Тег: Worlds

What ways exist to rehabilitate people in the eyes of the libertarian public in the case of a complicated background?

For example, what if there were some relationships with “United Russia” in the past, or if non-libertarian laws were promoted? In general, what do you advise such people to do? Is damaging those in power through compromising materials or lawsuits the only format? And what if those in power were not comrades of any sort, and there is no compromising material on hand? Perhaps reversing the adopted bad laws would also work? Maybe something else?

Sergey Sushinsky

This is a very complex topic if viewed through the prism of holistic constructs like the “libertarian public,” but it becomes much simpler if one does not deviate from the principle of methodological subjectivism. It is impossible to please the public as a whole; it is impossible to stain your reputation in the eyes of absolutely everyone, and to an equal extent. To some, Stalin is a bloody tyrant; to some, the father of nations; and to some, a weakling who failed to crush the hydra of counter-revolution.

There are very intolerant libertarians, at least in their public rhetoric. Judging by your mention of compromising materials on government representatives in your question, you clearly meant, among other things, “how to curry favor with Mikhail Svetov if you are Dmitry Gudkov.” You can’t. Svetov is just as biased as many others, and will similarly fit the arguments to his pre-existing opinion. This works both negatively and positively; any conditional Svetov will inevitably have a “inner circle” that is forgiven more than outsiders. This is normal, in the sense that it is determined by our biology.

From the outside, of course, one can indeed imagine horrors. If these guys are so strict with a person whose father voted for bad laws and who did not disown him, then what will they say about a person who personally lobbied for bad laws?

In fact, however, people are quite inclined to respect those who act in accordance with their convictions, and when those convictions change, those who honestly admit it and declare their new agenda, providing a justification for why it appeared.

You believed smoking was an evil and lobbied for anti-tobacco laws. Now you believe smoking is an evil, but you consider anti-tobacco laws an even greater evil. This is a perfectly natural evolution of thought, and you naturally seek arguments now against the lobbying of anti-tobacco laws. You collaborated with United Russia, realized that it was not only futile but harmful, and now you seek ways to shake its monopoly. This is a far more understandable, consistent, and respectable position than having no position at all, or simply claiming that no one can be trusted and there is no point in trying.

Take Vladimir Zolotorev, whom I have mentioned repeatedly: he used to be involved in public politics, and now he has not only cooled toward it but considers the pursuit harmful. I believe he is wrong, but given the difference in experience, I fully admit that I might be the one who is wrong. We have noted our disagreement, and I hope that for him this will not be a reason to “cut me out of the movement,” as especially intolerant people like to do. If you encounter such people, simply understand that using simple oppositions saves a great deal of mental effort, and do not force them to strain themselves where they don’t need to. On the other hand, they can use their thinking to the fullest where it is more justified for them, and division of labor is great, even if it is the division of brain labor between separate tasks.

I am not a neurobiologist, and it is difficult for me to say what this brain is busy with now, but in any case, that is its private business

Is it okay to punch someone in the face if they threw shit at you?

анонимный вопрос

As I understand it, you are only secondarily concerned with how a proper ancap should appropriately react to such a thing during an ancap (the correct answer: it’s not mandatory, provided you see an opportunity to hold the attacker accountable while maintaining greater dignity). More likely, you want to understand what a specific Svetov could have opposed against a specific attack in a specific Putinist Kazan.

And here, of course, it is important to have accompaniment. Since such symbolic actions, logically, may be recorded on video by the attackers’ accomplices, it is primarily important not to give them the opportunity to obtain footage that portrays the victim in an even more unflattering light, or worse, provides grounds for criminal charges. Therefore, the object of the attack must not chase anyone or attack anyone.

Meanwhile, a private individual who happens to be a witness to the attack by pure chance could well catch up to the attacker, detain them, and take a close-up photo; after that, it would be possible to sue them, as a photo is usually sufficient nowadays to establish identity through open sources. Of course, in Russia, and especially in sultanates like the one in Kazan, the investigation could easily fail to find the suspect, even if their full name, address, and phone number are handed to them on a silver platter, and the case would remain open against unidentified persons. After all, there has been no news regarding the investigation of the attack on Svetov in another sultanate—Kemerovo. But if people with authority were working there, then here the attackers are quite vulnerable. And (finally answering the direct question) after it turns out that it is impossible to legally hold them accountable, you can—and it is even highly desirable to—beat their faces. But this should not be done by Svetov, but by some unidentified persons who are in no way connected to the incident and simply learned about it from open sources. Well, what can you do; some people don’t like political activists, and some don’t like thugs.

without a vest(((

Ukraine as a trendsetter

Until now, this predominantly theoretical channel had only one post dedicated to the Ukrainian presidential elections, where I informed readers about the nomination of libertarian Gennady Balashov. But, as we all saw, a slightly different person won in the first round—Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the main character of the series “Servant of the People” about a populist’s journey from the people to the presidency.

