Putin’s "Russian conservatism" invented by Jew Mikhail Leontyev and Alexander Dugin in the halls of St. Petersburg State University
Skin "conservatism" of the "party of power". To the results of the XI Congress of United Russia
On November 21, 2009, the XI Congress of the All-Russian Political Party "United Russia" was held in St. Petersburg at the Lenexpo exhibition complex. At this Congress, the Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Boris Gryzlov declared a new "ideology" of the "party of power" - the so-called "Russian conservatism". Mr. Gryzlov explained the essence of this newly invented ideological brand as follows: "This is the ideology of stability and development, constant creative renewal of society without stagnation and revolutions <...> Russian conservatism is open conservatism." It is worth noting that initially "United Russia" was positioned as a "centrist party", and this vague "centrism" essentially understood indifference to any ideology in principle. Such self-positioning of the "party of power" fully reflected its nature. As we remember, "United Russia" initially emerged not as an association of citizens from below on the basis of a particular political program, but as a political registration of the ruling bureaucracy. In this sense, United Russia has never been a political party itself. Now we see an attempt by this structure to give itself the external features of a political party - that is, to come up with an "ideology".
"Russian conservatism" is a new mask of the government of treason
It is well known that the change of state ideology usually occurs as a result of the change of elites. That is, the "coming to power" of certain ideas occurs as a result of the coming to power of the carriers of these ideas. The same applies to the reverse process - the loss of a ruling position. This is determined by the fact that ideology is presented as real beliefs, and the implementation of certain principles is presented as the ultimate goal for which the seizure and retention of power is a means.
In the case of the Russian "party of power", the situation is diametrically opposite. We see that the ruling elite of modern Russia originates from the Soviet party and state bureaucracy, which once declared communist beliefs and loyalty to Marxism. Discarding the communist ideology, this elite (or rather, its unprincipled majority) in 1991 momentously turned into radical marketers and liberals of the model of Gaidar's "Democratic Choice of Russia", and then just as easily discarded the ideology of bourgeois democracy and liberalism and for a decade and a half did without any ideology at all. Now we see how the same political elite found it useful to construct a new ideological wrapper for themselves - "Russian conservatism". However, it is as impossible to come up with or construct an ideology as to invent or pragmatically form a worldview and political beliefs. Already from the very fact that the new "ideology" does not come to power with its carriers, but is artificially formed by the former elite (which has repeatedly changed its "ideology" and did without it at all), it is obvious that in this case we are not talking about real beliefs and goals, but only about means of management, pragmatic tools and PR strategies. The new "ideology" is obviously a simulacre, an artificial construction, an "ideological skin", deliberately created to cover up goals and interests not related to it. In other words, we are not dealing with "ideology for ourselves", but with "ideology for the public", with a construct created knowingly for manipulative purposes.
It should be noted that the CPRF, represented by its leaders, predicted this PR move of the ruling party. Back in February 2006, the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation V.S. Nikitin in his article "We will stand and win (On the dangers threatening the CPRF and actions to protect the party)" warned that "the Party of power clears the patriotic field for itself and its conservatism". V.S. Nikitin, in particular, wrote: "It is assumed that the authorities will abandon liberalism by leap at the right time and turn to an ideology that externally corresponds to the traditional, centuries-tested principles of Russian civilization. The authorities decided to call this ideology conservatism. In order to still prepare the public consciousness for such an opportunity in the press, even the official one, the opportunity to scold the West, liberalism and the fathers of democracy is open. Moreover, it no longer sounds from the opposition and centrists, but from the mouths of people close to the Kremlin."
