PRESENTER: Is there any special, well, perhaps, special feature of Russian corruption?
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY OF THE INDEM. V. ROMANSKY: Well, of course, there is.
MODERATOR: And what is this? ..
ROMAN: Corruption always has national characteristics. That's the national peculiarity, say, of corruption in the UK is that there corruption at the lower level, that is, directly in the interaction of officials and citizens, is extremely low or virtually non-existent. And in Russia, on the contrary.
PRESENTER: Is it possible to say that the common feature of corruption in Russia is that it is all-inclusive, that it is everywhere, that it has penetrated from the lowest to the highest levels?
ROMAN: Unfortunately, yes. Our research shows that this is, in general, the systemic problem of our country.
MODERATOR: This poll, this study was done last fall. The system thing in Russia, from and to, from the bottom up to the top, is corruption. So, is there any way to solve this issue in Russia? In fact, it is generally a scourge.
GLAZUNOV: Of course there is. You know, we talked so much good about America, then let's learn the good manifestations of America. In America, there is freedom of the death penalty, you want an injection, you want an electric chair, you want a loop. We do not have the death penalty, and therefore lawlessness.
MODERATOR: And in Europe, no. So, I would like to respect the audience, after all, say it. It is important for a person to speak, knowing what he is talking about. In America there is no freedom of the death penalty, there are a number of states where there is a death penalty. In this state there is only one species, no one can choose. If you're in New York, then an electric chair, suppose, and if it's in Idaho, then hanging. There is no choice. This is the first. And, secondly, there was a death penalty in England, France, Spain, Italy, they abolished it, as a result of which criminality became less, and not more. If you think that the death penalty is the solution to the corruption issue in Russia, please. What other opinions are there?
VOLCHEC: Well, I just can not agree with that.
GLAZUNOV: If there is a war, do not shoot, raise the handles and say what good ...
VOLCHEK: No, you do not need to say good words and do not shoot, if possible. I absolutely can not agree with this, absolutely. Here, and how to deal with this ...
GLAZUNOV: In America they are fighting.
VOLCHEC: As possible. Here, than? "Only because ..."
MODERATOR: So, once again, Alexander Nikolaevich.
Sokurov: It seems to me that when we talk about corruption, then we are talking about the disease of the state. This is a disease of the state, but our difference from Western practice can be, only the disease we have some national accent, corruption in the scale of banditry. So, I would say so, we do not just have corruption, we have banditry. In any city in the country, in any small city, in any village, it has absolutely, it's like the spasms of the state, it already takes on dreadful forms. Neither in St. Petersburg, nor in Moscow, nor in the southern cities, nor in Siberia, nor, even more so in the Far East, does any control, in my opinion, over state or legal life, remain. But here everything is clear, because our state does not have the creative skills, our state has a proven, tested only one tool of society management - repression. The creative function is not very developed, any major construction, any major victory - it is over tension or prisoners. We develop space, begins to grow poor, start building one, another collapses. But we must understand that corruption in Russia is banditry, and it is necessary to struggle with that, to think over this system, what is this Russian banditry? Because it no longer has anything to do with Russia, it has a much larger scale, we know, and it already becomes, unfortunately, a national trait, and, unfortunately, turns into the character of a huge number of young people. Banditry, as a form of life, a form of behavior, is included in the characters of millions of our compatriots.
PRESENTER: Georgi Mikhailovich, are you pessimistic about this issue?
SENIOR: I'm a scientist, and I can not get results like that which is the result, I accept it as a scientist, I take it with facts. We still, like the pilots, we have such a point of return, here, if you pass the point of return, you will not return. So, it seems to me that we have passed the point of return in corruption, have reached the lawlessness, and there are no civilized ways to overcome corruption in modern Russia.
GRADSKY: I have a different opinion. This is a dramatic increase in the importance of society and the protection of a very serious judicial system. If the judicial system works the way it should work, so that a person in court spends about 3-4 days a week. No, no, it's okay, they will find time, because they will work, then they will come to court to defend their interests. This means that if a Russian gets used to going to court and seeking his rights, then in 40-50 there will not be corruption in our country. There is no other way, if you cut on your heads, then along with the unhealthy, the fact that there is corruption will cut out something healthy, that there is corruption too.
GRECHKO: So we have just the corruption in the court.
GRADSKY: No, no, the court must be, as I said, a dramatic increase in the importance of the judges' responsibility as such. That is, to make the court the fourth power, in fact.
Sokurov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, maybe the problem is that corruption and banditry are coming where culture is retreating and legal life is retreating.
