Problems of party building in modern Russia. Party elites and party building in Russia Party elites and party building in Russia

ON THE QUESTION OF PARTY BUILDING:
Retrospective, Reality, Plans

Analytical note by V.V. Nemkin, member of the Board of SDPR (old)

Apparently we need to start with an explanation of the very concept of “party building”. The need for this is evidenced, in particular, by the reaction of a number of board members to the initiative to pay additional attention to this area of ​​party activity. The reason for this “ignorance” is understandable. And the SDPR was initially not rich in specialists with party training from Soviet times, and it neglected to train its own personnel: there was a chance at the teaching level of the former High School. True, the unexpectedly rapid collapse of the Union, the ruling party and the Soviet system made its destructive contribution to the personnel policy of the SDPR. It was simply impossible to engage in party education and personnel training in the regime of the long series of splits, splits, showdowns, scandals, squabbles, and factional division of the right to a sign that followed in the leadership of the SDPR. Unfortunately, the period after the Tenth Congress did not bring any changes to this problem. That's why we have what we have today.

But we need to deal with this problem. If only because we voluntarily took upon ourselves the burden of responsibility for the fate of the party. Reservations regarding workload, lack of time, and isolation from the capital are accepted as explaining the failure to fulfill certain party loads, but not exempting them from them.

But we promised about “party building.” Some link it exclusively to the growth of ranks, to the registration of new organizations. Others focus on the procedural aspects of the functioning of the party, on the “bureaucratic” component of its activities. And there are also third, tenth, twenty-fourth... If we add to this that there was not much clarity on this issue even among established ideologists from the CPSU, and in the reviewed programs of a number of currently operating Russian parties, party building did not even bother to be identified as an independent paragraph in text, then the clarity, at first glance, becomes even less clear. But I hasten to immediately reassure those most predisposed to hasty conclusions on this score. There are explanations for all this: discrepancies, absences, and indistinctness... And our inconsistencies in this matter will receive their explanation and, I hope, will noticeably decrease if we take the following definition of party building as a basis:
party building is a set of actions, events, ideas, projects, programs, initiatives, everything that works for the image of the party, its authority and recognition, organizational strength and ability to rise to the implementation of program guidelines. Party building is the practice of ongoing party activities.

Without pretending to be universal and comprehensive of the problem under consideration, I think this definition is true for a small and unfriendly party to the authorities. And if in a mono-party country party building is undoubtedly a science, at least due to the state problems that it deals with, then for parties of our level this is no less than an introduction to science. Not less.

Everything new, as we know, is well forgotten old. It has already been noted above that the theme of party building is absent from the programs of many modern Russian parties. Unfortunately, this topic is also missing from our program adopted in 2001 by the X Congress. But it was not forgotten in the SDPR program “The Path of Progress and Social Democracy” (adopted in 1991). Let's open it on the page that interests us. From the height of our years (but not from the height of the Russian law on parties), the planned size of the party looks only somewhat inflated. The rest has not lost its relevance today. Moreover, it should be noted that in the period 1991–93, this part of the program was not only declared, but also specific steps were taken to implement it. In particular, undoubtedly, the activities of the then board commission on party building should be assessed as successful. It was headed by A.M. Obolensky. However, he still heads this board commission. This is the precedent for permanent leadership.

However, let’s continue our excursion into the SDPR history of the early 90s. For clarity, let us compare the program settings with the reports of the commissions of the board and a number of territorial organizations to the IV Congress of the SDPR. In the history of the SDPR, the IV Congress is as landmark for comparative analysis as 1913 was for the history of the country for many years.

Had in 1992: several party and party-related functional bodies - publishing houses, periodicals and other media (here and below, textual matches with the program are in italics); growth in the number of SDPR; active work of party members in mass democratic movements, in social, professional and cultural groups, among youth, in trade unions; foreign internships for party members to study the experience of other social democratic parties; development of a network of local organizations; regular trips of members of the party leadership and parliamentarians, both to territorial organizations and throughout the country as a whole, including for the purpose of finding supporters and providing assistance in their organization.

Alas, due to certain circumstances, much of this collapsed over the next eight years. And when in 2001, at a new stage in the history of the party, probably its most persistent activists began to rake up the opportunities missed in party building, somewhere they believed that it would work out. As already noted, it did not work out.

Here we come close to the problems of our party today. Let's compare the current situation in the party with the landmark 1992, and, therefore, with the program where party building was discussed.

In 2006 we have no: growth in the number of SDPR (moreover, a noticeable decrease even compared to 2001); periodical media; new territorial organizations (since 2001, not a single one has been registered by the board, and several have been deregistered); trips of the party leadership to the regions in order to restore old or create new organizations; contacts with similar parties and movements either in our country or in near and far abroad for the purpose of exchanging information, work experience, for the purpose of holding joint seminars and round tables; coordinated work with mass public organizations and trade unions, with the youth movement...

Unfortunately, the matter is not limited to this negative enumeration, and these are all the most important components of party building. I am ready to listen to objections. I can even guess what points they will touch on. Regarding the media, they will say - we have NSD. Regarding trips, they will remember the visit of Alexander Mitrofanovich to Tambov five years ago. Regarding contacts with public structures, they will refer to Obolensky’s campaigns to patriots of various stripes. They will not forget the overly bureaucratic, in the opinion of many, campaign with the exchange of party tickets.

What difference do all these objections make? They only confirm that we cannot overcome the crisis of the party, which smoothly flowed from the 90s. I believe that, first of all, due to the complete neglect of party building. This area of ​​party activity has been completely suppressed in our country. And that's the main thing. Only personal support groups and groups of common interests can do without party building. As for the procedural bureaucratic nuances, they are, of course, necessary, but only in a general, constructive package. I see the big mistake of recent years in the fact that there has been an unacceptable predominance of the bureaucratic principle over the creative principle in party life. Consequently, the decisions of the 76th plenum of the board can in many ways be considered logical.

What's next? I would like to preface the considerations of this part of the note with the disclaimer that I am least concerned about finding a “scapegoat” for our party troubles. If there is one in our particular case, it is us (the board) ourselves. For the last three convocations, the board has been working with almost unchanged composition. Thus, all questions in the style of the traditional “who is to blame?” are removed.

I believe that the practice of party building that has developed in our party in recent years is more reminiscent of party dismantling. I believe that this practice must be radically reconsidered and erroneous decisions abandoned. And no populism, everything is within the framework of our party Charter.

The first thing we must do is decide on a plenum on party building. Secondly, all board members should try to come to the plenum with specific proposals. We, the board, are a voluntary collective party leader and no one will do our work for us, everything that is connected with the SDPR today. The fact that we have not yet completely disappeared as an independent structure, although after the 76th plenum we are closer to this than ever before, is largely not our merit: here the question, among other things, is due to the dialectics of social processes, their inertial component. But to preserve ourselves, the SDPR, in problems with registration, in problems with the law on parties, in relationships with the authorities, in relationships with each other and with those who will replace us tomorrow - here we are already extreme.

In connection with all of the above and in pursuance of the decision of the 76th plenum of the board, I have the following proposals for party building:

Without knowledge of the basics of economics, the party will not be able to enter into dialogue with the most active part of the population.
I recommend that you read the contents of the book, which is written quite simply.
Familiarization with the basics of economics does not require special knowledge in the field of finance.

Rudchenko I.S.
Economy in conditions of growth
virtual business

This website page was created after the 2012 elections. At this time, a new political situation emerged. It was generated by new legislation in the field of party building. Problems related to the development of democratic parties began to be actively discussed in the media.

SITUATION

It is actively proposed to work on uniting democratic forces within a major party.
The slogan of unification itself is not new. It has been around for decades. Such constancy indicates that the reasons that prevent the situation from changing have not been found.
More precisely, something is said on this topic, but these conversations did not lead to unification. And this, in turn, means that either the idea of ​​unification is outside of reality, or the reasons given are wrong.

Some politicians proclaim the need to find authoritative leaders. This is seen from the point of view of increasing the authority of the movement, which claims to be democratic. For me, the production itself is dangerous due to the formation of an authoritarian leadership. And this contradicts the concept of democracy.
This conclusion is further encouraged by the fact that leaders, as a rule, do not engage in dialogue. They tell people that their position is correct. They reject any other opinions, since only they have the truth.
The lack of dialogue between various political leaders indicates their rejection of any other opinions. At best, leaders state their position, replacing discussion with educational statements.
Replacing dialogue with simpler forms narrows political life. And the leaders are no longer those who are able to give impetus to new ideas, but those who reduce all political activity to the level of a protest movement - in the form of rallies, processions, participation in control during the voting period, and the like.

The described situation is not eternal, since there is now a noticeable tendency towards its change.
And the point is not only that new opportunities for creating parties have appeared.
Changes have occurred in respect for the most diverse trends in social and political life.
In particular, cases of calls to refuse to participate in events if people of a different ideology took up the organization became rare. Result: people of the most diverse social and political views began to participate in protests. Tolerance for other views gives rise to new trends in the entire political and social life of Russia.

Dialogue is possible only in conditions where no one declares that only he proclaims the truth.
A respectful attitude towards other ideologies indicates that the conditions are ripe for the development of dialogue between citizens with different views. The transition from the unity of protests to dialogue -
the next stage in the development of Russian political life

Dialogue must be distinguished from simply expressing opinions on the most pressing issues.
Surveys where people can speak out are conducted quite regularly. Active readers of publications on the Internet and in the media give their remarks to the positions of the authors and supplement the content of publications with their comments. And many media outlets offer brief answers to specific questions. This allows people to communicate their position quickly.
Such forms of work allow us to start a dialogue. But dialogue involves more than just expressing opinions.

ABOUT PARTY PROGRAMS

Let us recall the Program Documents of the CPSU. They all proceeded from the fact that the party solves all the country's issues. A system of governing the country was created, where the CPSU was assigned a central role in making key decisions. Under that system, political instructions were formed with clarifications of economic indicators. And this did not require showing in party documents the methods by which the stated goals would be achieved. Therefore, it was not the forms of achieving the goals themselves that were given, but talk about the construction of enterprises, the improvement of infrastructure, medicine, education, and so on. And specific indicators were based on forecasts for economic development. The State Planning Committee carried out calculations for investing funds in certain sectors to achieve economic indicators, which formed the basis for solving social issues. Even in party documents, friends and enemies were defined, the state’s foreign policy, cooperation and opposition were discussed. In short, program documents were guiding documents for the existing form of government, taking into account the ideology that was proclaimed by the central bodies of the CPSU.