As we can see, the forecast given by V.S. Nikitin in 2006, confirmed. The ruling party has really changed the liberal skin to the conservative one. The objective reasons for such political molt are quite obvious. In the 90s, the main task of the criminal clans that came to power was the redistribution of property. Accordingly, they needed to create an environment of chaos and confusion in the country, legalized lawlessness. It was required by all means (including ideological) to suppress the ability of the Russian nation to self-organize and rebuff criminal "privatizers" of national ownership of natural resources and means of production. Now the main task of the ruling clan is to preserve and retain the loot, which requires stabilizing the situation and moving from chaos and lawlessness to a new order. That is, such an order, within the framework of which the former thief and robber turns into a respectable legitimate owner. That is why in the 90s any, even the most moderate, patriotism, being a form of civic self-awareness and association of people, was perceived by the authorities as a threat to their own existence, and therefore subjected to slander. Today, the authorities, on the contrary, themselves turn to the topic of "patriotism" as a means of stabilizing the situation in society and thus consolidating the achieved position. At the same time, it is not difficult to guess that within the framework of the "patriotism" imposed from above there is an attempt to pass off the selfish interests of the ruling vorocracy as "national" and, thus, to force the people to serve alien interests.
The second motive for the changing ideological skin by the ruling regime is that the authorities were finally convinced of the unpopularity of liberal ideas in the 90s. Accordingly, the simulacre of "conservatism" is created as another step in the policy of interception of slogans from the people's patriotic opposition. The authorities simply mimic, like a wolf wearing sheep's skin, but at the same time, of course, remaining a wolf.
Cutting and sewing of "conservative skin"
It should be noted that the mimicry of "conservatives" is carried out by the ruling party quite consistently. This is far from a separate declaration of B.V. Gryzlov at the last United Russia Congress and the International Scientific and Practical Forum "Social Responsibility of Parties in a Crisis" held within its framework. The ruling regime has been probing the ground for the use of conservative rhetoric for its own purposes since at least December 2005. For example, on December 16, 2005 in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Chairman of the Committee on International Affairs Margelov, close to Surkov, already wrote: "Western civilization has no absolute universality <... > We already lived with someone else's mind in the 90s and earned little useful: we almost found ourselves in a country the size of the Moscow region <... > It is proved that the types of economy are by no means the basis, but the superstructure rooted in the culture of the country, because the ideological is primary, not the economic <... > The popularity of conservatism is growing in Russia, because it contains the idea of preserving the territory, the originality of the cultural core, traditions, appeal to religion, the multipolarity of the world order <... > Without conservatism, the formation of a new Russia is impossible."
For three years, the ruling regime has been testing the possibilities to launch its "conservative project". At the same time, the role of a kind of training ground was assigned here to socio-political structures (such as the Eurasian Youth Union, the All-Russian Socio-Political Movement "Eurasia", the Center for Conservative Studies, etc.), coordinated by the famous sociologist and political technologist Alexander Gelevich Dugin, who at one time moved to the camp of the ruling regime from the radical opposition. Another notable figure in the formation of the Kremlin's "conservative project" in these years was a well-known TV presenter, a member of "United Russia" M.V. Leontiev. Several information resources aimed at forming the field of "conservatism" ordered by the regime were created on the Internet, including the most famous and popular website Pravaya.ru.
Since the beginning of 2009 (apparently, in connection with the plans for the upcoming congress of United Russia), the development of the "conservative project" has been significantly intensified. For example, in February, at the Faculty of Philosophy and Political Science of St. Petersburg State University, on the initiative of the Dean of the Faculty, Professor Yuri Nikiforovich Solonin, the St. Petersburg Conservative Club was founded, working in cooperation with the Moscow Center for Conservative Studies A.G. Dugina. Then, on the basis of the same faculty, the Youth Conservative Club, consisting mainly of graduate students and students, began to function in the fall. It should be noted that all this work on the formation of a solid academic base for the Kremlin's ideological craft has a completely transparent connection directly with United Russia and the Kremlin. This was especially evident in the fact that one day before the congress of United Russia, which for the first time officially proclaimed "Russian conservatism" as a new ideology of the ruling party, on the basis of the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University (the same one at which as many as two conservative clubs were created during the year) within the framework of the so-called "Days of St. Petersburg Philosophy - 2009" was organized by a symposium "Conservatism: Prospect or Alternative".