If the world’s leading movie empire keeps even a slight eye on foreign election technologies, then I think a decision is already ripening in the depths of the Democratic Party to suggest that Kevin Spacey, the main character of the first five seasons of “House of Cards,” run in the primaries. Who, if not him, is capable of defeating Trump in 2020?

But those are overseas affairs, not very interesting. Meanwhile, here in Russia, and moreover, among Russian libertarians, we have our own professional screenwriter. How about filming a TV series “The New Federative Treaty” by 2024? I usually get lost in front of the camera, but here I’d even agree to an episodic role as “the girl with the sign.” I’ve already thought of the sign. It will feature Zalina Marshenkulova and the caption “Federation Pose: people on top.”

By the way, about the signs. The episode, of course, should be filmed at Lenin Square in Novosibirsk (the central square where almost no one is allowed except communists), and this is also an interesting technology that I haven’t heard of before. Imagine the announcements: “The filming crew of the series ‘The New Federative Treaty’ invites those wishing to appear as extras in the role of rally participants. Filming will take place then and there; the square accommodates up to 10,000 people. We cannot provide payment, but every participant will receive a souvenir badge. Please bring your own posters, flags, and other attributes.”

Switch from the Moscow bottle to the federalization of Siberia

The Achilles’ heel of territorial communities

Bitarch’s Column

Mikhail Svetov and many other libertarians often propose the model of territorial communities. These are, in essence, ordinary states (or federal subjects) with a territorial monopoly, but created “from scratch” by a group of settlers who share certain values.

Besides the obvious drawbacks of a state with a territorial monopoly, there is another very important problem in this model that, for some reason, is not publicized. The essence of it is that the values of the founding generation may not be passed down to descendants (this is practically guaranteed to happen, if not in the second generation, then in the fifth). Even when a small number of people in this community deviate from the founders’ values, the community government will have to take them into account, diluting the ideological integrity of the original project and turning the community into an ordinary modern state.

Don’t believe it will happen? Look at the history of the USA! There, too, the colonies were initially settled on religious and ideological principles. Modern states have preserved practically nothing of this, having turned into the same kind of centralized state that the colonists once fled from in Europe.

Ancap-chan’s Comment

Over time, any social associations—whether states, communities, enterprises, political parties, or interest clubs—either collapse or change beyond recognition, preserving at best their name. Transience in time can be called the Achilles’ heel of any entity existing in time, and territorial communities do not stand out from the general background. It is enough for the community’s founders that this community exists for some time and serves the interests of its members to a greater extent than the surrounding environment; and if in the future those born into this community find another environment more to their liking—well, so be it, and there is no reason to decide for the descendants, as they are surely not any stupider.

The community occupies a territory

Why did you sprawl on your knees before the communists, but spit in the soul of everyone who is a self-respecting Nietzschean and NS?

Is this some kind of flirting with the post-Soviet audience? You trash Nietzsche, yet your leader (one of them) — Mikhail Svetov — is essentially a Nietzschean. My father read this and declared that you are accomplices of the Rothschilds on Earth. Now I don’t know how to win him over to my side. And yes, your leader said that “libertarianism is an ideology without a cultural agenda.” But judging by your answers, there is a cultural agenda after all, and it is not very appealing to certain layers of society. You want Communists to have “Paradise on Earth,” therefore they are your allies. And my communist father is a wonderful person. So, everyone on the right goes into the trash, then? Why don’t you understand that we are your allies in the fight against Euro-Bolshevism and the cultural-Marxist tolerast oppression? Or are we just extremist psychos in your eyes, unworthy of life? Let me remind you: about 100 million people became victims of communism in the 20th century. And you’re groveling before them?