The borrowing of Soviet experience can be traced in post-Soviet times. What of those program documents was transferred into the programs of the new parties?
The most voluminous part on economic grounds is not included in party documents now, since the party cannot rely on the existing state apparatus. At least, without violating Russian laws. The corresponding sections from the CPSU Program naturally became a thing of the past.

What remains is the ideological part from the old arsenal of political life.
All parties try to reflect the ideological part. Ideology actually forms the boundaries of a party's possible electorate. But the ideology of many parties coincides in many ways: democracy, competition, social security, honesty during elections, the fight against corruption, mandatory compliance with laws, and so on. And if so, potential voters are not so categorical in their ideological preferences when choosing one party or another.
They are also trying to divide parties into socialist and liberal, left and right. But people don't know how one is different from the other. Moreover, even those who use these terms cannot give clear definitions in conversations. Therefore, such a division is more reminiscent of labeling than it characterizes real political activity.
Since ideology is not very distinguishable for the population, then, consequently, the effectiveness of the party largely depends on the forms of work it chooses with the citizens of its country.
Not all forms of work can be reflected in the Charter. This means that they need to be reflected in program documents.
What form of implementation is needed to achieve ideological goals?
If they didn’t forget about this part, they couldn’t formulate it convincingly so that it felt like the opinions of future voters were being listened to.
And who will implement what the party has proclaimed? The population must actively participate in the process. And this is possible if people agree with the implementation methods.
The parties seem to have forgotten that many decisions concerning the lives of citizens do not have a direct dependence on ideological views (for the need to consider social and economic goals together, see the site page Local and milestone goals). To make such decisions, it is necessary to involve specialists. Experts are not always unanimous in their opinions for making a specific political decision. After all, in politics one has to combine the economic effect with social consequences, with the possibility of implementation, taking into account the side effects on various aspects of people’s lives. Selecting a solution from all possible diversity requires the use of specific forms of work.

What form will the party take to find an acceptable solution based on a variety of alternative options? And if this is not reflected in some party documents, then it will be extremely difficult to attract specialists on specific issues.
Now the party's work to attract supporters is built on the simplest principle. Like, sign up for our party. They sign up, come and work. But a huge number of specialists who could organize work to make complex decisions will not come.
If problems at the all-Russian level are somehow reflected in the programs, then I did not find specifics at the regional level (especially at the municipal level) in party documents. But a party is strong when it has support at the lowest level of government. Of course, you can’t describe everything, since there are too many pain points. And if so, then it seems that the parties simply do not hear those who do not speak the language of their ideology. Now the principle of party building is based on creativity, when the slogans are clear.
How will the party involve specialists in certain types of activities in its activities? Or is a thorough study of all the consequences for the decisions being prepared not required? Or will he pay the necessary amounts of money for the work of specialists who are not part of the party activists? Passivity in efforts to attract supporters will have a negative impact at a time when it is necessary to show that the party can offer the most effective solutions to solve problems.
Competition in party life is based on the search for the most effective solutions.
Creativity is needed at a time when solutions have been prepared.

I will try in a few paragraphs to fill the gap in the program documents of existing parties, naming some directions that it is desirable to identify during the organization of party building.

1. Forms of interaction with public organizations.
Various public organizations and commercial enterprises can be created with the direct participation of the party.
They can be formed without her participation, and then it is necessary to fine-tune forms of cooperation with them.
It must be taken into account that public organizations that do not set themselves political goals can be formed with the participation of people of very different ideological orientations. I'm not even talking about commercial enterprises.

2. Party work with people who are ready to help the party.
These are party supporters. They do not necessarily adhere to the same ideological views, but at the same time they may take an active position in solving certain state and political problems. On some issue, such supporters may support one party, and on another area of ​​activity, another. Which party will they support in the elections? The one with whom the best contact was achieved.

3. Party work with potential voters.
I'm tired of speaking in the media, when it's drummed into me that I need to understand something this way and that way. At the same time, I have the feeling that they are crowing like black grouse, they don’t hear anyone but themselves. And I think that many people want to be heard. And here it is necessary to use the forms of party work in such a way that the potential voter understands that his opinion will be taken into account during the ongoing discussion, that is, even before decisions are made. If the party is not able to hear me now, then all the more will it ignore my opinion after its success in the elections.

4. Work with other parties. Now one of the promising forms has been identified - the nomination of a single candidate.
That's all? Or something else can be reflected in party documents so that the leaders of other parties understand the forms of possible cooperation.
A well-functioning system of inter-party disputes forces the ruling party to take part in disputes with the opposition. Including with the opposition that is not represented in parliament. Do party leaders imagine the forms of inter-party discussions?

The forms of work can be very diverse. Their description allows non-party members to turn to the party in order to solve pressing problems. This is true if non-party members believe that party members are engaged in more than just elections and promoting their own views.
A separate page of the site presents one of the forms of work to solve problems of life support for the population - water, heat, electricity (Procedure for carrying out work when forming a development program for a municipality). This example is necessary for understanding the solution of problems of regional significance. It is based on the practice of my work in Russian cities.
United Russia uses some forms when working with the population. These are, as I have already noted, educational conversations through the media. And there is another form. It is borrowed from the experience of the CPSU, when people can contact one of the party branches, which, if possible, will provide the necessary assistance. And this form is used because the party greatly influences the personnel policy of the administrative apparatuses of power.
I created this same page of the site with the secret hope that another form of work proposed below will be adopted by at least one of the parties. Moreover, I am sure that such a party will have competitive advantages over other parties.

One of the most effective forms of work is dispute. Disputes allow a huge number of people to be involved in the work of developing solutions. Then party supporters do not have the feeling that decisions are made only in narrow party lobbies.
This applies to all aspects of party life. Party mergers are no exception if the party is interested in the opinions of potential voters.

DISPUTE IS THE BASIC FORM OF PARTY WORK

During the preparation of decision-making, the dispute goes through several stages. Each stage involves a survey, analysis of survey results, and creation of a document based on the analysis results. The final document of each stage allows the debate organizers to direct the discussion in a certain direction at the next stage.
The party actively influences the course of the debate. But its task is not to achieve a certain result, but to obtain reliable information about the severity of the problem and possible options for solving it. Citizens participate in the debate by sending their messages over the Internet. The message handler group must be able to assign messages to different groups. It would be desirable to be able to separate party members from other participants in the debate. It is advisable to divide participants by region. In addition, it is advisable to record regular participants in ongoing debates. The possibility of dividing into groups is not a difficult problem, since the technology has now been developed by many media surveys.

1. The stage of choosing a problem for discussion.
The party must understand what problems concern society to such an extent that a sufficient number of people will take part in the debate.
For the party, it is important not only what people choose, but also how they justify their choice.

For example, I’ll take a survey on a possible referendum in Moscow. At the march on June 12, 2012, leaflets were distributed with a list of formulations that could be proposed in the referendum.
It was proposed to select 3 formulations. I have highlighted those where it is proposed to hold early elections for the city council and mayor. And one more wording on limiting the terms of elected officials. I believed that the remaining issues could be resolved by the newly elected government if the referendum gave the appropriate results. I did not write my opinion, since the form of the survey did not suggest this.

Each survey participant proceeds from his own logic. The survey team must justify the choice of topic for the next step. In this case, the logic of choice by the survey participant is taken into account. It may be important to a party to what extent a survey participant is active. Further dispute may occur according to different schemes for different regions. When processing the survey results, the party takes into account the relevance of the problem through achieving the goals set in the party program. And in order to understand the party’s position on selecting a problem, before moving on to the next stage of the dispute, it publishes a document where it justifies the topic for discussion at the next stage of the dispute.

So, in the final document for the first stage, the party formulates the problem that, from its point of view, is the most pressing.

2. The stage of collecting proposals to solve the problem.

2.1. First, proposals are collected on the decisions that the authorities should make so that the problem under discussion ceases to be relevant.
Information on proposed solutions should be posted on a separate page. This will allow you to separate emotions from specifics. For a better overview, it is necessary to divide all proposed solutions into groups. Each group has its own name, which allows those who process messages to give general formulations. Such work on the part of party bodies will allow us to move on to an analysis of the consequences that may follow each of the decisions.
This is done regularly when proposals are received via the Internet. In this case, the breakdown of received messages into groups can be reorganized, individual wording in group headers can be changed, and comments may be made by processors of incoming messages. Someone may, after reading the proposals of other participants in the debate, reformulate their vision. Any form that activates the work of the participants in the dispute is possible.
2.2. The analytical group selects, according to its criteria, those proposals that participate in further work. Selection allows the party to move the dispute in the right direction.
Sentences may be reformulated. Their final form may not entirely coincide with the formulations proposed by the authors. It is important that there are no similar formulations. It is necessary to give so many formulations that further work on their discussion is possible. There cannot be one formulation, just as there cannot be too many formulations. The most acceptable level is 3 formulations.
Now we can move on to analyzing the consequences of the selected possible solutions to the problem under discussion.
At the end of the dispute, a final document is formed. It contains the expected consequences for each decision formulation. Again, the result of the discussion must be tabulated.

3. The stage of developing a goal that is realistically achievable by the means of the party itself.
The debate is aimed at searching for those specific actions that the party itself is capable of organizing.
First, the goals that the party can set for itself are formulated so that appropriate decisions are made.
It is very important here to formulate goals that are actually achievable. If during the discussion there are no proposals to achieve the goal, then the goal cannot be achieved.

At the end of the third stage, a group of people is formed to bring them together to discuss the problem being solved. These are the people who gave ideas that can realize the goals set. They can represent the interests of the party in a particular region or throughout Russia as a whole.

4. Stage of developing a consolidated solution for holding events.
A group has been selected that is capable of developing a real solution.
Discussion within the group can take various forms. I would recommend more complex shapes. The round table format for discussion, which is described on the site, gave the best results for developing solutions that produce real results (that is, achievable goals are set). This form is good because it excludes the influence of leaders who have the greatest authority. These people will have to carry out what they formulate at this meeting in the future. Therefore, they will evaluate not the capabilities of the party leaders, but their own.
At the end of the debate, a party document is published, which reflects the outcome of the debate.


An analogy with commercial activity suggests itself here.
It is known that advertising is the engine of trade,
but the product produced is one that will be perceived by the buyer,
and not the one that is the best from the manufacturer's point of view.
Note:
- not only party members are involved in the work;
- goals are set at the stage when ways to achieve the goal are found;
- a core of people has been formed who think specifically enough to carry out the necessary organizational measures;
- in addition, to solve regional problems, those regions are identified where it is possible to form a capable team to solve a specific problem (their experience can later be borrowed by other regions);
- having worked out a solution to the problem that is most supported by citizens, you can move on to solving more complex problems.