This landmark event should be discussed in more detail. First of all, it is worth indicating the key speakers who characterize the format of the event. The first speech in the program was a major social thinker, intellectual leader of the European "new right" Alain de Benoit, then a member of the Political Council of the St. Petersburg regional branch of "United Russia" I.E. Shuvalova. The third one was A.G. Dugin, and after him - the fourth - Professor of the Department of History of Russian Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy and Political Science of St. Petersburg State University Igor Dmitrievich Osipov. It was also planned (but did not take place) for the performance of M.V. Leontieva. As we can see, an attempt is being made to link academic philosophical research of conservative orientation with the new "ideology" of United Russia. This bundle is declared and demonstrated in every possible way - both by artificially fitting the date of the philosophical seminar to the "historical and fateful" congress of United Russia, and by inviting a United Russia party functionary to it (whose speech, it must be said, both on its topic, and especially on the intellectual level was sharply knocked out of the format of the symposium and periodically caused friendly laughter among the student part of the audience, and among older participants - longing and slumber). To all this, one should only add the last detail: the fact that the organizer of the event is the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Political Science of St. Petersburg State University Yu.N. Solonin is not only a member of the United Russia party, but also a member of its regional political council.
Like a cow's saddle...
So, we see that the "party of power" in the broad sense of the word (that is, the presidential administration together with all the highest bureaucracy and the pseudo-political pseudo-party "United Russia") is trying to put on the robes of conservatives. But let's wonder how appropriate this ideological dress is for United Russia.
It is advisable to start the answer to this question with the analysis of the range of values included in the term "conservatism". The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines the concept of "conservatism" as follows: "(French conservatisme, from Latin conservo - I protect, I preserve), commitment to everything outdated, outdated, obscesive; hostility and opposition to progress, everything new, advanced in public life, science, technology, art". In this sense, of course, it is impossible not to recognize United Russia by conservatives, but it is clear that this definition is of an evaluative and ideological nature, and therefore it can hardly be recognized as objective. The Brockhaus and Efron Dictionary defines conservatism as "a direction in politics that defends the existing state and public order, as opposed to liberalism, which requires the necessary improvements and reforms". An article devoted to this concept in the "Encyclopedia of Sociology" notes that conservatism is a complex and multifaceted social phenomenon that can be represented in several dimensions: as a set of mental qualities of an individual, as a political ideology and, finally, as a socio-political movement. Referring to the American political scientist Samuel Huntington, the Encyclopedia of Sociology, points out that conservatism appears as a situational, i.e. historically variable phenomenon, as "a system of ideas that serves to preserve the existing order regardless of where and when it takes place, is directed against any attempts to destroy it, regardless of whomever they come from".
In fact, in the views and ideological grounds of people who count and classify themselves as conservatives, it is impossible to find almost nothing essential in common. In this category we also find French royal aristocrats - opponents of the Great French Revolution and supporters of the Old Order. Here we see Russian monarchists, both radical Slavophiles and loyal supporters of the "official" of the domination of the Europeanized imperial autocracy. Among the conservatives, we suddenly find the so-called "conservative revolutionaries" in the spirit of Muller van den Broek. In the United States, conservatives are called, among other things, the so-called "neocons" - market fundamentalists, supporters of reducing social spending and minimizing the state's participation in the economy - that is, in fact, the most radical wing of liberals. In the USSR, during Gorbachev's "perestroika", conservatives were considered and called opponents of reforms, adherents of the form of Marxism, which in the late USSR was considered orthodox.
Thus, the concept of "conservatism" does not carry any essential unity of political or economic views, worldview, way of thinking, etc. In fact, what can unite French royalists with Soviet Orthodox or American market fundamentalists with the followers of the "third way" and the "conservative revolution"? In this sense, it seems necessary to recognize the validity of the definition given by S. Huntington, that is, to understand the concept of "conservatism" as a situational and historically variable phenomenon, as a desire to preserve certain principles, orders and values and counteract their destruction in the course of social changes and transformations. At the same time, the very principles and values that are the object of protection can be very different for different conservatives up to diametrically opposite.