As it happens, I oppose quite a few of Mikhail Svetov’s theses, but there is one thesis that he formulated very precisely and concisely, and I have no complaints about it: “the end does not justify the means.” Communists will be allies exactly to the extent that they are willing to use correct means. It is the methods of the communists that are the subject of discussion, while they can set whatever goals they want — as long as voluntariness is respected, there are no complaints against them. They can even revere Stalin and Che Guevara for their visual images, and as long as they are not plotting mass repressions, let them smoke pipes or cigars for their health and grow mustaches of any lushness. They can even claim that the cruelty of these historical figures was forced because the times were such, but that is already a warning bell: if they dare to mention that times are hard now as well, and for the sake of class interests it would be worth deviating from the principles of justice, that is already a reason to put them in the crosshairs.

Similarly, I have no complaints about the ideas of national socialists to free themselves from the power of Jewish capital and develop national production and culture, as long as this is done on a voluntary basis. Do not buy finished products from Jews, but buy their businesses from them. If the majority of representatives of your nation adhere to this tactic, it will lead to the business becoming national, and no Kristallnacht will be required, let alone gas vans — you will be respectable fellows, honoring the interests of your group no worse than the notorious Jews. At the same time, you can voluntarily chip in for the benefit of low-income representatives of your nation to justify the proud name of socialists. You can joke about the Jews burned by Hitler if you aren’t disgusted yourselves, but if talk begins that it wouldn’t be bad to repeat it, that will be a reason to put you in the crosshairs as well.

Yes, and give my regards to your cat

The Best Anime Crossover of 2018

This was probably the most anticipated video of the year: Ekaterina Schulmann had promised to give Mikhail Svetov an interview back when I was just starting my channel; six months passed, and the recording finally came out.

The stature of the participants in the conversation is practically equal. Both are popular video bloggers (Mikhail has a couple of tens of thousands more subscribers on YouTube, Ekaterina has a more promoted Facebook). Both are popular public lecturers (Mikhail has visited more provincial towns, Ekaterina speaks more often and is more embraced by the media). Behind Ekaterina are scholarly articles, co-authorship of a textbook, and numerous press publications. Behind Mikhail are two sizable rallies. Ekaterina holds a teaching position and membership in the Human Rights Council. Mikhail holds a leadership position in a rapidly gaining popularity political party and has a ten-day stint in detention. Both are political scientists by education, which means, theoretically, they should, if not speak the same language, at least understand each other well. Finally, both have a loyal army of supporters.

It is clear that the conversation was not a direct clash, otherwise I simply wouldn’t have known what to do with myself or who to root for. On one hand, Mikhail is closer to me ideologically, although we have many disagreements. On the other, Ekaterina is my role model, and it is terribly difficult for me to analyze her words impartially. But these were not debates, but a respectful communication between political allies about various subtleties and nuances, so I could root for Ekaterina without a guilty conscience.

Mikhail prepared magnificently for the conversation and also demonstrated an ability to think at least as fast as Ekaterina speaks, so he managed to interject with instant remarks during the pauses in her speech (anyone who has listened to Schulmann can imagine how tightly packed the words are in her phrases).

The most interesting part began in the last fifteen minutes of the conversation, when they moved from a dialogue about interesting topics to a targeted discussion of disagreements. Here, Mikhail surprised me again. He managed to pierce the armor of his interlocutor’s unwavering optimism by painting a not-entirely-fantastical scenario of clashes between Caucasian ethnic groups in the middle of the RF capital. Then Ekaterina quite skillfully regained her lost advantage during the discussion of Svetov’s signature topic—lustration—which she considers equally unlikely and unhelpful, while seeing more realistic alternatives to it.

After the conversation, Mikhail summarized the interaction on his Twitter roughly like this: Ekaterina is very useful in her place, specifically because the near-Kremlin public listens to her. Moreover, it’s not that she can facilitate a soft liberalization from above, but that she lulls the authorities with her sweet speeches, and when the thunder of revolution strikes, it will come as a complete surprise to the regime. This moment was also quite unexpected for me—exactly when Mikhail turned from a singer of libertarianism into a fervent revolutionary. He really spent the entire conversation unsuccessfully trying to get Ekaterina to agree with the thesis that Russia is about to explode and there will be a bloodbath; he did not succeed (with the Chechen caveat), and as a result, concluded that fine, let the authorities listen to Schulmann, but you, my little friends, listen to Svetov, he knows how it should be.

What to do if a friend and ally promotes a policy of authoritarianism and political regulations?

Is this a reason not to interact with him in any way other than through formal tools, as Mikhail Svetov enjoined us? Even if it is a friend, even if he is against Putin?