Dispute materials make it possible to show potential voters all the necessary information about the views, the ability to conduct discussions, and the professionalism of the candidates for election. This information can be transformed in such a way that it becomes clear to the voter which people the party supports. They object to me that there are not many such people. Most voters are not like that. This is true. You just need to take into account that voters who are interested in the views and professionalism of future candidates have a significant influence on the choice of the rest of the population.

To the charter and program. Changing the principles of work, when the orientation of the party is based on the opinions of voters, requires different approaches to program documents. They must be dynamic.
The party charter should motivate party members to debate. A party member is obliged to participate in disputes. In his region, he must be able to formulate options for his voters in such a way that his professionalism in preparing decisions is visible. He must have the ability to attract professionals and be able to establish contacts with potential voters. Then he's creative here I give the concept of creativity, which currently has a different connotation among party leaders). His creativity should not be abstract. Only during a debate can one check to what extent the creativity of each individual party member will benefit the party, and, consequently, the citizens of Russia. If a party member does not participate in discussions, then he will certainly not be able to prepare decisions in the event that the party wins the elections (see the Modeling Options page).

STRUCTURE OF PARTY WORK When discussing the structural mechanisms of party work, it is necessary to take into account the negativity that is developing in our country among the parties that find themselves in power.
For the CPSU and almost all parties in the post-Soviet era, the greatest evil turned out to be that people come to the party out of a desire to make a career. Such people quickly move from one ideological setting to another. They don’t care what or how to proclaim, or with whom to enter into a coalition. Their career aspirations contribute to the strengthening of authoritarian principles at work. Careerism is also scary because people who put their personal commercial interests above the interests of the country can flood into the party. And in this case, in any party, as soon as it becomes sufficiently influential, there may be swindlers and thieves. The party can be reborn in a short period of time.
The structure of the party should prevent the formation of possible negative trends.

The main task of any political structure is to create feedback mechanisms with the population. Only one of the mechanisms is shown here - dispute. It is a basic mechanism, since the effectiveness of other mechanisms is greatly reduced if citizens believe that politicians do not take their opinions into account.


Communication with citizens is strengthened many times over if the party works with the involvement of public organizations. Each public organization is capable of holding a debate on the topic that is closest to them. Then the party actually receives the consolidated opinion of a group of citizens. In addition, politicians receive support from those public organizations with which they have established close ties.
Here we can draw a parallel with banking activities. The website page “Strategy of a developing bank” demonstrates the idea of ​​structural relationships. The point of the strategy is to find partners who work in a different field of activity, but whose successful activities contribute to the success of the party.
Issues of structural connections in modern society are of particular importance. Although my site was based mainly on work with commercial structures, many principles are transferred to any other activity. Look at the site page Structure is the basis of modeling.
The presence of structural ties between the party and public organizations is especially effective during election campaigns. The party must provide support to public organizations. Moreover, the party can initiate the creation of public organizations that have close ties with the population. These could be trade unions, business associations, associations of building residents, environmental organizations, and so on. And without connections between the party and society at the municipal level, the effectiveness of party decisions decreases sharply.


If we take as a basis the conceptual foundations of what is presented on this page of the site, then the central link in the internal organizational structure of a political party should be bodies aimed at communicating with public organizations and with the population as a whole.
Take a look at the website page where information on DOMKOM is given. Domkom has excellent contacts with its management company. Therefore, residents of the houses voted for those representatives proposed by the management company. And the residents didn’t even inquire about their party affiliation. In other words, at the municipal level, the public organization turned out to be more authoritative than any political party. Moreover, these same people can support completely different parties when they participate in some actions on the call of other party leaders.
Supporting a slogan and participating in an action does not guarantee party support.
The statutory documents must provide for mechanisms for the formation of public organizations that in their activities are close to the party ideology.
The party program must contain general guidelines on the forms of party activity. In this case, the focus of preparing party decisions taking into account the citizens of the country through the party’s initiation of dialogue in society.

Some parties consider themselves democratic. How do they understand this word? On my website you can read my concepts about democracy and liberalism. How do those who lead parties or create new parties understand?
I also find out that parties invite creative people. And what is it? I sent them my proposals. I did not receive an answer. Are they only interested in creative people? I have heard this from a number of leaders. Is the citizen who created his website not creative? But my site is visited by hundreds of people a day. This is not a news site with thousands of visitors. Or are creatives the ones who organize mass actions? Let them formulate the concept of creative so that I can understand whether they need me.
And in order not to be unfounded that they are indifferent to those from whom they do not receive direct support, I give below in red one of my letters to one of the forming parties (only the dates and the name of the parties have been removed). I have never received an answer from any of the parties. And this was the reason for me to write this page of the site.

The following text was sent as a letter to the party's organizing committee. I did not receive a response to this letter, although I sent it from my email, so my address was generated automatically. Moreover, upon a detailed examination of the addresses from which people access my site, I realized that the organizing committee was not even interested in the content of my site.
Below I present the entire content of the letter. To the Party Program.

About the situation in the country.
1. It is advisable to give more stringent language in the Program about the current situation in the country.
Nowadays there is active talk about authoritarianism, election fraud and restrictions on individual rights. Added to this is corruption and the dependence of the judiciary (more broadly, law enforcement) on the administrative apparatus.
Strengthen these positions with theses that show the danger for the future of the country. In particular, the current practice of political life leads to the criminalization of the country. In particular, falsification is dangerous not only because it distorts the actual expression of will, but also because it inculcates the illegal consciousness of the state apparatus.
.htm (this was not written for the Program; nevertheless, I suggest looking at this text, since it is important for understanding the essence).

2. The country is moving to a multi-party system.
The party will be in tough competition with many parties. The party that can carry out more effective information work will receive advantages. Therefore, it is advisable to reflect the forms of intensifying information impact in party documents.
To enhance the information impact, it is necessary to create an information field that will reflect the positions of not only your Party, but also other parties (primarily United Russia). This will allow for a comparative analysis of various positions existing in the public consciousness.
If the party can organize debates and give comparative characteristics of various positions, then it will be able to seize the initiative in information work.

The influence of the party on the non-party environment.
1. The Charter talks about supporters. Although the forms of their participation are not specified.
And showing the forms is very important. For example, the participation of Russian citizens in party disputes. Open debates characterize the openness of the party, and in addition, they contribute to the involvement of new people in the party and form the stability of the positions of Russian citizens (to support the Party in elections).
2. The comparative principle with the official position of other parties makes information work more active to attract new supporters and members.
3. It is necessary to say something about public organizations in the Program.
Cooperation with them, providing them with moral, legal or other support, will increase the authority of the Party and achieve better results in elections at all levels. Involve them during the most intense periods of work.
4. It is necessary to determine the principles of cooperation with other parties. Now this is poorly reflected.

5. On respect for minority rights as a basic principle of democracy.
It is said that party members are not obliged to implement decisions with which they do not agree..htm)

Forms for recording opinions.
1. Regular and various forms of meetings of regional representatives.
There is an exchange of opinions, a transfer of experience, training, and prompt adherence to the dynamics of changing realities of political life.
2. The Internet makes it possible to monitor the prevailing opinion in the party and in society.
To do this, it is necessary to conduct debates on individual issues. The debate should end with the structuring of opinions.
A dispute implies not only the collection of all opinions, but also argumentation. The course of the discussion should be transparent and concentrated on a separate Internet page.
At the end of the discussion, it is necessary to formulate opinions and arguments in the form of a table.
Only after such preparation can a vote be held to support the expressed positions. Everyone is allowed to vote (party members are tracked using passwords so that their opinions can be tracked separately). Voting allows not only party members to be actively involved in developing party decisions, but also to take into account the opinions of voters (supporters) of the party.

According to the forms of analysis during the debate, I could provide assistance, that is, in this sense, become a supporter of the party.
During my consulting activities, I drafted documents based on the ongoing dispute. My work experience can be found on my website.
I could offer a different version of the Program. The text of the Program that I saw mainly contains target settings. And in the program I would also like to see those forms of work that will allow the Party to implement these guidelines.
I wrote about the disputes here. But not only they should be reflected in the text of the Program.
I could suggest one more version of the Program.
But I need at least three days, and there is too little time left before the congress. Therefore, I am writing briefly only so that you have time to familiarize yourself with one more position.

There is the following option. On such and such a date and month, the main documents are approved. A dispute is announced to finalize them. Possible for a period of one year. After this, the decision can be made on the basis of electronic voting.
To do this, the Charter must provide for appropriate procedures.
As an option for discussion:
the possibility of electronic voting (on the Party website for a period of one month), after which regional representatives gather. The conference either approves the results of the online voting, sets a time frame for continuing the discussion, or cancels it.

Sincerely,
Yuri Nikolsky

Look at another page of the site with jokes on this topic:

Browser -Observer 2004 №5 (172)

PARTY ELITES AND PARTY BUILDING IN RUSSIA

Multi-party system in Russia is a decorative element

A. Ponedelkov,

A.Starostin,

Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor,

G. Akopov,

candidate of political sciences

(North Caucasus Academy of State

service, Rostov-on-Don)

Turning to the problems of party building and the evolution of party systems in post-Soviet Russia, it should be noted that both the reconstruction of the phenomenology of political processes and their understanding are carried out under the significant influence of the elitological paradigm.

In modern scientific and humanitarian research, the concept of “elite” is perhaps the most commonly used. Not only scientists, but also politicians, cultural figures, and businessmen speak about the influence of elites on social, economic and political processes. Elitology as a field of study has clearly emerged in a number of scientific disciplines: political science, sociology, history, psychology. The elitological paradigm of thinking and interpreting the causes of ongoing political, social and economic changes has become perhaps the most widespread. If two decades earlier the “leadership” paradigm and appeals to the “role of the masses” or the “leading role of the party” could compete with each other, now the reference to the authority and influence of the elites has almost unconditional authority. The elites themselves and the sources of their origin are interpreted very differently.

The concept of “political elite” refers to the highest, privileged layer that exercises the functions of management and influence in society. There are different approaches and emphases in understanding elites. In accordance with one of them - power - the elite are those who have decisive power in a given society. In accordance with the other - meritocratic - who have certain special merits and personal qualities.

It is important to recall this in order to remove the false, in our opinion, dilemma that exists in domestic political science and sociology.

