Boris Kagarlitsky: “When a school becomes especially stupid, it simply becomes a generator of protest. Boris Kagarlitsky - biography and books How the defeat of the education system gave Navalny's trump cards

The son of the famous literary critic and theater critic Yu. I. Kagarlitsky.
He was a student at GITIS, where his father was a professor. He was engaged in reading literature banned in the USSR. In 1980 he was interrogated by the KGB and expelled from GITIS. He worked as a postman. In April 1982 he was arrested and spent a little over a year in Lefortovo prison on charges of anti-Soviet propaganda. For the sake of his release, he laid about a hundred students of GITIS, including those generally not involved in his anti-Soviet "pranks". He especially distinguished himself at the trial of his former friend Mikhail Rivkin, testifying against him, which formed the basis of the sentence to M. Rivkin (9 years in the camps). To whitewash himself in the eyes of the people slandered and stipulated by him, B. Kagarlitsky later composed a slanderous tale about the fact that it was not he who knocked, but they knocked on him, accusing two classmates from a completely different course - A. Faradzhev and A. Karaulova. In choosing the names of the victims of his slander, B. Kagarlitsky was coldly calculating, he was guided by the fact that at that time, of all the victims of his denunciations and slander, the names of A. Faradzhev and A. Karaulov were especially well known. A. Karaulov by that time had become a well-known public and media journalist, and A. Faradzhev's name was on the posters of the brightest theatrical performances of those years, that is, it was also public. But Kagarlitsky's lies were exposed both by direct participants and witnesses of those events, for example, by M. Rivkin, who was released, and by well-known dissidents and human rights activists who had access to the KGB archives. It turned out that A. Faradzhev and A. Karaulov could not "denounce" Kagarlitsky in any way, because, among dozens of other students, they were interrogated after his arrest, when he was in Lefortovo prison and, having made a deal with the investigation and with his conscience, for the sake of his own release, he wrote a letter of repentance to the KGB and dozens of denunciations, including those against A. Faradzhev and A. Karaulov. On the basis of these denunciations by B. Kagarlitsky A. Karaulov and A. Faradzhev were questioned.
Caught on slander and lies, the informer and provocateur B. Kagarlitsky, who betrayed his friends, slandered dozens of innocent students of GITIS and the Institute of Culture, tried to dodge and play around. But, pinned to the wall, at the risk of being prosecuted for libel, Kagarlitsky was forced to "clean up" his false autobiography on the Internet. He deleted A. Faradzhev from those who allegedly "reported" on him, and softened the role of A. Karaulov in the history of his arrest. True, without specifying that in fact it was not they who reported about him, but he about them. A. Faradzhev and A. Karaulov became victims of the denunciation of Boris Kagarlitsky. However, these "edits" did not in any way affect the very dubious reputation of B. Kagarlitsky, who was remembered by the GITIS students not for his talented articles about the theater, but for his groundless fanaticism, for his baseless arrogance. And, of course, dozens of denunciations.

KAGARLITSKY BORIS YULIEVICH

Biography and books

1975-80 studied at the State Institute of Theater Arts. AV Lunacharsky (GITIS) with a degree in sociology of culture. He defended his diploma in 1988, Candidate of Political Science (1995).

In 1980, he was expelled from the candidates for membership in the CPSU and from the institute (with the wording "for antisocial activity"; the formal reason for the exclusion was the penitential letter from Andrei Karaulov, written by him after a conversation with the KGB, in which Karaulov admitted that he had received anti-Soviet leaflets from Kagarlitsky) ...

In 1980-1982. worked as a postman, in 1983-1988. - a lifter.

In 1977-1982. was a member of an underground left-wing socialist circle in Moscow, which consisted mainly of young scientists - historians and sociologists.

He published an underground magazine "Left Turn" ("Socialism and the Future"), participated in the publication of the magazine "Variants".