MODERATOR: Well, all the same, if you read Russian literature, the same Saltykov-Shchedrin, and many others, you see that corruption was absolutely the same then. Gogol you read "The Inspector General", so where further? That is, this is a long-standing roots, it does not apply to Soviet times, it's generally ... You read De Custine, when he came, he saw it at every turn. That is, it's not something new, it's part of the story, when officials were sent to earn money themselves, and how did they earn them? - Yes, it is clear how - on bribes. So I'm asking, maybe you're right that it's just become a national feature, and if ...
GLAZUNOV: No, I do not.
MODERATOR: No, but what is this? GLAZUNOV: You know, you called Custine, from my point of view, well, we are Democrats, we have different points of view, it's a dirty slanderer who took revenge on Nicholas I for suppressing the boom of the Decembrists. Russia exceeded 6 times the Roman Empire. It is built not by corrupt officials and bribe takers. You need to know the history of Russia.
This is another matter, now young people, if she is studying, she must have money to study, they do not have a life development perspective, and corruption is born from this.
Corruption is a property of Soviet-American democracy.
MODERATOR: I see. And Gogol, and "Inspector" - this is what?
GLAZUNOV: Gogol was a joke.
MODERATOR: Galina Borisovna, do you want to add something?
VOLCHEK: I just wanted to tell you about one quote to Gogol's account, and you say it's a joke.
GLAZUNOV: And here is Gogol.
VOLCHEK: How about Gogol?
GLAZUNOV: It was shown on TV - the militia top with broken arms was taken, and here is Khlestakov?
VOLCHEC: What Khlestakov, when the Governor says a line that can be inserted today ...
GLAZUNOV: Which one?
VOLCHEC: Which one? - Please: "If you ask whether the church is being built, because the money has been already taken from it, tell me - it started to be built, but it burned down."
MODERATOR: In March, 50 years have passed since the death of Stalin, condemned this topic along and across. I've always been interested in one question - why are there so many people in our society who are nostalgic, whether by Stalin's times, for which Stalin is a great figure. What is the phenomenon of his dictatorship? You seem to have said during the break that the subject of Stalin in your conversation involuntarily arose.
GRADSKY: No, I'm talking about illusions, there are a lot of qualities in a person, good and bad, and wonderful and terrible. But each person experiences a complex of so-called power, whether over people. Everyone lives here this little scoundrel, there, inside, who would like to rule over his children, over subordinates, over the country, over the world. It is, just one of it grows into insane forms. And I think there is such a complex of envy for Stalin, as a ruler, that this man, apparently, could do so, that not just the country, but half the world, to compel himself to listen and to reckon with himself. The problem is not Stalin, and not only in Stalin, but in general, indeed, in the national features of our people, namely in mythology, in the mythology of the Russian people, in his love for fairy tales, for myths. And this concerns not only Stalin, it concerns singers, writers, musicians, actors, politicians, sportsmen, everyone. We create myths for ourselves that are not such, we build them on a pedestal, then we start to worship them, then, after a generation, two years later it turns out that it's just nobody, we forget it, and so on. This is what we have been doing for 400 years.
MODERATOR: I still return this question, Alexander Nikolayevich, to you. It's not just a singer and not just a dancer, and this is, in general, the greatest criminal who created with Russia, God knows what. That's how many people in Russia still honor him. Here's how to understand this?
Sokurov: The honors are probably not his, but some kind of an image, quite abstract.
MODERATOR: But Stalin is still there.
Sokurov: It's called Stalin, you can call it something else. This is not really so important. If there is a state, it must be strong and should be an advocate. Most of the people have a reasonable demand for the state, so that it is properly organized so that there is order in this state, so that in this state they do not cross any facets. If this state. People understand in Russia that they live in the state. The craving in Russia of people to the state is special, it seems to me. Here we have some, if I may say, a national quality - we are statesmen.
MODERATOR: And what, does Stalin represent the state for some here?
Sokurov: In order to manage such a country as Russia, tremendous energy is needed. Huge personal energy. But since we are dealing with a country that is doing all the time in such torments, everyone is always tormented, then as a result, people come to power who are not happy by definition. They are unhappy. They are also unhappy, like any citizen living in the country.
HOST: Georgy Mikhailovich.
GREEK: I want to say something. Let us push away from the slogan of the Jesuits "the end justifies the means." Let's start with the means of Stalin. It was bloody, terrible means, when innocent millions died. This Stalin can never be forgiven. And then let's see. Memory is such a cunning thing. In memory, difficulties are always forgotten, but what is remembered well. That's even in flight, there was a fire, there were other terrible things. Now I'm joking about this, and then it was very scary. And all the good that was in flight, I remember. So with Stalin, it seems to me, the same story. He's a bloody dictator, an unacceptably, unforgettably bloody dictator, but gradually people forget about it, less react to it somehow. But, on the other hand, here is what Sokurov said. He built a strong state. And here's another point. In such attention now to Stalin there is a protest part very large, because even it can be explained by a simple example. When Stalin died, and described his property, he had worn out boots, a worn out suit and 20,000 rubles in a safe, and an overcoat. Who really manages Russia, let's see what lists of property will remain with them, and ask whether Stalin controlled for the sake of the state or that they manage for themselves. It seems to me that this comparison to the people makes it possible to forget Stalin's bloodiness, but to recall all the good things he has done for the state.