Some modern Russian scientists, who critically evaluate the results of management activities, the professional level and moral qualities of representatives of Russian ruling circles, consider it unlawful to apply the term “elite” to them. 1 . Formally, from a certain point of view, as well as a literal understanding of one of the meanings of the term, this may be correct. However, in essence this is not the case, because at the same time we again begin to impose other (ideological, ethical) analytical and evaluative approaches on political science, significantly reducing its own potential and analysis capabilities. Therefore, when studying political elites, as foreign and Russian experience in recent years has shown, it is best to supplement the power (positional) approach with meritocratic (reputational) and other aspects of studying elites.

In this case, we will move away from the traps of false dilemmas and focus on developing substantive problems of political science and sociology. Moreover, we do not have a significant tradition in the modern framework of the development of the humanities for elitological research.

This approach was not practiced during the Soviet period and was even subject to sharp criticism. As for earlier periods (V. Klyuchevsky, K. Skalkovsky, M. Ostrogorsky, P. Sorokin), his achievements and approaches now have to be reconstructed 2 .

It should be noted that the formation of the elitological approach itself was directly related to the analysis of party systems. By now, the scope of its application has expanded significantly and, before directly turning to the consideration of Russian partogenesis, it makes sense to present in more detail a broader process - Russian elitogenesis, within which the formation of new party systems occurs.

First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that elitogenesis, the structuring and positioning of elites are significantly ahead of sociogenesis, the formation of new large social groups and social strata. Because of this, new elite groups have a significant head start in building relationships among themselves and with society and often use it for their own purposes. As a result, many processes of social restructuring are slow and painful.

The Russian elite formation process is still far from complete. Usually, when analyzing its development, the main attention is paid to the nomenklatura origin of the modern political elite. We would like to emphasize the multi-source nature of the modern process of elite formation. The main generating structures include social organizations that turned out to be the most stable in the process of breaking down the social and political structures of Soviet society. These include: bureaucracy, ethnic organization, new economic corporations, old security forces and corporations, as well as organized crime structures. Whatever cross-section of modern elites we take (higher, regional, local), representatives and promoters of the named structures dominate and consolidate everywhere. Due to the mosaic nature of modern Russian society, a mosaic character is also inherent in its elites. Therefore, it is still difficult to attribute them to any classical type: meritocratic, class, estate, nomenklatura, etc.

Power is still “more important” than property, although it is increasingly flowing into property, and the structuring of elites is in close connection with the state. This leaves an imprint on the entire process of formation of civil society. The dominance of patron-client relations, the difficulty of forming structures and communications that are truly independent of the state, the weakness of the personal development of the mass individual, the lagging behind in the structuring of the “lower classes” - all these are factors slowing down the process.

As a result, the process is extremely uneven and not always progressive: sometimes backwards or to the side. Interests, as a rule, are aggregated at the relatively elementary, material and group levels. What in the West is the foundation of a developed structure of socio-political pluralism often acquires a self-sufficient character in Russia. The environment in which the embryonic structures of civil society operate is characterized by a serious blurring of values ​​and guidelines, which often deprives new institutions of the necessary support from below.

However, despite its originality, the process of Russian elitogenesis is developing very dynamically. Without touching on the plots associated with its first steps, it is necessary to characterize its current state.

First of all, I would like to draw attention to the significant restoration of the role and place of security elements within the political elite. This is connected not only with the personality of the new President, who, due to his professional upbringing, is closer and more understandable to the style and methods of military-administrative approaches.

This is also due, on the one hand, to the existing geopolitical realities and Russia’s significant loss of military-strategic resources and its previous military-political image, which continued to protect it from security threats traditional to its history. On the other hand, we should talk about creating long-term guarantees for a new class of owners, which are largely created by the power component of state power.

The situation in the state after almost 15 years of demilitarization, denationalization, de-ideologization, numerous economic and legal reforms has come to the point where both in the public opinion of the population and in the minds of the elite, factors of personal, public and state security and safety have clearly taken first place among possible threats. self-preservation. In some ways, this atmosphere is reminiscent of the one that R. Mills wrote about at one time, referring to a certain period of the tranquil existence of the United States, when “economic factors and the political atmosphere contributed in the past to the spread of civilian, debunking assessments of the military as an evil, without which it is impossible to get by, but which is always a burden" 3 .

The subsequent course of events promoted the military elite to the political elite and subsequently represented and represents it among the most influential components.

As for Russia, the 15-year period of exclusion of military and military-industrial influence on power is an exception to its centuries-old tradition.

As for modern realities, tracking the rating distribution regularly presented by Nezavisimaya Gazeta regarding Russia's leading politicians, one should notice a certain increase in the influence of representatives of law enforcement agencies. They now occupy (in terms of numbers and positions) positions comparable to representatives of the regional elite and the business elite, still inferior to the representation of the highest bureaucracy. It seems that this component will now be represented in the political elite very representatively and the influence on the style and methods of management will immediately be felt.

Strengthening the political position and authority of the security group may also be associated with a program of measures to build a rule of law state with the strengthening of law, order and responsibility, the fight against crime, steps to establish control over the shadow economy, strengthening the public sector of the economy are seen as popular and at the same time expected and partial redistribution of large property.

To strengthen influence in the regions, the resources of the military force component, including part of the retired military personnel corps, must be fully utilized.

The predicted course of events may also be associated with increasing foreign policy pressure and attempts to create new sources of tension in the zone of Russia’s national interests. However, this will only cause a strengthening of the military-political grouping and consolidation of Russian society and, at the same time, a strengthening of the eastern orientation of foreign policy and foreign economic activity.

The new configuration of political elites is capable of strengthening Russian statehood and the controllability of society and, at the same time, strengthening the guarantees for the formation of a new socio-economic system in Russia.

Considering other changes in the configuration of the elites, it should be emphasized that the influence of the scientific, technical and humanitarian elites is continuing to be replaced by the information elite. At the same time, it is placed within a certain hierarchical framework. From the standpoint of external independence and ambition, perhaps, it has been transferred to the rank of “propaganda department”. The former claim to fulfill the role of civil society, an independent and untouchable social critic, has been abandoned by the political-administrative elite and converted into a tool for serving the authorities.

In parallel, similar processes are associated with the place and role of the humanitarian intelligentsia. As for the scientific and technical intelligentsia, which over the years of reforms was quickly relegated to the rank of a sub-elite group, it seems that the time for their return and representation in elite groups and near-elite circles is approaching.

The observed changes in the configuration of Russia's political elites are largely related to the departure from the period of revolutionary romance and the pragmatization of political governance. The era of economic searches and political trials and errors left the new generation of politicians with virtually no resources other than administrative ones.

This is the modern Russian elite context within which partogenesis occurs. It also has its own stages and elite and leadership motives are also very strong in it.

One of the first to study party elites was the German political scientist R. Michels. In his work “The Sociology of a Political Party in a Democracy,” he substantiated the importance of the political elite by the proposition that “society cannot exist without a ruling or political class, although its elements are subject to renewal,” and that the presence of a third class is “a constantly operating factor of social evolution" 4 . Studying the political elites, R. Michels could not ignore the elites of political parties, who, in his opinion, very quickly turn from the leaders of the party organization into leaders-rulers who have forgotten that first of all they serve the people.

“Michels’ Law” also works in Russian conditions, but the most important thing with regard to parties and party elites is that the role of party elites in modern Russia should be considered far from the first rank of elite subjects of influence on the political process.

Above we noted the actors of the first row: bureaucracy, big business, militocracy, ethnocracy. As for the party elites, in the early 90s, and 1993 was a turning point here, the Russian party elites and proto-parties found themselves pushed aside from the formation of the new Russian government, and the consequences of this still have a negative impact on democratic processes and the formation of civil society.

The configuration of power enshrined in the 1993 Constitution assigns a formal role to the party system. Parties, as accumulators and relays of public interests, are deprived of direct opportunities to influence the formation of executive bodies of power and do not have mechanisms for monitoring their activities through the system of representative government. As a result, the party system is incoherent with the interests of civil society and civil society is subordinated to the state. Which seems nonsense for modern democracy.

If we follow the development of socio-political processes in the pre-perestroika and perestroika periods, then their main vector was aimed precisely at the creation of a normal democratic system “state - civil society”, where parties and party elites are one of the main political subjects.

As noted by the famous researcher of socio-political processes of the 60-90s in Russia, Professor A.V. Shubin 5 , back in the 70s, a “layer cake” of ideological movements developed in the USSR, which had bearers in all the main social groups of society. It included official Marxism-Leninism (in its internationalist and state-nationalist varieties), Slavophilism (as a rule, also state), liberal Westernism and “populism” - unorthodox democratic socialism. These directions entered into various alliances and conflicts with each other. The official ideology fought against all types of heterodoxy.

The liberal-Western “enclave of modernization,” conservative-authoritarian pochvenism and anti-authoritarian socialism were undoubtedly projected and contributed to the formation of corresponding “pressure groups” in the ruling elite. As a result, by 1985, two socio-political coalitions had formed: the first was “reformist”, the second was “conservative”.

In the conditions of the first half of the 80s, the “liberals” from the ruling elite did not need to look for a model of reform themselves. The concepts discussed in informal circles of the public were focused and formulated by the dissident environment, then penetrated into the “liberal” circles of the scientific and creative elite, advisors to the ruling elite (experts), and from them, in an adapted form, to the “reformists” in the ruling group. Thus, the public of the USSR, albeit indirectly, played an important role in the choice that was made in 1985.

Subsequently, the alliance of the reformist part of the party nomenclature and a more “advanced” group from the special services made it possible not only to seize power and carry out a purge of representatives of the “conservative” coalition, but also to move towards goals that were not initially presented to society.

As for the modern stage of party building, the significance and unresolved problem of coherence acts as a central problem for the further development of the democratic process in Russia. Depending on its solution, there is another, no less important issue - a significant expansion of the social base of parties and the creation of mechanisms for interaction between the party system and civil society.

Many Russian political figures, including party leaders, speak about the need for greater involvement of citizens in the political process.