Vasily

I am not such a purist in this regard. Before the Adam Smith readings, I published a selection of my favorite materials from there, and my first item was a report by Dmitry Butrin “Non-cooperative Games”, about how important it is not to make a squeamish face when mentioning minor tactical successes, about how the drive for complete and final dominance over all ideological rivals looms over all Russian politics, and how important it is to know how to build coalitions.

Of course, if you promote hatred of the nomenklatura, then for your reputation as a fervent lustrator, it is very important not to get tainted by any informal relationships, even with the liberal opposition, unless it has passed a strict check for ideological purity. But if you plan, for example, to run for deputy, the ability to negotiate, both formally and informally, will be invaluable. To know where to start dismantling the system in your own small area, you need to study how the system works in that area. For this purpose, it is quite acceptable not only to hang out at the birthday party of a liberal radio station, but even to go and work as an assistant to a Communist deputy.

If people are to be judged by their deeds, then they should be judged by their deeds. Having a drink with someone at a party is not a deed; it is leisure. I had a short romance with a guy from some paramilitary nationalist group—there are countless such groups, I didn’t even remember the name. We constantly argued about political topics, and he honestly stated that if they came to power, it would be at the cost of great bloodshed, and that we liberals would be hanged from lampposts immediately after the government was executed. Did this interfere with our relationship? No, not at all. Did it affect my views? Yes, it did; I came to better understand the worldview of these guys, their concept of justice and national pride. If a minarchist scenario is realized in Russia, the knowledge gained will allow me to avoid hanging them from lampposts, because these cats can be prepared in a different way.

Also, at his insistence, I struggled through B. H. Liddell Hart’s “Strategy of Indirect Approach” (hello to Belisarius from the previous post), but that is a slightly different story.

Sir Basil, as it were, says: Mikhail, do not go head-on

Lustration

Thanks to the activities of Mikhail Svetov, a topic as exotic for libertarian discourse as lustration has become an important component of the public rhetoric of Russian libertarians. Indeed, there is no other libertarian party in the world that pays such attention to this issue. Some advocate for the liberalization of the psychoactive substances market, others for the liberalization of the weapons market, some for tax cuts, and others are even forced to speak in favor of abolishing price regulations on essential goods, but no one demands the mass removal from power of officials of the current regime simply by virtue of holding their current position.

Arguments for lustration

  1. Lustrations are the gentlest way to remove those who have demonstrated their professional incompetence from power. If they were to be tried instead, it would be long, expensive, dirty, and crude; it would be better for them to accept that they will simply be pushed out of the area where they are incompetent and be given the freedom to engage in anything else.
  2. Without lustrations, nothing will work at all. Any number of wonderful laws can be passed, but functionaries of the former regime will sabotage the reforms, distort and discredit them, and this will lead to the liberal government, failing to achieve quick successes, losing public support. Therefore, lustrations are important specifically as a tool for rapid cleansing, in contrast to numerous individual proceedings, so as not to lose the pace of transformation.
  3. Post-Soviet countries that carried out decisive lustrations are now in a much better position than those that did not, and former Soviet leaders there have not returned to power.
  4. Lustrations are populism, and populism means votes in elections; there is no need to fear populism—on the contrary, one should fear remaining marginal.
  5. (point added based on the results of the discussion in the comments) A law on lustrations has a psychotherapeutic effect. Long existence under conditions of a de facto estate society requires compensation, and the restriction of rights of representatives of the old upper estate, thereby transferring them to a conditionally lower one, is a good bloodless recipe that allows people to feel like full-fledged citizens.

Arguments against lustrations

  1. Lustrations are a diversion of forces toward a negative agenda. Instead of implementing the new, a significant portion of those coming to power will be occupied with settling old scores; moreover, any delays in reforms will inevitably be justified by claiming that not enough people are being lustrated and that enemies are conducting sabotage.
  2. It is easy to say now that lustration is a gentle tool, but it is difficult to say how gentle it will prove to be in practice. Formally, a person is deprived of their position, the right to hold government office, and the right to run for representative bodies of power. In fact, they will also receive the stigma of being “lustrated,” and it is impossible to say in advance what other restrictions of rights this stigma will lead to. The freezing of accounts, for example. “Here is your quota of 300 dollars a month for withdrawal, and full unblocking only after the results of a commission’s work to ensure that there are no funds on the account obtained from criminal activity under the previous regime.” Even if such measures are not in Mikhail’s current rhetoric, who can guarantee that they won’t be proposed, for example, by employees of the Anti-Corruption Foundation?
  3. A law on lustrations hits broadly. If a new government is formed as a result of a split among elites, the members of the new government will be interested in formulating the clauses of the law so that they themselves do not fall under it. It will turn out as it did in Ukraine, where many functionaries of the previous regime did not fall under the law, while the scapegoats suffered.
  4. Mass restrictions of citizens’ rights will inevitably create a large group of the population that harbors resentment toward the reformers. The more mass the lustrations are (and Mikhail has not set clear criteria for the end of the process, and intends to lustrate until he is stopped), the larger the group of victims will be. Since the active voting right of the lustrated will remain, candidates promising to roll back reforms and return the “good old days” will receive broad support in the next elections.
  5. Lustrations were popular mainly in countries with a developed national consciousness against the backdrop of Soviet occupation. In the former metropole, this idea will meet fierce resistance because the current government is perceived as one’s own, not as colonial.