In early April 1982, he was arrested in the case of the so-called "young socialists" (besides him, Pavel Kudyukin, Andrei Fadin, Yuri Khavkin, Vladimir Chernetsky and others, and later Mikhail Rivkin were arrested).

After a written promise not to engage in more anti-Soviet activities, he was released along with Kudyukin, Fadin and some others in April 1983. The decision to pardon before the trial was made by the Presidium of the USSR Armed Forces (headed by Yuri Andropov). In July of the same year, he acted as a witness at the trial of Mikhail Rivkin. Although at the trial Kagarlitsky stated that he did not consider Rivkin's contacts with him to fall under Article 70 of the Criminal Code, his testimony was used to convict Rivkin, who was sentenced to 7 years in camps and 5 years in exile.

In the fall of 1986, together with Grigory Pelman and Gleb Pavlovsky, he participated in the creation of the Club of Social Initiatives (CSI) - one of the first informal entities of the Perestroika period.

In 1987-88. - One of the leaders of the Federation of Socialist Public Clubs (FSOK).

In 1989-1991. - Columnist for the IMA-press agency.

In 1988-1989. one of the leaders of the Moscow Popular Front (MNF), a member of the MNF Coordination Council.

In the summer of 1989, he was one of the initiators of the creation of the Moscow Committee of New Socialists (MKNS) - from among the consistent socialists in the MNF.

In 1990-93. - Deputy of the Moscow City Council, member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party, one of the leaders of the Labor Party (1991-94).

Since the spring of 1992 - a columnist for the newspaper of trade unions "Solidarity", since March 1993 he worked as an expert for the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR).

After the actual cessation in 1995 of the activities of the Labor Party, he is mainly engaged in political journalism.

He worked as a senior researcher at the Institute for Comparative Political Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPRAN - formerly the Institute of the International Labor Movement) (1994-2002).

In November 2001, he became one of the initiators of the anti-globalization movement "The world is not a commodity!"

Since April 2005 - member of the Editorial Board of Pravda.info.

In summer-autumn 2005 - one of the organizers of the "Left Front" (LF), on October 10, 2005 he was elected a member of the Moscow City Committee of the LF.

Since December 2005 - Chairman of the Strategic Council of the Controllingarchic Front of Russia (KOFR).

Since 2007 - Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements, chairman of the editorial board of the journal "Left Politics".

For the book "The Thinking Reed" published in London (on English language) in 1988 received the Deutscher Prize. 1990-1991 in London, his books Dialectics of Change and Farewell Perestroika (also published in Japanese and Turkish) were published in English, in Berlin (in German) - the book "Square Wheels (Chronicle of the Democratic Moscow City Council)". In 1992, he published in Moscow the book "The Broken Monolith" (based on a series of his publicistic articles from 1989-1991), which before the Russian edition was also published in English, German, Swedish and Finnish.

The author of such books as The Thinking Reed (in English) (London, 1988; Laureate of the Deutscher Memorial Prize (Great Britain)), The Dialectic of Hope (Paris, 1988), The Dialectic of Change (London, 1989), Farewell , perestroika! " (London, 1990, also published in Japanese and Turkish), in Berlin (in German) - the book “Square Wheels (Chronicle of the Democratic Mossovet)” (1991), “The Broken Monolith. Russia on the Eve of New Battles "(based on a series of his publicistic articles 1989-1991) (London, 1992; Moscow, 1992, also published in German, Swedish and Finnish)," Restoration in Russia "(Moscow, 2000), “Globalization and the Left” (M., 2002), “Uprising of the Middle Class” (Yekaterinburg, 2003), “Peripheral Empire. Russia and the World System ”(M., 2004),“ Marxism: Not Recommended for Teaching ”(M., 2005),“ Managed Democracy. Russia, which was imposed on us ”(Yekaterinburg, 2005),“ Political Science of the Revolution ”(Moscow, 2007).