Thus, in one of his many interviews, Boris Gryzlov noted: “I think that today we have such a situation that there is no feedback between the people, between the citizens of the country and the authorities, there is a direct connection from the authorities to the people. We must build precisely feedback - from parties that would be truly created in accordance with the law... these would be real, powerful parties that had both a large number and their own program, understandable to the population.We could create a system of influence of society on the government. So I think the law on parties is aimed precisely at this - to create feedback from society to the authorities."6

For greater clarity, let us consider what opportunities are created by the main provisions of the federal law “On Political Parties” that came into force on July 14, 2001 (with the exception of Article 33 and paragraph 1 of Article 36). 7 , which creates a completely different configuration in the system of public associations that have the status of political 8 . This cannot but affect the conditions, forms and methods, as well as (no less important) the role of party elites in their competition for a dominant position on the political “Olympus” and a decisive influence on the adoption of state and legal decisions. In the light of the new law, the rules of party participation in the federal and regional electoral processes and the corresponding political technologies are changing significantly.

It is appropriate here to cite the visionary judgment of one of the founders of the non-Marxist political-sociological consideration of parties, M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, who wrote: “A party by its nature is a free association of citizens, which, like any other association, is not susceptible to external influence, since it contradicts the general law. The state, which respects the fundamental rights of citizens, ignores parties as such. It has no right to ask the members of any group what their political ideas are and what their political background is. The state has no right to stamp political convictions, nor to establish the conditions under which "This stamp can be imposed. No free country has attempted such interference. Only Russia has recently decided to establish legal political parties." 9 . This was first published back in 1903 10 , but it sounds as if it was said today and on the topic of the day. Formulated much earlier than the emergence of one-party dictatorial regimes in a number of states, the conclusions of M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, of course, could not take into account the consequences of unlimited political rights and freedoms of citizens on party building and its active invasion into the sphere of state-legal regulation of social relations . However, they also contain a certain sound rational principle (basis), which cannot and should not be ignored in a democratic legal political system.

As is known, as one of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood, the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 13) enshrines: recognition of ideological and political diversity, multi-party system; equality of public associations before the law, a ban on the creation and activities of those whose goals or actions are aimed at violently changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, creating armed groups, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred.

All this is reflected in the preamble, as well as in paragraph 1 of Art. 9 of the Law on Political Parties. At the same time, the said Federal Law contains a number of completely new significant provisions that directly relate to the party elites. Among them, in particular, such legal innovations as: subsection "e" clause 2 of Art. 21, which requires that the Charter of a political party must necessarily reflect the procedure for electing the governing and control and audit bodies of a political party, its regional branches and other structural units, the term of office and the competence of these bodies; subsection "and" clause 2 of the same article, relating to the procedure for nominating candidates (lists of candidates) from a political party for deputies and other elective positions in government bodies and local governments, enshrined in the Charter; clause 9 art. 23, from which it follows that persons working in the governing and control and audit bodies of a political party, its regional branches or other structural divisions, in the performance of their official or official duties, are bound by the decisions of their political parties (unlike other members of the same parties) ; clauses 3 and 4 art. 24, according to which the election of the governing bodies of a political party must be carried out at least once every four years, and the election of the governing bodies of its regional branches - at least once every two years; p.p. 1, 2 and 3 tbsp. 25 on the procedures for making decisions on the election of governing bodies and on the nomination of candidates for deputies and other elective state and municipal positions, which must be adopted by a majority vote in a secret ballot.

Of particular note are the provisions of the Law on Political Parties, which legalize state funding of political parties, which will be carried out starting from January 1, 2004.

The right to receive federal budget funds is acquired by such political parties that: based on the results of participation in the elections of deputies of the State Duma, receive in support of their federal list of candidates at least 3% of the votes of voters who took part in the voting; won the elections of deputies of the State Duma in at least 12 single-mandate electoral districts, having elected their candidates; received, based on the results of the presidential elections of the Russian Federation, at least 3% of the votes in support of their candidate for the post of head of state. In all of these cases, the political party that took part in the elections receives the right to annual financing of its activities in the amount of 0.005 of the minimum wage established by law on March 1 of the previous year, multiplied by the number of votes that supported the party in the elections of voters (in the elections of parliamentary deputies ), as well as for a one-time payment in the same amount during the election of the President of Russia.

It is noteworthy that the Law also provides for the right of political parties to refuse state funding.

It is interesting that, for example, in Canada, since 1969, only the bodies of political parties in the House of Commons (the so-called “caucuses”) began to receive subsidies from the state treasury and only for the maintenance of their support staff, and in amounts depending on the number of deputies of a particular party in the said House of Parliament 11 . However, such a system of financing party factions in parliament, as noted in the domestic literature, puts the party in power in more favorable conditions, which, along with the services of its caucus apparatus, also receives the services of the federal civil service at the expense of the treasury 12 .

It is very symptomatic that the Russian law on political parties has created, perhaps, the first precedent in the world, according to which an imperative norm of law has become the requirement that the federal registration body post the financial report of a political party on a special website of a public information and telecommunications network no later than two months from the day the political party submits the said report to the federal tax authority.

Even R. Michels pointed out in his famous work “The Sociology of a Political Party in a Democracy” that a (political) party is neither a social nor an economic entity and that the basis of its activities is a program 13 .

In accordance with the Russian Law on Political Parties, each of them must have a program that defines the principles of the party’s activities, its goals and objectives, as well as methods of implementation.

As A. Kiva correctly notes, the Law “On Political Parties” provides incentives for the unification of both small and relatively large parties, the former will strive for self-preservation in order to be represented in parliament, and the latter will strive to win the majority of seats in However, both of them are forced to decide both on their program and on their potential electorate 14 .

In this context, M. Duverger’s interpretation of political parties as an instrument of expression, formation and representation of public opinion, as well as a means of political self-determination of citizens and the subject of the government’s responsibility to them, ensuring governance of the people by “elites who came from the people themselves” becomes even more relevant. 15 .

Here we touch on another important topic, which goes back to classical elitology. Studying contemporary party practice, R. Michels deduced a pattern that he considered inevitable - the oligarchization of the party elite.

P. Michels cannot be denied many subtle observations and generalizations. But one can also discern “white spots” in his concept. Describing the actual transformation of the leaders of social democracy, he absolutizes this phenomenon, removing it from the “eternal” mechanisms of governance, which inevitably result in oligarchic rule. Michels' main argument is that neo-oligarchic management of large organizations is technically impossible. But technical obstacles can sooner or later be overcome. Michels was not familiar with the capabilities of modern (and future) computers. Is democracy and non-oligarchic management of large organizations possible, if technical obstacles to this are overcome, if there is a developed system of direct and feedback between leaders and members of large organizations - a problem that is still waiting to be solved 16 . However, today, in our opinion, this is precisely the time when the shoots of a successful solution to this problem appear and take hold.

In this regard, it is interesting that, according to estimates given in the press, the majority of users (according to research in Russia, over 26 million people with an average age of 33 years regularly receive information from the Internet) use the Network as a source of information of a political nature (64% of visitors ), which indicates the use of online “publications” as a serious means of political influence (technology of influence) on the masses 17 .

Here it is important to take into account and be guided by one of the main provisions of the Russian Information Security Doctrine approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 9, 2000, according to which it is necessary to ensure the priority development of domestic modern information and telecommunication technologies for connecting to global information networks.

With the advent and development of the Internet, new opportunities for effective political governance have presented themselves. This is especially clearly visible in the activities of the elites of political parties. The Internet has rightfully become a connecting link between the leadership of political parties and ordinary citizens. At one time, R. Dahl noted that telecommunication technologies play a key role in creating the preconditions for an “advanced democratic society” in which political decisions are based on the opinions and judgments of the “people” 18 .

The function of the global Internet network in the activities of modern political parties is to provide constant socio-political discourse with the possibility of electronic feedback in real time between the party elite and its electorate. Thanks to the Internet, citizens enjoy greater freedom to collect, analyze and exchange information, and also have the opportunity to participate in the direct management of a political party or influence its activities.

Thus, anyone can easily get in touch with the party elite and express their recommendations or complaints about the activities of the political party. Moreover, the party elites themselves actively use the Internet to summarize and take into account various information, namely:

Analysis of opinions and sentiments of the electorate;

Conducting various surveys and statistical studies;

Exchange of ideas with users of the Internet computer network;

Relations with regional branches of parties, which, according to the law on political parties, must be at least 45;

Analysis of the reaction of Internet users to a particular political phenomenon, etc.

Party elites of political parties use the Internet for other purposes, in particular:

Recruiting new party members,

Presentations of various political projects and legislative initiatives,

Dissemination of information about the activities of the party,

Transmitting press releases to journalists,

Broadcasting political news related to the functioning of the party organization,

And even collecting funds and donations for the needs of the party * .

A number of representatives of modern Russian party elites consult with citizens using the Internet when making important political decisions.

For example, in April 2003, the late S. Yushenkov invited Internet users to nominate candidates for the electoral list of “Liberal Russia” 19 .

Political parties are actively fighting for influence in the information community. The users themselves, who receive political information through Internet channels, are for the most part the “communicative” elite of modern society.

Such people are of particular value for political parties, since users of political Internet resources mainly include: journalists, teachers, political scientists, experts and a number of other categories of citizens actively participating in the political life of the country. Therefore, attracting such sections of the population to one’s side is of particular value for any party organization. In addition, journalists are increasingly working with the Internet as a source of information. Materials taken from the pages of political sites located on the World Wide Web appear in newspapers and magazines; particularly popular online publications are referred to by central media. The publication of relevant political, and especially sensational, material on the Internet is instantly reflected in the press.

It is also noteworthy that most modern political parties actively recruit members from Internet users.

Thus, on most web sites of political parties you can become a member of the party, or at least get information on how to do this. Of great interest is the experience of the “New Force” movement (S. Kiriyenko), which not only received registration with the Ministry of Justice essentially on the basis of an “electronic subscription,” but also organized the first “virtual congress” in Russian history in the fall of 1999.

The main direction in the activities of political parties in the virtual space, of course, is the dissemination of information about the activities of parties, their plans and projects. Almost every political party's website contains information about the party organization, its leaders, biographical data of representatives of the party elite, political programs, various publications, etc. But, first of all, campaign materials are posted in large quantities on the websites, which allows parties to actively conduct extensive voter campaigning at minimal cost.

The data listed above is published by parties on a voluntary basis, however, there are also mandatory publications on party websites.

So, almost all major modern Russian political parties are represented on the Internet. And it’s time to talk about network politics and the political Internet, through which not only virtual, but also real struggle for votes is being actively waged. This is especially evident on the eve of politically significant events, such as elections to the State Duma or the President of the country.

It is impossible to overestimate the prospects for agitation by Internet users, since the network is constantly developing and the number of users is regularly increasing. In addition, answering a question from journalists about the possibility of voting via the Internet, Mr. Vishnyakov A.A. noted that the Russian Central Election Commission is dealing with this problem and, in particular, clarified that Russian experts are taking part in the meeting of the relevant commission of the Council of Europe.

