On the "dark side" of Russian liberalism

One of the main mysteries for the Western world is why liberal ideas do not take root in Russia at all. Domestic liberals that in policythat in life, they do not understand why they cause such rejection among the majority of their compatriots. This can be clearly seen in the discussions on the Internet, where each of the parties demonstrates the complete irreconcilability of positions. This topic is very complex and controversial, therefore we do not pretend to be the ultimate truth. However, we will abandon our "five cents".

Let's start, as usual, with the generally accepted definition:




“Freedom is better than lack of freedom,” Dmitry Medvedev said. The whales on which modern liberalism stands are:

1) Guarantees for ensuring natural human rights and freedoms, including the right to life, liberty and security of person,

2) Equality of all citizens before the law,

3) Free market economy,

4) "Transparency", regular turnover and responsibility of the authorities,

5), etc.

It would seem, what can be generally bad in liberalism? Liberalism is after all the striving of the individual for true freedom of the spirit from oppression imposed by the state, traditions or religion. Who would voluntarily refuse such a thing, especially when compared with a “bloody scoop”, right?

Or is it wrong? Is it possible that behind these fine-minded ideas there is an unsightly underside, about which the more "fumbled" liberals prefer to delicately keep quiet?

For example, regarding the free market. On the one hand, “freedom is better than lack of freedom,” we remember. If you want, open your own small business, get up early, work hard and become a billionaire on the Forbes list, who's stopping you. On the other hand, it is somehow ignored that there are already other players on the market who will simply “devour” you when they deem it necessary.

Let's talk, say, about aircraft construction. The world market is dominated by a duopoly of monstrous multinational corporations. It would seem that there is something wrong with that: just take and create a competitive aircraft and offer a good price for it, and then Boeing and Airbus will move on their own, will not go anywhere. Or they will not move, and instead, through the structures under their control, the WTO will adopt new environmental standards that will make it impossible to operate the aircraft engines already available to competitors. At the same time, according to other WTO rules, manufacturers (Russian) will be prohibited from providing state aid: themselves, all by ourselves, we have a free market. And even if by some miracle a good competitive aircraft with modern engines is created, it will be pecked with sanctions, like our MS-21, and as a result, it will be banned under various pretexts from entering the American and European markets. Themselves "Boeing" and "Airbus" will continue to sit on hidden government subsidies. They can, others cannot. The market decides.

The same can be extrapolated to any other industry. Economic liberalism, to call a spade a spade, is good only for the "metropolises" where transnational corporations are based. In the "colonies" liberalism always means the consolidation of their economically subordinate status. The bottom line is that the domestic liberals in power, implementing such ideas, are direct accomplices of large Western capital.

Let's say a few words about the individual's right to freedom and self-expression. “Freedom is better than non-freedom,” right?

True, but only if it is not overused. For example, having arrived in a foreign country, do not forbid local residents to celebrate their Christian holidays, and do not force women to wear a burqa. Do not engage in open propaganda of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages by organizing vulgar gay pride parades. Do not substitute the asexual terms "parent-1" and "parent-2" for the father and mother in family relations. Do not call women "menstruating", etc.

But, perhaps, even more dangerous are the liberal ideas of the so-called "political freedom", which are being imposed on us by our domestic ultra-liberals. Recently, this "gang" undertook to discuss what kind of federation we need, and whether we need it at all. For clarity, I would like to cite a few quotes from the portal "Foundation of Liberal Missions".

Daniil Kotsyubinsky, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, St. Petersburg University:


Oleg Savvin, civil activist, researcher of the history and nature of East Prussia, Kaliningrad:


Vadim Shtepa, editor-in-chief of INACHE magazine, Petrozavodsk:




After that, Mr. Shtepa completely opened up and said that the Russian Federation would be optimally divided into 60 regions, which would cooperate with each other, like the former parts of the British Empire.

And what? "Liberal". Presumably, in these 60 newly independent states, local oligarchs will have all power, who will rule the parliaments through their "pocket" political parties. Moreover, all these regional "bosses" will answer to their senior colleagues from the West, but how else (see "free market")?

The main Russian "political emigrant" Mikhail Khodorkovsky echoes them:


It is not enough for us to disintegrate the USSR into the CIS and conflicts with Georgia and Ukraine, so now the Russian Federation must be finished off under a plausible pretext, right, gentlemen, liberals? Thanks but no. And you are still wondering why the Soviet people hate you?