PEOPLE'S ARTIST OF THE USSR I. GLAZUNOV: I would like to say two words about Stalin. The first revolution, as is known, was in England. The second, very terrible, poured the sea of blood, in France. From it came the third revolution - the October Revolution. Coup. And when I was at school, we all taught, it's fair, Stalin is Lenin today. I will not say that this is a hated figure for me. I will explain why, from my point of view, knowing different people, now his cult. Everyone sees in him a great winner over Nazi Germany and Italian fascism.
MODERATOR: The winner over Nazism and at the same time there are quite Nazi groups in Russia. At what they do not just extol Russian, as separate and special, but at the same time speak terribly offensive about other nations and nationalities. They are very different. There are neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and just nationalists. They have become quite numerous, in Russia it is quite noticeable. In our program, just one such group was present. Here, look, please.
ARCHIVE OF THE PROGRAM FOR 09.11.2002
MIRONOV: Here in this vein I was brought up. I'm their pupil.
MODERATOR: And you used the word "Jew" at home.
MIRONOV: When I lived in a parental home, the concept of the Jewish question was not at home for one simple reason. Then the Jewish question was not naked in Russia, then I did not have experience of working in the government, in the Council of Ministers of the USSR, in the newspapers, the experience that led to what I am formulating as a result. Yes, Russia today is under the yoke of the yoke. I>
MODERATOR: In order to once again feel the ideological message of the NDPR and the type of people who are going there, let's see one more moment of the congress.
FRAGMENT OF THE FOUNDING CONGRESS OF THE NDPR
MIRONOV: I can see by rows that in the first row there is a little newspaper of Sasha Aratoff, well, everything is called "Russian" by the Jews, this one is called "Russian Truth". As they have "Russian Radio", this is the "Russian Truth", which is read in the hall, where there is a specific article accusing one of our comrades-in-arms Kucherov that he is a Jew, they say, we accept Jews in our ranks. I do not know Kucherov so much, I did not wash with him in the bathhouse, but I judge by business. Those cases that appear after Kucherov allow me to doubt the truth, which is provided by the exact life of Sasha Aratoff. I>
MODERATOR: Well, what do you say? Where does this come from, and what will happen to it?
GRADSKY: I think it's very easy to explain. For me personally, this is explained by very simple things. In Russia, there was a certain political process. Before that, there was no political process, it was leading and organizing. If you want - join the Komsomol, then you will get further into the party. No more organizations were allowed. Well, what other organizations can there be in Soviet times. Since the 1990s, the political process began, and people began to join different organizations. 5-10 main organizations, which in principle can technically be like liberal, conservative, liberal - democrats, someone else, all these niches were occupied. These niches were occupied, and this niche was free. And only where these people could come, using, perhaps, some of their shortcomings in education, the shortcomings of their own, perhaps, life, personal offense on some there I do not know a person of a different nationality or skin color. And they have nowhere to go. Only these niches turned out to be free. The only thing that should be, if people propagandize such beliefs, if they contradict the Constitution, this should be quickly suppressed. If they declare their beliefs, and this is in
Sokurov: It seems to me that the Nazi is a person who does not like. He does not love a man. This is a big problem for a person, it's not to love. A Nazi can be a person who does not like. He can not understand that in fact there are in the person of the extraordinary beautiful things from the blood. And that in fact, different blood and different nationalities - it's fine. This is something that does not separate us, but unites us. This is another culture, another national culture, which we will never know, and therefore we should not fight. Because we do not know what we are fighting, what it is. But in general this is a state one, again this same ordinary state problem. Nazism occurs where there is indeed some kind of internal ideological, cultural insufficiency of some national groups in relation to others. This problem undoubtedly exists. Very hard to live very many Russians in the Caucasus. We understand that there are things that ... You can not live there. We must distance ourselves. We must live cautiously, side by side. If you see that they treat you badly, if they make you a slave, they put you in a pit and such a tradition for this people, oh, what a tradition, but this is a tradition. Hence, we must distance ourselves. You have to be careful with this people. This is another civilization.
MODERATOR: Galina Borisovna, you were on this program. I remember that you were extremely depressed.