The head of the CEC emphasized that this could happen no earlier than in 5 years, since for this “it is necessary to develop a legal basis and a number of technical issues relating to the security of information transfer must be resolved” 20 . Based on this, we can talk about the enormous potential of using the Internet in future political processes, in particular, in the struggle for power, which is actively waged by party elites in the 21st century.

It should be emphasized that party elites with different ideological orientations are those “factories of political thought” with which any bureaucratic structure, including both government and presidential structures, is unlikely to withstand competition. They have the advantage that they are not blinkered by the narrow tasks of maintaining power and maintaining the interests of a narrow circle of the elite. They are closer to society and they have their own social base.

It is in the interests of the population and civil society of Russia to promote the party elites to the first rank of Russian elite groups and include them in the competition for power, and not just in competition within the framework of ideological competition and in competitions for political wit and “best scandal of the year.”

Notes

1 Toshchenko Zh.T. Paradoxical man. M., 2001. S. 284-292.

2 Interaction of elites in the socio-political space of modern Russia. Rostov n/a. 2001. P. 20-43; Power elites and nomenklatura: an annotated bibliography of Russian publications of 1990-2000. / Rep. ed. A.V Duka. St. Petersburg 2001; Place Y.A. Political elite of Russia: problems of historiography // State and municipal management. Scientific notes of SKAGS. 2001. No. 3. P. 7-40.

3 Mills R. The Power Elite. M., 1959. P. 239.

4 Michels R. Political Parties. A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. N.-Y., 1962. P. 340.

5 Shubin A.V. From “stagnation” to reforms of the USSR in 1917-1985. M., 2001. 6 Program "Today". TV channel NTV. 01/16/2001. 7 Russian newspaper. 2001. July 14. pp. 5-7.

8 Art. 12 Federal Law "On Public Associations" // Collection of legislation of the Russian Federation. 1998. No. 30. Art. 3608.

9 Political Science: Reader / Comp. prof. Vasilik M.A., associate professor Vershinin M.S. M.: Gardariki, 2000. P. 526-527.

10 La democratie et L "organization des partis politiques. Paris, 1903.

11 Osavelyuk A.M. Auxiliary government bodies of foreign countries: constitutional and legal aspect. M.: Yurist, 1998. P. 176.

12 Parliaments of the world: Collection. M.: Interpraks, 1991. P. 236.

13 Political Science: Reader / Comp. prof. Vasilik M.A., associate professor Vershinin M.S. P. 544.

14 Kiva A. There are a lot of signs, but where are the parties? // Parliamentary newspaper. 2001. July 27. S. 4.

15 Zimina L.A. Maurice Duverger and his book "Political Parties". Preface by the translator // Duverger M. Political parties. Translation from French M.: Academic Project, 2000. P. 11.

16 Ashin G.K., Ponedelkov A.V., Ignatov V.G., Starostin A.M. Fundamentals of political elitology. Textbook allowance. M.: PRIOR Publishing House, 1999. P. 38.

17 Tropkina O. The Internet as a political instrument // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2000. August 19. S. 3.

18 Dahl R.A. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, 1989. P. 339.

19 Make your own list! // AIF. 2003. No. 12.

20 The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation is developing an electronic-sensory voting system // RIA "RosBusinessConsulting". 08/15/2003.

* For example: As part of a fundraising campaign through its website (www.kprf.ru), the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as of September 10, collected more than 11 million rubles.

To comment you must register on the site.

More and more people are asking the question: when will United Russia be removed? And more and more often, without waiting for an answer, they brush it off. Like, some will leave, others will come.

Is it so? In part, yes: the legislative branch has long become a background, the main struggle is being waged at the level of management concepts, in the very heart of the capitalist class. However, the United Russia party itself is no longer a monolithic political entity. Formally, it is split into three platforms: patriotic, social and liberal. The substantive part of the party split is much deeper. The Federal Assembly has long been plagued by internal conceptual conflicts. Today, two opposing moments in the party restructuring are especially pronounced: 1) the formation of a national-populist coalition, devoid of any constructive legislative potential; 2) the creation of a mobile center in the Duma, the revival of intra-class competition.

These two processes are moments of a more complex category, a dual process - 3) the formation of intra-class consensus. The elite needs to come to an agreement, it is necessary to hang out at least some kind of banner for their own, to stop the endless squabbling within the superstructure of power. The crisis within the ruling class is staggering in its scale. Soon the elite will have to sacrifice virtually all their immediate interests in order not to lose in the main areas. The points we have named are directly related to the question of the fundamental class interests of Russian capitalists.

We will try to reveal the content of these moments.

Primitivization of the Duma

Unfortunately, this is the prevailing moment today. Conditionally opposition parties, not being able to lobby the laws of the groups and clans behind them, have come to terms with their own powerlessness. They use the podium as a campaign mouthpiece, as a stage for not entirely sincere hysterics. The performance replaced real politics for them.

The majority of United Russia fabulists did not escape this fate either. People in the Duma are either well-known, obedient, or on their own. Any bills are not only subject to internal party censorship, but are generally not considered without a prior order from above. Most information resources are given to only one platform: the so-called national-patriotic one. Here is Yarovaya with her informational reasons, and Batalina with her skillfully created semi-heroic aura.

In addition, Isaev, who successfully ran amok, was removed from the party’s ideologists, and the outrageously obedient Zheleznyak was put in his place. Personally, the author treats this politician quite well. Zheleznyak is an intelligent and decent person, as much as possible for a United Russia member. However, the architects of primitivization prepared for him the extremely vile role of a reactionary artillery gunner, the role of an intelligent guard.

The most active members of the ONF are closely connected with the “nationals”. Pro-government youth movements are moving to a semi-armed position. Under the pretext of patriotic education, aggressive nationalism is cultivated. The issue of preserving fabulous “traditional values” moves from the ideological plane to the social one, or rather, to the power one. Now, with the snap of a finger, these guys will begin to “correct the faces” of centrists, leftists, and liberals. Also, this moment is characterized by the replacement of quite ordinary specific issues with lengthy demagoguery. Instead of economics there is chatter, instead of social issues there is chatter, instead of geopolitics there is chatter. Any criticism from the people is interpreted as “a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation.” Criticism from colleagues is simply interpreted as a banal betrayal. The criterion of truth for national primitivists is loyalty to the president, traditions and the number of uncovered anti-people conspiracies.

They are dragging Russian statehood back into the darkness of tsarism. They are stuffing spineless Russian capitalism with feudal remnants instead of creating a full-fledged imperialist backbone.

Centrist activation

This moment leads to a split of centrists into four factions: conditionally left (social centrists), social conservatives (reactionary centrists), progressive imperialists (progressors), moderate right (“economists”).

At the same time, none of the factions will initially be inclined to open class rhetoric. The center-right must first distinguish itself from both liberals and nationalists. Otherwise, the latter themselves will draw them to their flank: an involuntary identification will occur, at least in the eyes of the voter. Social centrists must intensively invest their political capital in trade unions - this is the cornerstone of their politics. However, first they need a well-defined ideological and ethical self-identification.

In general, all questions of the internal dynamics of the moving center, the prospects of the left to occupy this center and squeeze the maximum out of the bourgeois parliament are the subject of a separate study, to which the author devotes considerable time. In this article we will limit ourselves to an approximate scenario for activating the Center. So.

Firstly, any two platforms in United Russia must have sufficient power to neutralize the third. Secondly, if any two conflict, the third must be able to resolve their contradictions. In other words, the well-known triangle inequalities are satisfied: a+b>c, |a-b|

What's next? Through joint efforts, the nationals are being removed from the division of the party heritage. They are thrown into the ONF as self-nominated candidates. And then these gentlemen will be forced to move from nationalist demagoguery to solving specific social problems. The cherished “mandate locomotive” will not arrive. Let's see what they can do.

Meanwhile, the remaining two platforms divide the party between themselves. And since each contains two opposite moments, we get four factions, then six (two more becomings are added). Further natural development leaves two forces in the center as the resolution of two different becomings. In the long term, the roles of these forces are easily visible. These are social progressives (progressive socialists, the point is not in the names) and moderates.

What is important for us in this development of events is that the Center ceases to be monolithic. The intraclass contradictions of capitalists are exposed, and therefore become the object of direct influence. In addition, the activation of the Center will create a force directly in the Duma that opposes the liberal “community of experts.” Their confrontation will intensify as the progressive factions in the Center become stronger. It is possible that this struggle will bring us free bonuses: the closure of the Higher School of Economics, the imprisonment of most of the liquidators of the domestic industry... And this is not a matter of the consciousness of the centrists! Simply, the preservation of large-scale production and the defeat of the monetarist clique coincides with the economic interests of a very specific part of the bourgeoisie.

What are the capitalists and bourgeois politicians themselves doing for this scenario? Realizing that within the United Russia they were already losing the battle to the national populists, part of the elite decided to go beyond the narrow party boundaries. The collapse of United Russia was accelerated and turned into an internal party disaster. 80% of local branches are already deprived of any funding from above. Functionaries and apparatchiks are doomed to serve out their sentences. Activity is artificially reduced to almost zero. The most intelligent ones are already fighting so that at least they are not forgotten when dividing the party inheritance.

Not only is a change of signs coming, but also a wave of political death struggles. Many of those hitherto not subject to prosecution, from “our own”, will go to jail under the flashes of cameras, and even the intervention of the supreme arbiter of Russian politics will not help.

The task of all progressive forces is to take advantage of this paralysis of the ruling party, which will last about a year. If the bearers of progress understand in time the entire dialectic of this political game, then in the wake of the activation of the Center, communists, socialists, and technocrats will easily achieve certain victories. However, in order to form the necessary coalition, that is, not to lose the vanguard of the class and separate the ballast that discredits us, it is necessary to reveal one more category. This is the very formation of an intra-calculation consensus, which includes the two points described above. And we will certainly return to the study of this most important phenomenon.

Other materials on the topic:

40 comments

Vladlen 19.11.2013 13:05

Edro will be drained very soon. This is already a dead political project. It wasn’t for nothing that they blamed it on Medvedev, both will drown.

kumuljativ 19.11.2013 13:43

Good article. The “EP” system is broken down into bones, speaking in the language of mathematics, into a Fourier series. And this means that “the devil is not as terrible as he is painted.” Knowing the structure and internal contradictions, you can help Edru will soon fall apart into sand, despite the huge budgetary support from the outside
ruling bourgeois regime.
The article clearly identifies interest groups. Thus, the national bourgeoisie will always be in conflict with supporters of social programs. These and other contradictions (in their language - “divide and conquer”) will help them in self-destruction.
But we cannot hope for this; it is necessary to quickly strengthen the left, workers’ front, which will allow everything to be put in its place.
When the bourgeoisie is undergoing a process of division, it is necessary in the communist movement to initiate and begin the process of Unification on the MARXIST-LENINIST teaching. Time is rushing.
Workers of all countries, unite!