It is clear that there is a semantic opposition between the concepts of "conservatism" and "modernization". This gave reason to political opponents and commentators to very accurately and caustically ridicule the eclectic combination of the voiced by the president D.A. Medvedev's cult of "innovation" and "modernization" (which Medvedev called the "quintessence" of his last Address to the Federal Assembly) with the "ideology" of "Russian conservatism" declared at the United Russia Congress. However, court "ideologists" could still cope with this contradiction with half sin, because they treat conservatism as "stability and development", and modernization can be interpreted as this very "development". This is, of course, demagogy, but, one way or another, it is still possible to patch the holes in the official "party of power" eclectically slamed from heterogeneous pieces of the official "ideology".
Another thing is much more difficult: to explain how "conservatism" (that is, the idea of preservation) is combined with the ongoing active and clearly purposeful destruction of all major social and national-state institutions: fundamental and applied science, education, industry, agriculture, army... There are countless examples of this kind: here is the replacement of normal exams with the guessing of the USE, there is the creeping destruction of the Academy of Sciences, there is the "serdyukov-stool" reform of the Russian army, etc. etc. Moreover, it cannot be said that all this pogrom is the result only of incompetence and corruption of the state apparatus. On the contrary, we see that this is a purposeful and systematically implemented policy. Moreover, the recent turn to "conservatism" (or rather, the active use of "conservative" phraseology for political technological purposes) has not changed the plans for further social, political and economic destruction of Russia, which was clearly demonstrated by the last Address of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of November 12, 2009, the analysis of which we will focus below.
In the meantime, we state that the guise of "conservatism" (that is, the preservation, preservation of certain values) on the current "party of power", which consistently destroys all both material (industry, agriculture, natural monuments, cultural heritage, including the historical appearance of cities) and cultural (level of education and general culture) values, looks something like a cow.
Brief analysis of the presidential message
Isaac Asimov's famous fantastic novel "The Foundation" describes a special science called symbolic logic, which "allows you to sort human speech from any unnecessary junk, exposing the naked truth". At the same time, the novel describes the story of how the speeches of a certain diplomat were analyzed with the help of this science and, "when after two days of hard work it was possible to eliminate all meaningless statements, vague hints, useless definitions, in short, all the nonsense, it turned out that he had nothing left, not a single word". That is, this diplomat did not say a single specific phrase for five days of discussion, and in such a way that no one noticed it.
Listening to the presidential message, we could only regret that we do not master the methods of this science of the future described in the fantastic novel, but simple logic and common sense were enough to understand that most of the message is purely ritual. More precisely, as one of our comrades put it, it is a "pyramid of promises", in which these promises are not provided by real deeds, but a year later in the next message they are doubled due to the accrued interest.
As you know, Medvedev in his message highlighted five main directions of "modernization":
1. Development of medical equipment, technologies and pharmaceuticals.
2. Improving energy efficiency, transition to a rational model of resource consumption.
3. Nuclear energy development programs.
4. Development of space technologies and telecommunications.
5. Development of strategic and information technologies
The first thing that catches your eye in this list is the unsystematic nature of good wishes. It is completely unclear why these five of all the directions are chosen as priorities and why they are listed in the order of the logical connection between them and the sequence in their implementation. Manilov's tirades about how "modern high-speed optical highways will be laid on our territory, high-performance equipment will be installed, and the potential of the already built lines will be fully used, there are also a lot of them. This will ensure the exchange of increasing flows of information both between Russian regions and between different countries" and that "Russia should fully involve the potential of supercomputers, supercomputer systems that are united by high-speed data transmission channels". Undoubtedly, a special flavor to listen to the presidential arguments about supercomputer systems and high-speed optical highways gave Russian citizens the opportunity to simultaneously enjoy the feeling of pleasant coolness due to the shutdown of heating and hot water in city apartments. And also a clear demonstration of modernization in the form of vain attempts by local city services to patch the trishkin kaftan of the rotting and disintegrating housing and communal services. But these are still problems regarding the prosperous part of the country - large cities. It's hard to even imagine how mocking sarcasm the presidential projects for the inhabitants of dying villages and depressed cities with industrial production destroyed to the ground sounded. Truly, the most appropriate association caused by the presidential message was Ostap Bender's speech in the chess section with a promise to turn the village of Vasyuki into the capital of the universe.
However, not all the presidential speech consisted of Manila projects alone, ritual optimistic phrases and idle promises. Some fragments of the message contain some hints about the real plans of the ruling regime. There were at least six such semantic moments in Medvedev's speech.
