Thread by @akoz33

There are two very interesting Russian voices on the wave of protests and “protests” related to the death of George Floyd. One is by @kvoneggert and appears in the Russia’s magazine, the other by a Yulia Latynina & is a part of her weakly commentary on Russian & foreign events

“Kod Dostupa”. I have decided to translate both but I will start with Konstantin Eggert’s article because it says things which are much less known & will probably be surprising to many.
It is entitled “Russian Minneapolis. How the killing of George Floyd is connected with the

future of Russia.”
Global protests, caused by the death of Afro-American George Floyd, have caused an unexpected reaction in Russia. In actual fact, this is not surprising.

University professors dream of a time when Washington will be renamed, and portraits of the founding fathers of the United States will disappear from banknotes. A female viewer scolds the editor-in-chief of a leading independent television channel for daring to invite

a supporter Donald Trump on the air. On the pages of some famous people on Facebook, posts appear that would fit well into publications of the Ku Klux Klan.

Mr Twister’s immortal phrase, “We are not in Chicago, my dear,” fits here perfectly.

Because we really are not in America. We are in Moscow and other large Russian cities, and most importantly, in the Russian segment of social networks. A culture war similar to the one that has been going on in the USA between “conservatives” and “liberals”

for thirty, or even more years, has began in earnest in Russia.

Racism, feminism, abortion, LGBT rights and police violence - several thousand people are eaging uncompromising battles on Facebook and Twitter.

To arguments that are traditional in such cases are added ones specificity Russian - mutual accusations of non-disinterested cooperation with the Kremlin and working for the FSB. The fact that there are few argues is not important. The struggle of ideas in any soviet is always

conducted by a minority. But it is precisely this that ultimately forms the agenda.
As historian and political scientist Ivan Kurilla noted, for Russia, the United States is “the significant other.” For obvious historical reasons, the Russians are ready to compare themselves

only with the Americans and project their experience on their own. In some ways, the two countries are really very similar, first of all, in the deep conviction of the majority of their citizens in the exceptional role that their fatherland has played and should play in world

history. But in other ways they are very different.

But for me personally, the events of the last week have finally proved: both Russia and America, now have their own kinds of “liberals” and “conservatives”. I will name them conventionally the “CNN party” and the “Fox News

party”.

Members of both parties accuse each other of being derivative and imitating Western models. The verb "cosplay" wanders from one angry post to another. This is pretty funny. Indeed, today's derivative nature of Russian intellectual life is completely natural.

Only in recent years, Russia joined the Western intellectual discourse, from which it was cut off for most of the twentieth century.

True, it is high time to begin to understand the Russian specifics, that that is primary for us.

Is there racism in Russia? There is. Is the scale of this problem comparable to the US? No, and it will not be comparable in the foreseeable future. And because the history of slavery in the United States and the history of serfdom in Russia - with all the similarities

of their amoralism - are completely different. And because the millions and millions of people who have come from the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus over the past 30 years are not completely aliens for Russians,

but for those who knew the USSR, they are very familiar from our relatively recent life together. And also because the alienation of the North Caucasus from the rest of Russia (another important issue) is associated not only with the history of Russian imperialism, but also

with Soviet totalitarianism.

The tragedy of the twentieth century is what fundamentally distinguishes Russia from America, which has not experienced anything like it. This is one of the most important components of the worldview of the Fox News Party.

The CNN party also seems to dislike communist totalitarianism. But for some of its adherents, especially those who do not remember the USSR or remember poorly, history does not play such a significant role. Some simply idealize the Soviet Union, where everything was "fair."

Some, especially those who studied or taught at European and American universities (mainly leftists), see around them a solid Russian Minneapolis. In it, Putin is Trump, the Rosgvardia and the riot police - Derek Chauvin and his accustomed to violence colleagues, and

selected a Russians - a collective Floyd.
To those selected belong the part of the opposition with left-wing views, representatives of minorities in general and migrants in particular. By the way, many of our “new” fellow citizens who came from Central Asia support Putin.

Partly because for those who want to adapt to new conditions, such a slightly demonstrative patriotism is quite natural, and also because compared to the Asian despots like the late Karimov, Rakhmon or Berdymukhammedov, Vladimir Vladimirovich is almost Vaclav Havel.

By the way, many of those who moved to Russia in the last 20-30 years, take the realities of the state-distorted Russian capitalism for granted, and dream of starting - and do start - their own business.

But this is not important for the CNN party, because it does not fit into the concept in which Putin, with his “igorivanyches” and “gazproms”, is the real face of capitalism. And therefore, the dismantling of the Putin system must be accompanied by the dismantling of capitalism

and the associated "structures of oppression and privileges," and a serious redistribution of property, not only that of the oligarchs. In addition, secularism, bordering on atheism, and a fight against climate change are to be the main principles of socio-political life.

To the question of what all this will mean in practice, the majority of the CNN party has no concrete answer. But for now, the vague idea of ​​a “revolution” is finding an increasing response among them. Like the Western left, they see private property as evil

Therefore, arson and robbery are for them an insignificant side effect of the liberation struggle - "Where trees are felled - the chips fly." They also like the new slogan of the Black Lives Matter movement - White silence is white violence.

They demand from the "privileged white majority" compulsory group repentance for the past sins of the "white patriarchal society." This is, in fact, the principle of collective responsibility, well-known to Russians through their experience of totalitarianism.

Finally, not all, but many members of the CNN Party, are skeptical of freedom of speech. They, like their Western like-minded people, call it a “tool of reaction” and consider themselves entitled to decide who can speak out publicly and who cannot.

On the one hand, they advocate the abolition of various kinds of “anti-extremist legislation” of Putin’s era, and on the other, they promise to censor “racists, homophobes, Nazis” in the future, that is, restrict a part of their opponents in the right to speak,

even if only when that speech is genuinely highly unpleasant.

The Fox News Party also takes its role models from the West and is also heterogeneous. For a part of it, Trump is a positive character, but another part - a negative one. Athens great majority does not like Putin

as well as the Rosgvardia and the OMON. Moreover, it also has a very negative attitude to left-wing extremism and anarchism and considers private property the basis of personal freedom. Some of these people are atheists.

They support free ownership of weapons, and a complete non-interference of the state in the economy and private life, the freedom of abortion, euthanasia and family forms. The other part is more like traditional American conservatives: they are for low taxes,

but at the same time they are skeptical of radical libertarians and anarchocapitalists. Many, although not all of them, are believers or are positive about religion. They do not like the current dependence of establishedvreligions on the Kremlin, but the coercive secularism

bordering on Soviet state atheism does not appeal to them either. Both groups - support constitutional guarantees of unconditional freedom of speech on the model of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

This is perhaps the main difference between these two conventional sides. To the question whether their opponents have the right to participate in public discussion, the vast majority of “conservatives” unequivocally answer “yes”.

The answer of the “liberals," again with a few exceptions, is far from clear. “Yes, but with reservations” - this is perhaps the most common approach. Paradoxically, this answer is consistent with the views of Putin, so much unloved by them.

I do not believe that the current regime is irreplaceable, and I believe that it will soon leave the stage. The George Floyd Week revealed that a fierce ideological war for the future of Russia after Putin had already begun. It’s hard for me to believe that it will end

in a compromise.