TYR 19.11.2013 13:54

Edrosnya is already embarrassed to nominate its candidates for deputies and mayors. More and more often I am running as a self-nominated candidate. They understand that they are already in trouble with the people

Kolyan 19.11.2013 19:37

the author does not understand anything about politics, he is talking nonsense. Millions vote for United Russia, and Putin and Medvedev are the national leaders of our state. so nothing will happen to you, paid Orangemen, in Russia. Where is Putin there is victory!

Aster 19.11.2013 20:08

I don’t understand how you can vote for United Russia? Well, okay, officials, okay, their servants, okay, bandits and prostitutes. But how can workers, peasants, and intellectuals vote for such a party? And small traders too, who are being robbed by officials? After all, the fact that United Russia is a party of officials is not even hidden.

Red alternative. 19.11.2013 20:13

Aster 19.11.2013 22:13

Red alternative. While there was no ROT Front - for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. However, I also understand those who still sympathize with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. One of my acquaintances became a supporter of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation when he compared the number of critical publications addressed to each other by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the ROT Front.
But I absolutely don’t understand those who sympathize with United Russia.

Vladlen 19.11.2013 22:15

we must vote for those politicians who do not promise the people to give them a happy life, as soon as they avoid them from giving us this or that post. Only those who directly tell people that they will achieve freedom and democracy only through their own efforts, their struggle and participation deserve respect. And progressive politicians should only help people in this

Red alternative. 19.11.2013 22:27

Aster.
Do not make yourself an idol.
This Mouth, for now, only opens its mouth and nothing more.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 19.11.2013 23:16

Red alternative. When they told me: Well, your KNPK didn’t do anything, I always answered: “What did Nur-Otan do? (An analogue of your United Russia). Zero is greater than a negative value."

your name 20.11.2013 07:41

Without any falsification, candidates from United Russia win election campaigns with a noticeable lead over their competitors from other political movements. But the communists are afraid to nominate their candidates in some election campaigns, so as not to discredit themselves with the results.
Well, the national-populist coalition does not have constructive legislative potential. Who has it? The communists definitely don’t have it, because constructive laws can only be based on a constructive idea. And judging by the reaction of representatives of the communist movement to the articles of the project “What is Soviet power, or...” in the communist movement there is not only a constructive idea, but no thoughts at all.

Alexander Khoruzhy 20.11.2013 12:48

Thieves on the way out - elections of deputies of the Moscow City Duma 2014.
Nikolay Lymishchenko replied to Alexander Khoruzhy
Alexander, 1 they themselves are registered 2 the apple will clearly go by itself 3 maybe stop fighting already, but really go with a single list against United Russia

Alexander Khoruzhy replied to Nikolay Lymishchenko
Nikolay, Single list? from Apple? Yes, I’d rather be number one on the List from United Russia, since the main thing is to be honest with yourself. It is not the name that makes a person, but conscience and honor, if there is one. And in Yabloko the rams are the dumbest, you can’t even trust them with the yard of revenge. I was one of the first to register in their program on a single list for the Moscow City Duma 2014. They then called me 3-4 times, but when I tried to do something with them, I was finally convinced that this was a lying opposition, and they were clowns like the rest. There is no professionalism - Every time I called, I politely told them that I was thinking about them and that I would still not participate in their circus - I said delete my profile and don’t call again, and as a result, they called 3-4 times for a month or two. How can you go from idiots on the list for the Moscow City Duma Elections, and even more so to allow them to participate in such elections at all, if they don’t understand the same thing 3-4 times, by mail, the same way. Maybe stop fighting already and really go with a single list against United Russia? You are a humorist; the fact that other names appear in the deputies will not result in the appearance of honest and decent people. I was born and raised in Moscow and it’s monstrous to watch how the big top circus has been organized for years. It’s better to really go from the United Russia Party and remain human. Yes, I don’t like that this party has a bad reputation, but on the other hand, there are no parties. Become a United Russia deputy and work honestly and conscientiously. That's what I would do. I approached them like many others, but no one wants to work with me, because I tell the truth and sometimes I think with my head. Alexander Horuzhy http://www.horuzhy.ru/

Aster 20.11.2013 20:11

Red alternative. I'm not asking you who you voted for. I know that you did not go to the polls and will not go. But this is a wrong position. Because it is possible to rig it at the expense of those who did not come to the elections, therefore, those who did not vote passively voted for “united Russia”

Red alternative. 20.11.2013 21:06

Aster.
But why? I always go to the polls.
I voted for Putin in the presidential elections. Local by choice, not by party.
And I’ll even tell you why, some candidates run for president only for their own PR, but they cannot lead and are afraid. Not being able to restore order in their parties, or organize and unite like-minded people who need such managers. After all, there is only one prop.

your name 21.11.2013 04:20

Astra, all your reasoning is a consequence of the lack of analysis of the reasons why citizens who have the right to vote and an active life position, and these are precisely those who form the basis of civil society, either do not participate in the election campaign or give preference to those who are currently authorities. If any of the political forces were actually supported by them, then they would simply be afraid to falsify the results obtained during the election campaign. This is abnormal when the same communist movement, using the memory of the social successes of its past, has been trying for years to push on Russian society, mainly represented by the Russian people, a number of ideas unacceptable to it, for the sake of a political idea, prolonging the agony of society and plunging it into revolutionary chaos. And revolutionary chaos in the present historical period is a direct path to Russia’s loss of sovereignty. Just imagine, tomorrow the President of the Russian Federation, with his closest associates, will simply pack up and leave for a third country for permanent residence. Here in the comments, try to predict the situation that will happen in the morning, when all the defenders of Russia find out that a place in the Kremlin is free.

IVS 21.11.2013 10:29

The entire internal party kitchen of United Russia is of no interest. Does it really matter who wins the elections to the legislative assemblies? The Duma, like the entire legislative branch, is only an apparatus for adopting laws prepared by the executive branch. In our country, the executive branch (in the person of the president) has been brought to perfection, and it governs the country directly, through the bureaucracy.

your name 21.11.2013 10:38

But, Astra, one of the reasons why most of Russian society does not want to support the communists was tried to explain by the author of the comments with the nickname. "athlete". True, behind his emotions it turned out to be chaotic, but I can roughly systematize his thoughts using the example of Kazakhstan. In the Aktobe region, where Alesya Yasnogortseva is a member of the city committee of the KNPK, schools lack more than 300 teachers, despite the fact that there is a pedagogical institute in Aktobe itself, and teachers of the highest category sell at the bazaar. At their school, according to information from their own press, a primary school teacher can tell his student that he is mentally retarded or cut off a clump of hair and write on his head - a fool, i.e. their nation, taking advantage of its right to self-determination, is taking long strides into the Middle Ages, from where the Russian communists pulled it out in the 20th century at the expense of the cultural and economic potential of the Russian people. Moreover, not giving a damn about basic respect for the Russian people, they changed the geographical names on the lands of the Russian people, once handed over to them by the communists. Now, in order to stop the degradation of their nation, it is necessary to send part of the cultural and economic potential of the Russian people to them, which is what they expect from Russian communists and with which a considerable part of Russian society will no longer agree.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 21.11.2013 20:41

Astra. Why some of the Russian proletarians vote for the party of officials, that is, against their interests - I will explain to you. In normal times, when there is no revolutionary situation, most people are afraid of any reforms. They have already adapted to the system that exists and do not want to re-adapt. This is the law of survival. Of course, we understand that from the point of view of the country’s survival, it is bad that a party of officials is in power. But many people have neither the time nor the spiritual strength to analyze.
This is why, by the way, many politicians of the bourgeois-bureaucratic persuasion (both here and in Russia) speak out in the sense that the working day needs to be increased.
But in a revolutionary situation, when there is a sharp deterioration in the situation of the working masses, they come to the understanding that it is no longer possible to adapt. And then they understand that the system needs to be changed.

Red alternative. 21.11.2013 21:06

This is why the akyn of the Kazakh steppes sings about the approach of a revolutionary situation in any way.
And then the war will show the plan.
Nevermind, to the akyn’s prison, to the furnace of his song.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 21.11.2013 21:31

Red alternative. The OBJECTIVE components of the revolutionary situation do not depend on us. That is why they are called objective. This is the inability of the ruling class to continue to rule in the old way and a sharp deterioration in people’s lives. Only its SUBJECTIVE component depends on us, and therefore whether it will turn into a revolution.

Aster 21.11.2013 21:41

Alesya Yasnogortseva. Yes, I understand this. I've seen enough of the townsfolk - so tough, just hold on! That’s why even the enemy’s civilian position is precious.
It’s good if they don’t have it forever.

your name 22.11.2013 04:02

Yeah, Marxism and clairvoyance have failed. This is in the 13th, in the work “May Day of the Revolutionary Proletariat”, V.I. Lenin writes: “For a revolution it is not enough that the lower classes do not want to live as before. It also requires that the top not be able to manage and govern as before.”
But in the 20th, in the work of V.I. Lenin’s “The Infantile Disease of “Leftism in Communism” says: “Only when the “lower classes” do not want the old and when the “upper” cannot continue with the old, only then can the revolution win.”
So the problem of the communist movement (and not Russian society) is that the “lower classes” do not want the old version of Soviet power proposed by the communist movement, and therefore the subjective components do not depend on some of the representatives of the communist movement who inadequately assess the mood of society. It is obvious that, according to Lenin, the revolution today cannot win, precisely because the communist movement has simply been kicking the cannon for 20 years and is going to continue to do so until elections based on party lists are abolished. And an attempt to make a revolution based on subjective components, by inciting hatred between citizens, is called extremism.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 22.11.2013 21:54

Your name. And I seem to understand your game. You want to present the communists as supporters of a return to the past and provoke us to make statements like “Everything was fine in the past.”
But in fact, everything looks something like this joke:
The old man is asked who he will vote for. He answers:
- Oh, dear, just not back to stagnation and the CPSU. Tired of it!
— So you will vote for United Russia?
- No, for the communists!
As for extremism, if there is no extreme situation, it cannot be widespread, and there is no need to fight against it. If it exists, it becomes widespread and it is useless to fight against it.