1. In the field of economy, Medvedev outlined a further course for privatization and reduction of the public sector. Let's give the relevant fragments from his message: "As part of the implementation of the overall strategy, we must take several systematic steps. I'll name them now, too. First, we must modernize the public sector. Its share does not fall below 40 percent, and during the crisis, the role of the state in the economy naturally increased again. And, of course, this trend is observed all over the world, but from the point of view of long-term prospects, there is nothing good in this. <... > I instruct the Government to prepare solutions to optimize the volume and effectiveness of state participation in the activities of commercial organizations. We are also talking about the fate of a number of assets that have the status of strategic today. Until 2012, it is necessary to complete the relevant program, reaching the optimal (for the near future, because nothing is eternal) parameters of the public sector. <... > However, it is also pointless to keep a huge amount of property without the prospect of its modernization. As for state-owned corporations. I consider this form in modern conditions to be generally unpromising. Corporations that have a time frame of work determined by law must be liquidated upon completion of their activities, and those that work in a commercial, competitive environment must be transformed into state-controlled joint-stock companies over time. In the future, they will either remain in the public sector, where we need it, or will be sold to private investors."
In translation from the streamlined language of political declarations, all these tirades boil down to the following: the policy of destroying the public sector of the economy and transferring the means of production created by national labor into the hands of private owners will be continued. Moreover, bought out at the expense of the budget (that is, at the expense of the people!) during the crisis, enterprises will be re-reprivated.
2. Regarding the taxation system, Medvedev announces plans to further reduce the tax burden. "We have repeatedly, many times said that the procedure for making investments should become no less comfortable in Russia than in our competitors <... > It is obvious in general that our tax system needs improvement. Discussions about what taxes and at what rates should be charged in our country are not closed. The crisis, of course, made it difficult to make decisions to reduce the tax burden. But we will have to return to these issues in the near future, and we will definitely do it."
As you know, in the Russian Federation the level of taxes is already one of the lowest in the world, there is no progressive taxation system adopted both in the USSR and in all civilized capitalist countries. Further "reduction of the tax burden" promised by Medvedev means a further reduction in social spending, since social spending is financed by taxes on the profits of capitalists. In other words, translated from the ornate Aesopian language adopted in politics, Medvedev promised further social stratification, an increase in the level of wealth of the rich and poverty of the poor, a further step in the implementation of the cannibalistic policy of liberals based on social-Darwinist logic.
3. Medvedev promised to continue reforming the school. Among the general words and promises to do everything "better" it is not easy to catch in which direction it is planned to reform education. However, some phrases, well camouflaged by a bravura verbal shell, allow you to get an idea of the true plans of the ruling regime. "The main task of a modern school is to reveal the abilities of each student, to educate a person ready to live in a high-tech, competitive world." That is, the main task of the school is seen as the education of a personality focused on competition and adjustment to the requirements of the technosphere. "The single state exam should remain the main, but not the only way to check the quality of education." That is, the replacement of the substantive knowledge test with the test for memorization of details will continue and deepen. "The third thing we have to do is to expand the independence of schools, both in determining individual educational programs and in spending funds." That is, the single educational standard will continue to be destroyed. "Fourth. We will legislate the equality of public and private general education institutions and provide families with more opportunities to choose a school, and students with access to the lessons of the best teachers using distance and additional education technologies."
The analysis of these statements gives an idea of the direction of the planned reform of school education. First, the stated promise to "consolidate the equality of public and private general education institutions" indicates plans to further expand the private sector in education - that is, to increase the share of paid education. Secondly, it is planned to destroy the single standard of education and the freedom of competition for educational programs. That is, the educational system will be based on market principles of supply and demand. It is easy to understand that in combination with the consolidation of the "equality" of private (paid) schools, this means nothing more than the formation of DIFFERENT educational standards for children of rich and poor parents. Hence, the phrase that the main task of the school is to form a person ready to live in a competitive world becomes quite understandable.