Alternative to lustrations

Instead of announcing the mass restriction of rights for officials, one could promote the mass reduction of positions. There is no point in lustrating Medinsky, Kolobkov, or Oreshkin; there is point in abolishing the ministries of culture, sports, and economic development. There is no point in lustrating Zolotov; there is point in abolishing the Rosgvardia. There is no point in purging the gubernatorial corps; there is point in taking away the powers of the regions in favor of municipalities. As for the positions that are decided to be kept, it is not so important to conduct personnel purges manually; it is much more important to improve democratic institutions so that unqualified functionaries simply leave peacefully in the next elections.

If after the mass privatization of state property it turns out that a considerable portion of it was bought up by former government officials? Well, that’s wonderful! If the money was obtained as a result of aggressive violence and specific victims are found, then this can be gradually investigated, a lawsuit filed, and compensation recovered, and whatever remains will belong to them indisputably. If no one makes claims, it means this money was obtained by them from official salaries, bribes for bypassing state regulations, and other relatively harmless ways, so let this money now work in the free market.

It seems to me that libertarians have far more relevant topics in their agenda, for example, the reduction of the state, and a far more effective tool than the mass restriction of people’s rights—for example, the market. So, discussing lustrations purely in an academic vein as one of the possible tools of social transformation—why not. But to obsess over this meme oneself means turning from a sect of witnesses of the market into a sect of witnesses of lustrations, and from there, the label of “dem-shiza” [democratic craziness] is not far off.

Freedom of speech and its limits

A call for murder, is that freedom of speech or not?
An insult, when I call someone “short” with the intention to “offend”…
1. …a person who is short,
2. … a person who is tall, is that freedom of speech?
If I engage in bullying using insults, is that freedom of speech?

Generally, is bullying a form of aggression? If one reads Svetov, for some reason he believes it is not.

анонимный вопрос

As usual, I will begin by briefly defining the terms. Aggression is the initiation of a conflict. Conflict is the presence of grievances. Aggressive violence is the initiation of a conflict through the use of violence. NAP is a legal principle according to which no one can be granted the right to unpunished aggressive violence. Freedom of speech is a legal principle according to which words do not constitute a violation of the NAP. Bullying is the public tearing apart of a tied-up animal by a pack of dogs (there are many other uses of the word “travlya,” but in the figurative sense when people “hunt” or bully other people, it refers specifically to this method of hunting/baiting). An insult is a manipulation intended to provoke the insulted person into escalating the conflict, preferably to the point of violating the NAP, in order to justify further, more serious sanctions against the insulted party.

If you agree with the proposed definitions, it should become quite obvious to you that the content of any words—be it slander, a call for murder, or even an order to commit murder—according to the principle of freedom of speech, does not violate the NAP. Nevertheless, words can easily be a form of aggression, albeit non-violent, since words can be used to initiate a conflict.

It is also easy to see that I have defined the concept of bullying vaguely, because it is not a legal term, but a purely polemical one. Nevertheless, it stems from the image of an amusement involving the tearing apart of an animal deprived of its freedom, and this is a fairly important point. As long as the object of your actions, carried out through verbal insults, can freely avoid the conflict simply by ending communication, I would not call it bullying—the factor of coercion is absent. In other words, I define bullying as systematic insults under conditions of coerced communication; that is, there is an element of aggressive violence in bullying, but not in the words, but specifically in the restriction of the freedom to leave the conflict zone.

Thus, verbal persecution in prison or in a conscript army is bullying. Similar persecution at work is not bullying, but simply a conflict. It can be ended by resigning. Persecution in school is bullying only if the persecuted person is forbidden from leaving the school.