Red alternative. 22.11.2013 23:31

Did you come up with this slogan about extremism yourself and really like it?
Extremism in any situation and in quantity is dangerous for society. It must be destroyed, even surgically.
This is gangrene, let it go and you get Libya, Syria.

The one who creates the canons and standards of the next era will dominate the world.
-Whoever is afraid of the future, does not think about it, does not build it consciously, is and will always be a prey-victim.

Your goal is an extreme situation, revolution, ruin, death.
Our goal is stability, gradual movement forward.
It is our goal that is more consistent with the aspirations of the vast majority of citizens. Those who don’t believe, let them go out into the street and shout calls for revolution and murder for 10 minutes, that’s the whole test.

your name 23.11.2013 00:47

Alesya Yasnogortseva, I wanted to get acquainted with the position of the communists on the project of this site “What is Soviet power, or ...”, by the way, on which you, as a representative of the “factory” masses, were not noticed, just as the desire of your comrades was not noticed the communist movement to do what they should do as participants in the socio-political movement. It is curious that those who do not want to work, in discussing free labor, have put forward quite a few proposals on how to force others to work.

Aster 23.11.2013 18:45

Your name. Sorry, you addressed Alesya Yasnogortseva, and I am answering you. What if you take part in the project yourself? You, too, seem to be against this government.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 23.11.2013 21:39

Red alternative. How many times must I repeat to you that the onset of an extreme situation does not depend on us! And therefore it cannot be our goal. It’s the same as if I told you: “Your goal is an earthquake or a hurricane.” Absurd? Certainly. So why is what you say not considered absurd?
All that depends on us is to prepare the proletariat (i.e., all people working for wages) for an extreme situation. So that he would meet it not confused, but organized, he would immediately take power into his own hands and prevent a civil war.

Red alternative. 23.11.2013 22:25

Alesya Yasnogortseva.
But because hurricanes and earthquakes are natural phenomena, but extreme situations in public life are always man-made. Unlike you, I studied history very carefully and I know how many years certain forces were preparing to create such situations and how it ended for Russia. How much work they put into corrupting the army of the Republic of Ingushetia.
Therefore, there is no need to try to create an extreme, everything works, from jokes to the creation of organizations.
If you don’t know this, at least read D. Sharp, he may be an enemy for Russia, but he explains it very clearly.
I hope we haven’t forgotten that politics is a concentrated economy, and that in turn, by engaging in politics, you influence the economy, which means you create an extreme situation here and now.
Don’t pretend and don’t fool others with such turns of phrase. They say, we are not us and do not have any impact on this.

your name 24.11.2013 09:51

The society of healthcare workers is against the communists, the society of educators is against the communists, most of the representatives of the society of culture and science are against the communists, most of the military and retired are against the communists, pensioners are against, “factory” workers in general sent. Moreover, the communists not only did not try to find out the reason for such an attitude towards themselves, but also over the course of 20 years they themselves created an image of the communist movement as deconstructive, the pinnacle of which was the loss in the election campaign of the 11th year, which was positioned by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as “the last battle,” and after his shameful loss, due to irresponsible preparation for it, which declared that the communist movement was on the right path and would work in the same direction.
And what kind of proletarians are we talking about here?

Alesya Yasnogortseva 24.11.2013 13:41

Red alternative. It is not proletarian politicians who provoke an extreme (or, in other words, revolutionary) situation. They simply don't have the capacity to do this. Bourgeois oppositionists - yes, they can provoke something like that. But how, if you can, explain (preferably with specific examples) can proletarian leaders create a revolutionary situation? Penetrate the bureaucracy and steal from the budget and take bribes? Or, perhaps, become a bourgeois in order to exploit the proletarians even more and more evilly?

Kira Razorova 24.11.2013 13:52

The red alternative is absolutely right. This Balshivichi atrodie distvitilna created a pirivarot in the race. And it was kept by workers who would get drunk and go on strike, who didn’t want to work.
I, too, always speak out for the “United Race”2 But the main ones don’t want to do anything - ban strikes, bully the homeless, and get rid of the Asians.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 24.11.2013 21:50

Red alternative That's it - now, I hope, it is clear to you who can stand in solidarity with you?! And what terrible ideas can the bourgeois-bureaucratic government adopt?
Just don’t say that Kira Razorova’s position is our provocation. Some of the bourgeois ideologists do this to create a habit of such statements, because they understand that the bourgeoisie can adopt such an ideology. And this is the worst thing!

Red alternative. 24.11.2013 22:31

Alesya Yasnogortseva.
The point is not who may want to identify with the Red Alternative. The point is who the Red Alternative will align itself with.
Is it clear now?

your name 25.11.2013 05:04

It’s a pity to argue with no one that this lady doesn’t understand. 100% would be my win.

Alesya Yasnogortseva 28.11.2013 22:12

Red alternative. But you didn’t answer my question: how can proletarian figures expressing the interests of the proletariat provoke the creation of a revolutionary situation? You don't have an answer to it. Because a revolutionary situation occurs OBJECTIVELY.

Red alternative. 28.11.2013 23:52

Alesya Yasnogortseva.
Learn the materiel.
In the world of people, everything is man-made.
What the hell, - “Because the revolutionary situation is coming OBJECTIVELY.”

Vladimir 01.12.2013 03:34

Today and in the future, unification and consolidation is possible around the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as the only opposition party of the Russian Federation defending the interests of the working people, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation always opposes the anti-people law in the State Duma and offers its own version of the development of the socio-economic course of the country's development on the socialist principles of renewed socialism of the 21st century. Future for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Vladimir 01.12.2013 04:17

Today and in the future, unification and consolidation is possible only around the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as the only opposition party of the Russian Federation defending the interests of the working people, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation always opposes the anti-people law in the State Duma and offers its own version of the development of the socio-economic course of the country's development on the socialist principles of renewed socialism of the 21st century. The future belongs to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

your name 02.12.2013 05:00

Even if the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the only opposition party of the Russian Federation defending the interests of the working people, then it declared itself as such and offering Russian society something unclear, began to lose its support due to its reluctance to see a qualitative change in the thinking of Russian society, in which it is not a participant in the communist movement, and the communist movement exists within it. And if the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as people say about it, does not stop fooling around and, instead of preparing for communist forums in different Brazils, does not present a clear model of a new Russian society, then its future will soon be unclear.

The formation of the party system in modern Russia is associated with a number of difficulties and problems. The main ones include:

1. Lack of sustainable traditions of party building on democratic principles. The history of continuous party building in Western countries goes back about 150 years. The experience of a multi-party system in Russia is 20 years old at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and 20 years in our time, but in general it is less than 40 years old.

2. Party building is ahead of the process of forming a social and ideological base for parties. Thus, many of them declare themselves to be parties of the middle class, but this class itself has not yet been formed in Russia. We also don’t have a new rural worker – farming. There are no established party ideologies that are understandable to the general population.

3. The formation of most modern Russian parties, with a few exceptions, is based on the principle of unification around a leader, and not around an idea. As a result, the leader leaves and the party disintegrates and disappears from the political arena. In the last 15-20 years, the number of such “one-day” parties by historical standards, “unexpectedly” announced and disappeared from the arena of public Russian political life, is in the dozens.

4. Psychological distrust of the population in parties, party work and party leaders. For older generations, this is the result of disappointment in the CPSU. For young people, this is a consequence of civic immaturity and lack of a positive example. All this complicates recruitment into party ranks and limits the opportunities for the emergence of full-fledged mass stable political parties.

5. The explosive nature of the formation of parties - another feature of Russia, especially evident in the wake of democratic transformations. Over the course of 2-3 years at the turn of the 80s and 90s, several dozen parties were formed. Already in the first alternative elections to the State Duma in 1993, 13 associations participated, including 8 parties that immediately received seats in the Duma. However, most of the parties turned out to be armchair one-day ones that do not have serious political weight and social influence. They fragmented the electorate, confused voters who were simply confused by the abundance of unproven parties and their “one-day” leaders.

To streamline party building, to limit the unmotivated growth in the number of fly-by-night parties, the Federal Law “On Political Parties” was adopted in 2001, and later, rules were introduced into the electoral legislation, which also has a huge impact on the formation of the party system, tightening the requirements for the viability of political parties .

Some requirements of modern Russian legislation aimed at consolidating parties:

1. The list of a political party must have at least 45 thousand members.

2. The mandatory presence of regional branches of parties with at least 450 members in at least half of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

3. Conducting elections to the State Duma only according to party lists, that is, according to the proportional system. The first such elections were held in December 2007; before that, elections to the Duma were held using a mixed system: one half of the deputies were elected using a majoritarian system, and the other half using a proportional electoral system.

The electoral threshold for a party to enter the State Duma has been increased from 5 to 7% of the vote.

5. The transfer of State Duma deputies from one party faction to another is prohibited: each deputy is obliged to belong and work in the parliamentary faction of the party from which he was elected.

The ultimate goal of the above and some other similar norms of party and electoral legislation is the formation in Russia of a stable 2 - maximum 3 party system. Under the influence of these legislative innovations, a rapid process of consolidation of parties began due to their unification. If at the end of 2007 in Russia there were 17 political parties officially registered by the Ministry of Justice, then in 2009 there were 7 of them left: on the basis of the Party of Life, the Party of Pensioners, and Rodina, a new party of social democratic orientation was created - Just Russia. "Union of Right Forces", "Civil Force" and "Democratic Party" merged into a new right-wing liberal party Just cause. Only three parties that won seats in the State Duma in December 2007 retained their independence ( United Russia, Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Liberal Democratic Party), as well as those who did not overcome the 7% barrier Apple And Patriots of Russia.

The evolution of the party system in modern Russia from 1993 to 2007. presented in Table 7-1.

The past five elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation provide a fairly clear picture of the party and political sentiments prevailing in Russian society in recent years. From 1993 to 2007 voters' trust was invariably received by: firstly, pro-presidential parties (Choice of Russia, PRESS, NDR (Our Home is Russia), Unity, United Russia); secondly, left-wing parties (represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), as well as national-patriotic parties represented by the Liberal Democratic Party. The right-wing parties (SPS and Yabloko), whose ideology was the basis of the revolutionary changes in the 90s, lost their attractiveness to voters from election to election. In the last two (2003 and 2007) elections, they did not win a single seat in the Russian parliament, and, therefore, did not participate in the distribution of state power.

Table 7-1

The evolution of the Russian party system