Kagarlitsky is published in various Western left-wing magazines (New politics, the press of the Italian Socialist Party, etc.) ... In Russia, since 1991, he was published mainly in the newspapers Solidarity and Revolutionary Russia, as well as in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Svobodnaya Mysl "," Novaya Gazeta "," Computerre "," The Moscow Times ", the newspaper" Vek "and others. Now (2009) is published mainly in the newspaper" Vzglyad ", the magazines" Skepsis "and" Russian life ", and also on the websites of IGSO, "Eurasian House" and "Rabkor.ru". Since 2000 - fellow of the Transnational Institute (Amsterdam).

Date of publication on the site: 09/08/2008

In the summer of 1990, there was a scandal. An article entitled "Intellectuals against the intelligentsia" appeared in the May issue of the Gorizont magazine. The author of the article, Boris Kagarlitsky, encroached on the most sacred for Russian society- he doubted the abilities of the intelligentsia of his day to influence the development of events in Russia, which she did from time immemorial, i.e. her political impotence.

“Behind the outwardly visible crises (in literature, theater, cinema ...) Boris argued another deeper and more serious one is the crisis of the intelligentsia. to prison, spreading the "Gulag Archipelago", even if they did not agree with the ideas of the author, and others were so cruelly persecuted for this, as it turned out, not so terrible activity? Both of them believed in the power of the WORD. Both writers and those who persecuted writers , gagged them, believed that the WORD is omnipotent, it can in itself be dangerous. This traditional Russian and Eastern concept, alas, is being destroyed before our eyes. REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE, the traditional principle of the liberal culture of the West: you can say everything whatever you want, it won't change anything anyway. The writer no longer transforms the world. He only supplies goods to the book market. "

Born August 28, 1958 in Moscow. The son of the theater and literary critic Yuli Kagarlitsky.

1975-80 studied at the State Institute of Theatrical Art named after V.I. AV Lunacharsky (GITIS) with a degree in sociology of culture. He defended his diploma in 1988, Candidate of Political Science (1995).

In 1977-1982. was a member of an underground left-wing socialist circle in Moscow, which consisted mainly of young scientists - historians and sociologists.

He published an underground magazine "Left Turn" ("Socialism and the Future"), participated in the publication of the magazine "Variants".

In 1980-1982. worked as a postman, in 1983-1988. - a lifter.

In 1987-88. - One of the leaders of the Federation of Socialist Public Clubs (FSOK).

In 1989-1991. - Columnist for the IMA-press agency.

In 1988-1989. one of the leaders of the Moscow Popular Front (MNF), a member of the MNF Coordination Council.

In the summer of 1989, he was one of the initiators of the creation of the Moscow Committee of New Socialists (MKNS) - from among the consistent socialists in the MNF.

In 1990-93. - Deputy of the Moscow City Council, member of the executive committee of the Socialist Party, one of the leaders of the Labor Party (1991-94).

Since the spring of 1992 - a columnist for the newspaper of trade unions "Solidarity", since March 1993 he worked as an expert for the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR).

After the actual cessation in 1995 of the activities of the Labor Party, he is mainly engaged in political journalism.

He worked as a senior researcher at the Institute of Comparative Political Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISPRAN - formerly the Institute of the International Labor Movement).

In November 2001, he became one of the initiators of the anti-globalist movement “The World Is Not a Product!”.

Since April 2002 - Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems.

Since April 2005 - member of the Editorial Board of Pravda.info.

In summer-autumn 2005 - one of the organizers of the "Left Front" (LF), on October 10, 2005 he was elected a member of the Moscow City Committee of the LF.

Since December 2005 - Chairman of the Strategic Council of the Controllingarchic Front of Russia (KOFR).

In 1988 he received the Deutscher Prize for the book The Thinking Reed (in English) published in London. 1990-1991 in London, his books "Dialectics of Change" and "Farewell to Perestroika" (also published in Japanese and Turkish) were published in English, in Berlin (in German) - the book "Square Wheels (Chronicle of a Democratic Moscow City Council)". In 1992, he published in Moscow the book "The Broken Monolith" (based on a series of his publicistic articles from 1989-1991), which before the Russian edition was also published in English, German, Swedish and Finnish.