4. Special attention to charitable activities and non-profit organizations suggests the state's desire to fully and finally shift social responsibility from itself to private charitable structures. To leave behind only the non-binding right to "create favorable conditions" for the activities of these organizations.
5. A number of positions are related to the planned reform of the power system. "We must continue to work together to improve the quality of popular representation and create additional conditions for free, fair and civilized competition between parties. Already this year, the parliamentary majority supported a number of my legislative initiatives aimed at solving such problems. The so-called "barrier" of the passage of parties to the State Duma was actually reduced to 5 percent. Parties received the right to nominate candidates for the positions of heads of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as guarantees of equal coverage of their activities in the state media. <... > All parties represented in regional parliaments will be able to form factions. Everyone should be guaranteed that their representatives will be replaced by deputy vacancies for permanent work and in leadership positions. <... > Where it has not yet been established, parties for which more than 5 percent of voters voted in regional elections should receive guarantees of representation in the legislative body of the subject of the Federation. <... > Parties not represented in the State Duma, but having factions in the legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the Federation, should be exempted from collecting signatures for participation in regional elections in the relevant regions. The same principle can be established for municipal elections. And one more thing. I think that in the future we should completely abandon the collection of signatures as a method of admitting the party to the elections. <... > It would be useful for the legislature at all levels to devote at least one meeting per year to hearing and discussing reports and proposals of parties not represented in the legislative bodies. Non-parliamentary parties also need to guarantee the possibility of permanent participation in the work of the Central and regional election commissions".
As we can see, Medvedev's plans for "democratic transformations" are diametrically opposed to Putin's entire policy during his presidency. That is, Medvedev begins to deconstruct the notorious "vertical of power" and begins a return (at least partially) from Putin's political model to Yeltsin's. Obviously, there is a double intention of Medvedev - on the one hand, to weaken the rigid structure of state power (probably due to plans for further integration into the "world community"), and, on the other hand, to return to politics the parties of liberals pushed to the sidelines - "Right Cause" (former "Union of Right Forces") and "Yabloko", since it is for these parties that the difference between 7% and 5% threshold of passage to the Duma is significant.
6. Finally, the passage of the Message related to the plans for the further development of the "E-Government" program draws attention. "In the pilot mode, the introduction of social cards of citizens will begin, providing public services and facilitating participation in medical and social insurance programs. In the future, it is possible to combine them with electronic cards that provide access to banking products, including both mandatory and voluntary payments by citizens. <... > In one of the responses I received to a well-known article <...>, it is indicated that the introduction of such technologies, in particular the so-called e-government, will significantly reduce problems with corruption, will allow you to get rid of standing in queues, from wasting money and time".
It has been written many times and many that the introduction of electronic documents, their subsequent combination up to the information of a single electronic identifier combining the functions of a passport, bank, social and medical card, driver's license, etc. - is part of the program for total electronic control and destruction of basic rights and freedoms of the individual. Moreover, this program is not Russian, but global, and is actually a step in building a world dictatorship.
As we can see, the semantic elements of the presidential address clearly and unambiguously indicate the continuation and radicalization of the liberal-globalist course, that is, the course for further expansion - up to the complete absolutization - of market relations in all spheres of life and the elimination of the last remnants of non-market, social relations in nature.
Conservatism in the world of globalism
We have repeatedly written that the internal logic of capital development, associated with its concentration, monopolization, expansion and merger of the markets of raw materials, labor and sales of goods, naturally led to the formation of globalism and world capitalcracy. Within this system, national borders and national limitations have become an obstacle both in terms of the logic of profit maximization and in terms of financially mediated global capitalcratic power. There is a rapid process of decomposition of nation states and appropriation of their functions by extraterritorial centers of force and power represented by world banking houses, transnational corporations, private mercenary armies, etc. This process is "objective" within the framework of capitalist market relations, and any development of capitalist market relations inevitably pushes on the path of globalism and rejection of national state sovereignty. Preservation of national identity and state sovereignty is possible only by going beyond capitalist relations, beyond the laws of the market, beyond the logic of profit as the goal of the production process. That is, only through socialist transformations and on the basis of a planned economy, designed not for profit, but for meeting the physical and spiritual needs of all members of society, national communities.
