people, now the absolute majority in America (and soon it will be the same with us), are social networks. Our feed on Facebook, VKontakte, Telegram is formed based on our behavior on the network. We are shown what we want to see. They draw us this information bubble, painted on the inside with beautiful flowers, like in Andersen’s fairy tale “The Snow Queen”: the house of a woman who knew how to cast magic, remember? It was always summer in the witch’s garden, but outside it had long been autumn. We are shown those who agree with us, we are shown things similar to those that we were previously looking for. Thus, we constantly receive confirmation of our prejudices, in Pushkin's language. Those who disagree with our point of view are some individual atomized idiots to whom our friends give a link and say: look what he writes again, you idiot.

Knock, knock, winter is coming, your flowers are all withered, your medals are all fake

Then we again find ourselves in this warm river of milk, our social network feed, where everyone roughly agrees with us, everyone praises us, likes our pies, our children, our flowers. This greatly contributes to encapsulation, locking us in the house of a woman who knows how to do magic (and this woman’s name is Mark Zuckerberg).

What is true for an individual citizen is also true for the so-called decision-makers, for those making decisions. They also have their own Facebook feed, but they are given printouts from it in special red folders. They, too, are surrounded by people who agree with them, and they, too, constantly receive confirmation of their wisdom. Great, right?

It is quite difficult for objective reality to break through these painted windows and say: knock-knock, winter is coming there, your flowers are all withered, your medals are all fake. When this happens, it is so uncomfortable and unexpected that you want to say: it’s all a deception.

How to pierce this bubble? How to enter objective reality? Politicians have a simple way: they think that if they compare two denunciations from two opposite sides, then combining them will give them objective truth. Unfortunately, this doesn't work.

- How can ordinary people get out of this mess?

- You can adopt the methods of Alcoholics Anonymous: 12 steps to free yourself from alcoholism. First: recognize the problem and call it by its proper name. You must understand that the wealth of information you use is actually limited and tailored to your preferences. Just be aware that maybe in reality everything is not quite like that.

It's good to get out of your comfort zone. At least outside of your feed. Not in order to find out the truth that is being hidden from you, but in order to find out some other segment of the discourse.

What am I doing, for example. It is useful to go and get acquainted with any alternative discourse, even radical ones: nationalist, feminist, isolationist. You will read a lot of nonsense, some will offend you, some will seem completely terrible to you. But you will have a violent expansion of the brain. You will see that there are people who are sitting in the next bubble, and they also have their own complete picture of the world. The flip side: unfortunately, this kind of exercise also contributes to the erosion of the concept of objective truth.

Second: try to develop for yourself, find for yourself a certain line of experts whom you trust. How to find them? There are some formal signs. In general, it’s not bad if a person has an education. Higher education, for example, professional. It helps. Look at how much a person, when speaking, refers to some kind of research, objective data, whether he cites some figures at least sometimes. Flip through what he wrote a year ago, look at what he predicted. A very confident statement that in a year the regime will fall, or the dollar will collapse, or the third world war will break out, or, conversely, Russia will rule the whole world, any extreme confidence should alert you.

An honest person often uses expressions like “if I’m not mistaken,” “so as not to lie,” or “if my memory serves me right,” for example. Experts often do not speak out very confidently and often say: on the one hand, it is like this, on the other hand, it is like that. Because we, people of social sciences, are dealing with complex phenomena, which are also extended over time. It’s rare for us that something started yesterday and ends tomorrow. If you hear a person, talking about socio-political processes, say: in fact, these are all bastards, they should all be shot, and these fellows, I don’t know what, should be fed ice cream, then he’s probably not very good specialist.