Soviet dissident and sociologist believes that education reform and the arrival of the Russian Orthodox Church in schools are partly to blame for the arrival of youth in the protest movement.

Last weekend a wave swept across Russia protest actions under the banner of the fight against corruption. What are true reasons discontent of the population? How did opposition leader Alexei Navalny lead the protest movement? And what are the options for the development of processes? A well-known political scientist, director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements Boris Kagarlitsky spoke about all this in the author's column of Realnoe Vremya.

"He said: 'We live badly because they steal.' This is absolutely not true. "

There are already a number of things that everyone saw and commented on... And I, too, noticed that the protest had grown sharply younger. A walk along Tverskaya Street gave very strong impressions in this sense. We saw how heaps of boys and girls, high school and freshmen, who had clearly not taken part in any political actions before and had nothing to do with the protests of 2011-2012, let alone earlier events, simply tumbled out of the metro.

The obvious question is: why did this happen and did it happen that way? In my opinion, there are certain circumstances to this, much more fundamental than they usually think. Everyone begins to say that the reason for the rejuvenating movement is the Internet, and the forms of campaigning with which Navalny works turned out to be more effective for the Internet generation, for young people who do not really watch TV and live in a slightly different information space. This is all true, but nothing more than tactical moments that have already influenced the shape of the event.

But there are also deeper circumstances. In our history, for the first time in several decades, not even since Russian revolution, and earlier, there was a generation that firmly understands that it will live worse than its parents. Moreover, it is a fundamental world process. Everyone who is involved in both the United States and Western Europe notes that social dynamics not only slowed down, but for the first time since the beginning of the 20th century went in the opposite direction. Of course, I'm talking about the average statistical process: anyway, someone will live better, someone worse. If earlier general system expectations assumed that children in any case will live no worse than their parents, but better, now she has received a reverse move. Even if it is not put into words, very often people feel emotionally, and some unpleasant sensation remains.

"Navalny just gave this generation a clear identification marker and object of claims." Photo by Maxim Platonov

It should be added that the relative success of Russia in early XXI centuries, reflected in the growth of consumption and some domestic comfort, this situation is more likely to exacerbate than mitigate. First, consumption is now declining. On the other hand, the improvement in the quality and quantitative growth of consumption in the previous 10 years partly compensated for the rather sharp decline in social opportunities for the population. In other words, children of unskilled workers used to become skilled workers, engineers or doctors. This means that they are climbing a step into a new social category. And at the beginning of the XXI century, a different situation turned out when they say: “Yes, your children will not rise to the next rung of the structural-professional, social hierarchy. They will not have more prestigious and more rewarding jobs, but they will still consume more than you consumed when you were young. And life will be more comfortable: new cafes will open, new gadgets, cheese varieties, etc. will appear, which you did not have ”. Then a crisis begins, and it turns out: not only will they not have these career, professional status prospects, but it will not matter with consumption, because it is becoming more and more difficult to buy an iPhone. A generation is emerging that is frustrated at the start.

Navalny in this sense simply gave this generation a clear identification marker and object of claims. When hopes are frustrated, you want to focus your grievances and resentments on someone or something. Navalny uttered a formula that is actually absolutely ridiculous from an economic point of view, but very convenient as a signal to start this process.

He said: "We live badly because they steal." This is completely untrue, but very convenient for launching a process of social mobilization against the alleged culprit. And the culprit turned out to be thieving officials. Although, in fact, these are nothing more than the culprits of the first row.

If you punish all the thieving officials, you will find that it has become no better, everything has remained exactly the same as it was, since the economic conditions have not changed one iota. But it will still be a progressive phenomenon. If you drive out all the thieving officials, and put honest officials in their place and find that nothing has changed, then you are already mobilized and organized, because you know that someone has been kicked out. Accordingly, you have a desire to move on, you begin to make more serious claims and think at the next level.