As we can see, President Medvedev's last Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of November 12, 2009 marks the continuation of the neoliberal fundamentalist-market course. And this inevitably means further loss of state sovereignty, national independence and national identity of Russia, its further transformation into one of the administrative zones in the system of global world capitalcratic management. It should be noted that within the framework of the economic logic of the world market, Russia is doomed to the role of a raw material region with a population of 15 to 50 million people. The rest of the population is recognized as economically unjustified and subject to targeted reduction (genocide). The plans for food security, the restoration of industry, and, moreover, the development of high technologies are thus put a fat cross. The school is turning into a simple means of social segregation on the basis of property.
Returning to the XI Congress of United Russia, it is worth paying attention to the statement of the Deputy Secretary of the Presidium of the General Council of the Party for International Politics and Interparty Relations, Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Konstantin Kosachev, which he made, opening the work of the International Scientific and Practical Forum "Social Responsibility of Parties in a Period of Crisis": "I am sure that the topic of the forum will cause a lot of responses for quite obvious reasons. Each of our countries is facing a crisis, and the way out of it is possible only by cross-border. Obviously, protectionism is destructive for the world economy and citizens of our countries," he said.
What, in fact, had to be proved: the global financial and economic crisis (caused, undoubtedly artificially) serves as a reason for the removal of protectionist barriers, that is, economic sovereignty and subjectivity of nation states. According to the globalizers' plan, nation states should be replaced by supranational structures of world governance in the spirit of the world police. As we can see, "United Russia" and the "party of power" as a whole are actively and quite consciously involved in the implementation of this project.
The second point that should be noted in this regard is that within the framework of the world capitalocracy, financial units (including banknotes) are a universal means of governance, since they are imposed on humanity as a single universal equivalent of value and value, and, at the same time, the right and possibility to issue them are monopolistically concentrated in the hands of a narrow banking oligarchy. The most important point for understanding in this regard is that the monopoly and absoluteness of the power of the transnational world oligarchy are determined by the monopoly and universality of the banknotes it issues as an equivalent of value. Accordingly, the task of the world oligarchy and its regional branches (including the ruling regime in the Russian Federation) is the complete commercialization of all spheres of human life - culture, science, art, education, medicine, interpersonal relations (including family), etc. All norms and values of culture, which fundamentally do not fit into the market commercial format, by their very existence limit the capitalcratic power, make it incomplete and relative. That is why from the point of view of the world oligarchy, they are absolute evil and are subject to destruction by any means and means. Hence the purposeful policy aimed at destroying national cultures, traditional social institutions, norms of human relations, replacing them with unified commercial consumption standards.
Conservatism implies preservation and saving. But, as you can see, the subject of the newly invented "Russian conservatism" of "United Russia" is not the spiritual and cultural values of Russian civilization, not traditional for Russia forms of social organization and interpersonal relations, not the level of education, development of science and industry achieved in the historical development of first Tsarist and then by Soviet Russia, not the health of the Russian nation and not its national and cultural identity, not the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of the Russian state. The only subject of "Russian conservatism" in the United Russian understanding of this "ideology" is the preservation and legalization of national property looted in the era of Yeltsin's lawlessness and the preservation of its position as the ruling political elite.
Yes, in a sense it's also conservatism. But it should be defined as "skin conservatism" or as "criminal-thief conservatism" (according to the principle: "you give stability, what you have looted - now mine, and more - no revolutions and redistributions of property"). It is unlikely that such conservatism of United Russia can have anything in common with the conservatism of European intellectuals in the spirit of Alain de Benois or American patriots in the spirit of Patrick Bukinan. If we talk about conservatism in the positive sense of the word - that is, about the priority of preserving traditions, spiritual values, culture, social ties, national identity - then the only political party today expressing such a position is the CPRF. As noted by the Leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G.A. Zyuganov at a seminar-meeting of a party asset of the North-Western Federal District held recently in Pskov: "Only the CPRF constantly broadcasts a key idea to society: without Russian spirituality, without our national culture, <...> without relying on thousand-year-old traditions, we will not be able to get out of the crisis mud in which they are trying to drown the country."