An important point. Legal responsibility for bullying lies specifically with the one who restricts freedom, not with the one who bullies. That is, not with the dogs, but with the one who chained the bear to the post. This is exactly why responsibility for bullying in school lies with the parents, teachers, and the state: the state obliges parents to provide the child with a secondary education, teachers apply sanctions to the child for leaving school without permission, and parents deny the child the right to switch to homeschooling. Similarly, responsibility for bullying in prison lies with those who put the conflicting parties in one cell and locked them in, and for bullying in a conscript army—those who conscripted the conflicting parties into one military unit and forbade them from leaving it.

As for Svetov, he did indeed, in a conversation with Boris Kagarlitsky, get somewhat confused in the definitions of “aggression,” “violence,” “aggressive violence,” and “self-defense,” which his interlocutor caught him on, and as a result, the debate was lost. Therefore, the assumption that he was insufficiently strict with concepts in some other conversation does not seem improbable to me. Furthermore, the term “bullying” itself has no precise definition, so a specific phenomenon that someone calls bullying may either include aggressive violence or be pure non-violent aggression. Moreover, one party to a conflict may call the behavior of the other party bullying, even if it contains neither violence nor even aggression. For example, someone performs their job poorly, receives criticism regarding the actual deficiencies in response, and loses their bonus. Why would that not be a reason to position oneself as a victim of bullying?

A violation of the NAP is first and foremost not the dogs, but the chain.

How does anarcho-capitalism view the actual situation in Russia?

анонимный вопрос

Here, I really want to start with an extended quote from a source I constantly refer to—our Political Science-chan, Ekaterina Schulmann:

As for the actual state of affairs, generally speaking, the Russian person is a spontaneous libertarian, but does not know it and would never call themselves such. In reality, they are very inclined toward libertarian values, namely: they do not trust the state, state institutions, or law enforcement agencies. In general, they trust no one except personal acquaintances. They tend to rely only on themselves and their closest relatives. Accordingly, they would like it if no one messed with them, if they were left in peace and not told how to live. In other words, these libertarian values are very strong in Russian people.

Ekaterina Schulmann

At the same time, the opposite view is entirely justified: Russia is a country of ingrained social-democratic values, and the ideal state for the majority of Russians is the Scandinavian countries, with low levels of inequality, comfortable prisons, officials on bicycles, and broad public discussion of all issues—in short, a proper Soviet government as it should be, according to the project documentation. The high taxes and strict regulations attached to this model are perceived as a fully justified price for this paternalistic paradise.

And finally, it would be strange not to mention the viewpoint that the Russian person is a sucker and a doormat, burdened by Stockholm syndrome and learned helplessness. Their motto is “initiative is punishable”, and not “punishable by being ordered to implement the initiative”, as in the ideal Confucian China, but literally punishable by a blow to the head so that they don’t stick their neck out. They harbor no illusions about the benevolence of state power, but justify the actions of officials by believing that they themselves would behave the same way in their place.

The first category—these are our natural allies. They might not provide active support because they are busy with their own peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs, but at the very least, at the right moment, they will look away and not snitch on people for their peaceful anarcho-capitalist affairs.

The second category—these are our natural allies. They understand the importance of jointly solving local problems, the ability to negotiate, and the desire to unite around common interests, rather than simply on the principle of “us versus them.”

The third category—these are our natural allies. Gradually, it dawns on them that an official is not some inexorable force, omnipotent and omniscient. An official is a ridiculous idiot who doesn’t dare take a step without instructions, yet treats orders according to the principles of “wait to execute—they’ll cancel it” and “if you can shift the responsibility—shift it.” Finally, these people realize that an official immediately loses all their superior arrogance when facing a crowd one-on-one. And then officials can be peacefully pelted with snowballs, as in Volokolamsk, or subjected to “garbage lustrations,” as in Ukraine, but if things get really heated, it can even lead to defenestrations, which our Slavic brothers in the Czech Republic loved to use.

mm, lustrations!

Of course, sometimes with allies like these, you don’t even need enemies. Of course, such allies are too easily lured by communist slogans, and then they will go beat up the liberalists and the bourgeois. Therefore, as unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to perform the important work of creating the correct image of the enemy in these people’s heads. This is precisely why Mikhail Svetov, with his propaganda of hatred toward the nomenklatura, is also doing important work; I couldn’t do it, I find it much more pleasant to tell various optimistic tales about how we can organize ourselves.