That is, a generational change took place against a certain social background.

"You can also add stupid lessons of patriotism, all kinds of propaganda at school, including priests and lessons in Orthodoxy, which, of course, can cause nothing but radical disgust, because children do not like school at all." Photo pravkamchatka.ru

How the defeat of the education system gave Navalny's trump cards

The second reason that gave rise to all this - educational reform, which, according to the authorities, should create a loyal, non-thinking, generation, but created a generation that is not thinking, but extremely easily amenable to protest provocation, and at the same time not very loyal. This loyalty is nothing to cling to. They think that if the population is not informed, cultured, well-read and will not have big amount knowledge to understand society, then it will perceive government propaganda and follow what the authorities say. But in fact, it happened exactly the opposite, because people do not perceive government propaganda, because they are getting worse, but at the same time they easily accept any anti-government propaganda because they think uncritically.

The government, with its social reforms and practically the destruction of the education system, created a protest base for Navalny. In other words, if young people were highly educated, humanitarian advanced, well-read, well-informed, their protest would have completely different forms, a different ideological orientation and, oddly enough, would be less radical, but deeper in content. A less educated person is more inclined to be radical. A more educated person looks at what the consequences can be, suddenly everything will turn out the way he does not want, what problems there may be. An educated person is more careful in his actions, therefore, he is not radical.

You can also add stupid lessons of patriotism, all kinds of propaganda at school, including priests and lessons in Orthodoxy, which, of course, can cause nothing but radical disgust, because children do not like school at all. And when a school becomes especially dull, it simply becomes a generator of protest.

We know what role Soviet social science played at the exit, what role official Orthodoxy played in tsarist Russia even earlier. A significant part of radical revolutionaries, and especially terrorists, was formed precisely by church schools and seminaries. We still do not know this well, because all the time we look at the Bolsheviks, among whom there were fewer terrorists, also because among them there were fewer people who were educated in seminaries and theological schools. And if you look at the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Narodnaya Volya and others, you can clearly see the connection between official Orthodoxy and the readiness to blow up tsars and priests. This environment forms people who are willing to kill the people they are supposed to love.

The education reform has clearly worked and will be even more effective, actively working for this radical protest.

“I don't know where it will break through, but it will definitely break through, since the material itself is already unusable, it will break through someday. But this situation is unpredictable. " Photo by Timur Rakhmatullin

The 2012 elections showed that Putin had quite a lot of support at that time.

The third component is that the development model is simply exhausted. I do not know where it will break through, but it will definitely break through, since the material itself is already unusable, it will break through someday. But this situation is unpredictable, including for yours truly. As the well-known proverb says, I would know where I will fall, I would lay the straws. And it makes no sense to lay straw anywhere here.

Therefore, a breakthrough happened here, which could have happened due to something else: it could have happened due to truckers, accidents at an aircraft plant - anything could have happened. But Navalny hit a weak point, after which all systemic things fell apart. Unlike the events of 2011-2012, the events technically began in the provinces, this time the time zones were triggered. In the 11th year, a riot began in Moscow, then a week later riots began in the provinces, and then died out. Now the situation is somewhat different. The events nevertheless began in the provinces, although the initiative came from Moscow. And Moscow has already left, knowing about serious performances in Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, Novosibirsk.

At the same time, it is impossible to hope for a repeat of the 2011-2012 situation in terms of government countermeasures, because two important circumstances have changed. The first is that in 2011-2012 it was about fair elections, which were not very clear - to whom and why. It was not clear whom to choose: there would be more honest elections, more honest calculations, and Zhirinovsky would receive one extra mandate - because of this, perhaps, would he leave?

In fact, everyone understood that the protest was against Putin. He is popular in society. And when it turned out that they were dealing with Putin, the authorities were able to mobilize the counter-movement for their rallies. And this movement was real, despite the fact that people were taken by buses, etc. The 2012 elections showed that Putin at that time had enough great support, and there was an asset of people who could carry out this support at the bottom.

