The Russian domain or game with the zero sums.

In one of clauses of some futurologist and literary critic has expressed features of the Russian social device. In his opinion, the basic social structure in Russia is not family or clan, but "domain" - association of people on the mixed friend-business basis.

It is very difficult to analyze internal communications of the domain. They are not national, religious or family (patrimonial). Are not also professional or school - through the general childhood. Though can be both those, and others, both the third, and so on.

This structurization of socium is estimated by this scolar positively, he say it has facilitated to the Russia an output from crisis of 1998.

“It is important, that a number of the western experts trust in existence additional "binding fields" in the Russian society and aspire to liquidate these fields … I assert, that the western political structures directly or indirectly financed occurrence and promotion of the reality show in Russia”.

Of course these shows really render destructive influence. But they destroy the rests of morals of a society. “Domains” will survive. Such structures are available and in fauna (at least, among mammals) and are “on that party of goods and evil”.

Here it is necessary to address to clause of the American political scientist of Japanese origin F. Fukuyama, the author once sensational, and then scarified (in many respects it is fair) clauses “the End of history”. In recent and rather  interesting work Fukuyama writes about features of capitalism in the various countries. According to its work, these features result from character of trust inside of a society. And it has serious (though also inconsistent) consequences for economic development.

Among Anglo-Saxons and Japanese the level of trust is high enough between members of a society irrespective of a degree of relationship between them. It leads to an opportunity of formation of large corporations, all industrial, financial and trading giants.

In France, Italy, and also China the trust is more belongs to relatives. Therefore family average and fine firms dominate there.

What way is more favorable to the country? Fukuyama asserts that it depends on what direction in the industry is at present perspective for mankind. As one branches demand presence of large corporations, others - fine and moderate-sized firms.

In Russia we can see something the third. A level of trust in a society is very low. Family communications also, in many respects, are destroyed. And here friendly attitudes, really, play a serious role. Not a secret, that the majority of conditions “new Russian” have arisen owing to such attitudes (Gennady Javlinsky has named all Russian capitalism "friendly"). In effect, all these oligarchic structures (to take the same Michael Khodorkovsky) are that as we remember, our scolar has characterized as "domains", (more clear word - party).

The word "domain" (sounding so it is familiar for all users Internet J) in historical works means possession ("dominus" - lord) and was usually used in relation to medieval feuds.

Domains had wide circulation in Russia not always. Imperial Russia represented a class society with complex non-uniform structure. During Stalin time for territories of the USSR there was huge “a totalitarian authority”. At Khrushchev’s period its privatization by separate domains-parties has began. The given process has received special development during “the period of Brezhnev”s stagnation”. Well and last fifteen years are logic final of process. Actually domains are consequence of degradation of a society. They have replaced the emptiness formed as a result of destruction of complex structures (the same as in the American prairies rabbits and jackals have replaced the exterminated bisons and wolves).

Thus everyone, in process of “domain privatization” has carried away everything that was available. The domains privatized the raw and industrial enterprises, power structures, newspapers, magazines, “the creative unions”, etc. The majority of population has got nothing.

To take even such formation, as “the Union of Artists”. What it for structure? We have got used to consider, that there are two kinds of the organizations: trade union and creative association. The structure of the first type basically includes all persons working on concrete speciality ("artists") and paying a concrete membership dues, with the purpose of protection of their rights before the employer. The structure of the second type unites people with the close creative belief, representing the certain direction in art: “the World of art”, “the Left front” (groups of the Russian artists of the beginning of 20 centuries) and so on.

That we have in the persons of  “the Union of Artists” (and its branches on all country). Once Stalin, being engaged in unification of a intelligence life in the USSR, has merged all creative groups in uniform "Union". During reorganization it was spoken about basic senselessness of such structure, or about its transformation to normal trade union. For by definition there can not be at several thousand artists uniform “a idea basis” (just as there could not be general belief at eighteen millions members  of Brezhnev’s Communist party!). But there can be financial and legal interests.

But all remained still, under a pretext “preservations of Russian spirituality and culture”. Easier speaking - the ruling hierarchy in "Union" is sharply interested in the control over resources of the organization: prestigious showrooms, actually free-of-charge apartment-masterful in the central areas, the state grants, orders, trips abroad (by a cultural exchange where they represent “the Russian art”), etc. Not and it is not enough. On all does not suffice, certainly, therefore rank-and-file members exist as mass meeting. The union of artists in Russia is not trade union or creative association. It ruling structures are the typical parties-domains organized with mixed friend-business ground (not excluding related attitudes).

Members of prospering domains (if, certainly, fairly recognize presence of their existence) will tell that the similar organization of a society is quite positive (from here nearby and to praise for criminal economy of “new Russians”). But such structure does give the Russia of advantages neither western, nor east societies.

In the West, at its individualism social mobility in a society is high. Easier speaking, the person with brains and hands can make decent career by quite lawful way. From here high creation a modern western civilization.

In the East, (there patrimonial structures where strongly), a situation other. Conditions of a life in a sort are those, that there will be you seven spans in a forehead, but having the low patrimonial status, will quickly enough be rested against a social ceiling. Therefore we can see there stagnation of societies. But clans keep morals and very much rally ethnos. Knowingly, Russians who have not clans have got the subordinated position in Caucasus, Kazakhstan, Central Asia.

 “Is unimportant, what expert, it is important, that the person was good” - the wisdom getting in the inheritance from Brezhnev’s era. "Good" - the means. One more gain of those years - the well-known word "protection".

Therefore the modern situation in Russia is characterized by the lowered professionalism. From here for example, the level of teaching in private educational institutions not better at all, than in state (about a material resources, certainly, speech does not go).

And, notice, the domain - at all that "consortia" in understanding of Lion Gumilev ("consortium" - group of people soldered by the general belief and practice proselytism - that is everything accepting in the numbers, these belief dividing). No, the domain is not interested at all in growth of the numbers (“on all blessings will not suffice”). From here and all stagnation and senselessness of these petty intrigues of last fifteen years this is a game with the zero sums.

Alex Fantalov.

The Soviet nomenclature.

Menu