A video with an interesting initiative has appeared on the “Dobroum-TV” YouTube channel. Anyone who wishes can, downloading and printing a flyer, distribute it in the mailboxes of an apartment building, verifying this action with a video recording, and then send the resulting proofs via direct message to a specially created Telegram account, and receive a reward in Bitcoin at a price of approximately 10 rubles per flyer.
Of course, you won’t make much money from such work, because small-batch printing will eat up most of the reward. The feeling of moral satisfaction received is far more important.
Those who enjoy this activity can also have fun by pasting anarchist stickers. To do this, you need to contact a special Telegram bot, which ensures anonymous communication. You will be provided with stickers; all you have to do is complete the quest of creatively pasting them in various unexpected places.
Finally, you can also take your own initiative to decorate your city with various creative works, from graffiti to tombstones for Putin, or set up a fund to pay for such activities. The latter is especially convenient if you are physically outside Russian jurisdiction but do not agree to simply passively observe what is happening in your homeland. A government that legislatively prohibits showing disrespect toward it looks especially funny and ridiculous, so why deny yourself the pleasure of having some fun?
This is the main entrance; Roskomnadzor is blocking its own anus
Everyone, as usual, considers themselves a strategist when viewing the battle from the sidelines, but it seems to me that it is wrong to organize simultaneous actions in different cities. I mean, who will be closely following St. Petersburg today when there is Moscow? On the other hand, imagine how cool it would be if every day one large, awesome, well-prepared action took place in a new city! Let the actions be different in style, in format; let people try to outdo one another. Let them say: well, in St. Petersburg it was okay, but then in Krasnodar it was absolutely mind-blowing! Meanwhile, people in each specific city, by the time it is their turn again, will have had time to rest, save money, gather enthusiasm, see others’ creative ideas, and come up with their own.
Thus, by shifting the focus from place to place, one could set up a truly indefinite nationwide public campaign, rather than another “shouted and dispersed” event.
It’s starting to feel a bit cramped within the Telegram channel. I’ve been thinking about a video blog for a long time, but it hasn’t worked out yet. However, the guys from the Libertarian Band channel have taken it upon themselves to voice a couple of my posts on indefinite protest. You can check out how it turned out.
The main problem with this type of campaign is that it usually doesn’t articulate what goal is intended to be achieved, what means should be used, what means must under no circumstances be used, and how the available means can be used to achieve the stated goal.
What follows are purely theoretical reflections on what kind of long-term campaign could be effective.
Several goals of different scales are set, the implementation of which is possible simultaneously or quite quickly. For example, the goal “resignation of the government” passes the criterion, while “abolishing corruption in Russia” does not. The simplest and most achievable goal is published, and it is announced that its achievement is the condition for ending the campaign. If the goal is not achieved, but the campaign has gained sufficient momentum in the opinion of the organizers, the next goal is published; thus, as the number of participants in the campaign grows, the stakes are raised, and this increases the probability that after some time the authorities will agree to fulfill a demand that was stated among the first, even though the protesters’ demands have since moved far forward.
The means that will be used by the protesters and the means that will not be used are determined. For example, it is stated that roads will be blocked, entrances to government institutions will be blocked, government request-reception services will be DDoS-ed, leaflets will be pasted, graffiti will be drawn, and other non-violent actions relatively safe for those performing them will be carried out. It is also stipulated that protest participants will avoid at all costs: direct clashes with the police, destruction of private property, and violence against citizens. If someone practices such things, they are a provocateur and have nothing to do with the protest; we will not hand them over to the police, of course, but we will try to discourage them.
An open invitation is published for those wishing to join the protest in other cities—with their own goals, but with a commonality of methods. Thus, in one city, one can start with demands for the immediate termination of administrative cases regarding the September 9 rally, while in another, one can immediately demand that United Russia deputies officially representing that region in the Duma vote against the pension reform bill in the second reading. It is important that in each city, the demand relates specifically to things that can be done in that particular city. Even if a deputy lives in France but was elected from here—demanding a press conference in the district from which he was elected, with a promise to vote against the reform, is a completely feasible thing for the residents of that city.
Unlike rallies, in such campaigns there is no point in complying with government requirements regarding de-anonymization—on the contrary, any means of disguise are quite appropriate, as long as they do not hinder escaping from the police. It is important for every participant in such campaigns to be able to join at any moment and leave at any moment without risking anything. The whole point of such methods is to bear minimal costs themselves, but force the state to bear disproportionately larger costs.
But, besides those who will disrupt state activities on the streets, respectable politicians are also needed who, without personally making any hint of anything illegal, will publicly grumble: look, this is what you’ve brought these miserable people to; you’re lucky their protest is completely peaceful, don’t push them to sin, make concessions, and then the people will calm down, do you really want it to be like in Ukraine? The work of such people is also extremely important; there is no need to label them as collaborators and the like—they help the authorities find a justification for themselves to make an unusual effort and bend to society.
And after the success of the campaign, it would not hurt to loudly announce the victory, enter a memorable date into the annals, and celebrate it regularly, with a clear message: we can do it again.
Today you have given me a day off again, so I will reflect a bit on the indefinite protest that was announced by the participants of the rallies on September 9 in Moscow, and then in several other cities.
What surprises the protesters most is that all opposition organizations are shyly avoiding it; not only do they fail to join, but they prefer not to mention it at all, and in some places, they even ban mentions of it on their resources. How can this be? I will try to figure it out.
This indefinite protest is not the first, and all previous ones ended ingloriously. There was the Occupy Abay, there was the siege of the Christmas tree ornament in New Year’s Moscow, there was Manezhka in October of last year. Each time, the police dispersed these indefinite actions without much effort as soon as they felt their time had come. Therefore, the leaders of the organized non-systemic opposition, who themselves actively participated in previous actions in their time, are now in no hurry to repeat this disgrace and are discouraging others.
In other words, the general opinion today is that a protest action should be populous rather than prolonged, and space over time does not convert. It would seem that populous actions also do not lead to the government resigning or canceling its unpopular decisions, so on what basis should rallies be more preferable than occupations? I can perhaps name two arguments.
After rallies, more young blood flows into the organized non-systemic protest than after occupations — simply by virtue of that very populousness.
Rallies provide a more vivid picture, and therefore garner more views, which again helps them ensure a greater public resonance.
Thus, at the stage of accumulating strength, rallies are a more effective means of maintaining morale and replenishing the ranks, while at the stage immediately preceding the fall of a regime, rallies are certainly insufficient — this stage is precisely accompanied in the modern practice of peaceful revolutions by multi-day protests.
At the same time, one can never know for sure in advance whether the time has come for an occupation, or whether it is more profitable for now to keep a low profile and only occasionally remind people of one’s existence through rallies. For the start of the Maidan, one small, harshly dispersed rally was enough. In Yerevan, the indefinite protest began immediately, without any rallies; it was initially very small but continued to grow until the change of the prime minister. So, it can turn out in different ways.
That is exactly why one should not discourage people from participating in any peaceful protest, even if you are sure that right now, and in exactly this form, it is a complete profanation. What if it turns out that you were wrong, and the time has actually come.
It is far more important to constantly consider for yourself how the existing protest could be supplemented to make it more effective. This supplement does not have to be expressed in joining the action, as one can work on other fronts, as long as the desired result becomes closer.
Well, I will talk about that next time, provided, of course, that you don’t pelt me right now with questions on other topics.