"The entire development of the movement depends on how much Navalny and the company manage to keep their activists and ideologues from transferring all the discontent immediately to the first person." Photo by Maxim Platonov

"This does not mean that people will be for Navalny or against the authorities."

Now the situation is different, those people, structures that organized movements in defense of the authorities in 2012 are now removed or demoralized. Those social groups who supported her are also extremely unhappy during the crisis - social well-being has changed. Note that the same story with “ Uralvagonzavod”, Which was on the verge of stopping after 2014, is also very indicative. This does not mean that people will be for Navalny or against the government. But they have become less motivated, less convinced, and at best, their support for the authorities will be inertial. On this basis, it is very difficult to mobilize people.

At the same time, the Medvedev government and the prime minister himself are extremely unpopular. What is very important, it is unpopular not only among oppositionists and young people, they are unpopular with provincial and a significant part of federal officials. In this sense, the blow to Medvedev turned out to be a very successful tactical move by Navalny. Here he proved to be an extremely effective tactician who guessed that very weak point. The entire development of the movement depends on how Navalny and the company manage to keep their activists and ideologues from transferring all the discontent immediately to the first person.

Because then they have two ways to politicize the process. One way is if they can focus on Medvedev and it will all escalate beyond his resignation and reformatting the government. This slogan will be clearly supported by the vast majority of the country's population. And if they refrain from aggressive attacks on the country's leader, they will rather quickly put the president in a dilemma: either he will have to dismiss the government and allow some process of change, or he will have to stick to Medvedev to the last.

There is a third option, that Putin will simply lead this movement himself. It would be the strongest move if Putin pushed Navalny aside and became Navalny himself. Let's see what scenario everything will develop.

Editorial opinion may not reflect the views of the author

Boris Kagarlitsky

reference

Boris Yulievich Kagarlitsky- Russian political scientist, sociologist, publicist (leftist views), candidate of political sciences. Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (Moscow). Chief editor of the journal Rabkor.ru. Soviet dissident.

Born in 1958 in Moscow in the family of the literary and theater critic Yuli Kagarlitsky (professor at GITIS).
Studied at GITIS.
Since 1977 he has been a leftist dissident. Took part in the publication of the samizdat magazines "Variants", "Left Turn" ("Socialism and the Future").
In 1979 he became a candidate for membership in the CPSU.
In 1980, after passing the state exam perfectly, he was interrogated by the KGB on a denunciation and was expelled from GITIS and candidates for membership in the party "for antisocial activities." He worked as a postman.
In April 1982, he was arrested in the Young Socialists' case and spent 13 months in Lefortovo prison on charges of anti-Soviet propaganda. In April 1983 he was pardoned and released.
From 1983 to 1988 he worked as an elevator operator, wrote books and articles published in the West, and with the beginning of perestroika - in the USSR.
In 1988 he was reinstated in GITIS and graduated from it.
The Thinking Reed, published in English in London, won the Deutscher Memorial Prize in the UK.
From 1989 to 1991 - columnist for the IMA-press agency.
In 1992-1994, he worked as a columnist for the Solidarity newspaper of the Moscow Federation of Trade Unions.
From March 1993 to 1994 - an expert of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia.
From 1994 to 2002 - Senior Researcher at the Institute of Comparative Political Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISP RAS), where he defended his Ph.D. thesis.
In April 2002, he became director of the Institute for Globalization Problems, after its separation in 2006, he headed the Institute for Globalization and Social Movements (IGSO).
Chairman of the editorial board of the journal "Left Politics". At the same time, he was active in journalism in a number of publications - The Moscow Times, Novaya Gazeta, Vek, Vzglyad.ru, and also lectured at universities in Russia and the United States.
Member of the scientific community of the Transnational Institute (TNI, Amsterdam) since 2000.
Author of a number of books, journalistic and scientific articles.

Did you like the article? Share it

Print article