ARTISTIC LEADER OF THE THEATER "CONTEMPORARY" G.VOLCHEK: Not that word, was depressed. Even now I can say that I believe that there are concepts of national beauty, national pride and there are concepts of national or state, whatever you like, shame. And such things, their presence in our life in any manifestation is our shame. When I did not even have the strength to defeat my emotions, which happened, because I, for the first time, encountered manifestations of fascism in such close proximity. Here, in this studio. In this program. For me, any manifestation of such a monstrous. I say, shame on us, if we can stand it next.
Sokurov: This should not be turned into a secret.
MODERATOR: And why I invited you.
GRECHKO: I would say that to unite people around something great, a great man is needed. But what about Hitler, how did Mussolini unite around him? Simply because the simplest thing - to light a crowd is nationalism. This is the lowest thing, to cause the lowest in a man, and then such a power is obtained.
Sokurov: In one, yes, but in large numbers is already more complicated.
MODERATOR: Anyway, I think that we must admit one thing is that these things do not arise from scratch, that there must be some reason why it arises. And we showed it especially because people knew that this is what exists. It's real. How to treat this, let everyone determine for themselves. But this phenomenon takes place to be. We must complete our communication, so the last question I wanted to show you. So, the question of the purity of the Russian language. This was said in the Duma.
GLAZUNOV: That's a good question.
HOST: Yes. In the Duma, as a result of this discussion, the Russian language sounded peculiar, let's say, and it came down to assault. And so, after all, in our program, we decided to talk about language and ethics. Look, please, a small story.
ARCHIVE OF THE PROGRAM FOR 02.02.2003
DEPUTY OF THE STATE DUMA OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, FRANKED BY THE CPRF V. SHANDYBIN: Today we are talking about the Russian language.
MODERATOR: No, it's about your behavior.
SHANDYBIN: Russian language is always associated with behavior. And when he insulted the commission on ethics and called Galina Ivanovna personally an obscene word ...
MODERATOR: Once again, I'm asking you ...
SHANDYBIN: I approached and defended both the woman and the party.
MODERATOR: That is, you think ...
SHANDYBIN: They ask me why I did not hit so hard. I could not have calculated my stroke, and I would have hit him so hard that there was nothing left of him.
MODERATOR: So you think that you did the right thing? What is ethical?
SHANDYBIN: I believe that it is not necessary to offend the Russian people, the party and our history. No one should be insulted.
MODERATOR: I'm not asking you this, Vasily Ivanovich. Not about this speech. Galina Ivanovna, the question to you. In your opinion, if voters could submit an assessment for ethics on the 5-point system to the State Duma, what do you think they would rate?
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ETHICS OF THE STATE DUMA OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION G. STRELCHENKO: The last meeting, the case that occurred?
Moderator: Actually, what we see.
STRELCHENKO: What we see, I believe that this estimate would not exceed the "three" if the 5-point system.
MODERATOR: All the same, "three", yes?
MODERATOR: This is a small story, when this passage in the Duma and so on. I want to ask here is the connection with this such a question common to you. Still, can we say that what kind of voter is that, and so is the composition of the Duma? They are elected by us. It means that if the voter has changed during these 4 years, if he has grown wiser, if he looked at it, if he thought, maybe we can hope that the Duma will be different. In the end, how else to understand. Are there any ideas on this?
GRADSKY: With language related?
MODERATOR: And with the language, because they are mothers. Absolutely public. Well, how is it at all? How is this all to be understood? Not to mention that they do not speak Russian well.
GRADSKY: I immediately, then to stop already getting in and you can turn off the microphone. So everything that concerns the language is nonsense. It's just nonsense.
PRESENTER: In general, is this all a discussion?
GRADSKY: It's just nonsense. I do not even want to decipher it. You just have to stop ... I would if I was the head of the whole television, if such nonsense would happen again, I would never show these clowns. That you are bluffing them all the time. You create them, you show through different channels people of abnormal, inadequate, boors. If they accidentally fell into the Duma, the devil take them. Do not show them.
MODERATOR: Galina Borisovna.
VOLCHEK: I will object to you a little, Sasha. Maybe, they can not be inflated in any case, and make everyday heroes out of them. But, maybe, it will affect all the same on Aunt Masha or ...
GRADSKY: She kicks, Galya, she is happy that it showed: "Kolya, go, look, the psycho is fighting, spitting."
VOLCHEK: But when the pencil is taken in hand, it will still understand who she is voting for.
GRADSKY: This is a theater, people want to see how it spits.
MODERATOR: Alexander Nikolaevich.
Sokurov: Obviously, people choose deputies. So, to say that the people have nothing to do with this, you can not. In this sense, it would be completely absurd. But once choose these. So this is how the people imagine this authority. So, in this way, the people are distancing themselves from the state with which it - the people - can not cope. Take these people, let them do something, leave us alone. It turns out so. No, we will not laugh. We can not, we do not have the strength, we do not have another tool, somehow to rectify it.
MODERATOR: Was there anything this year that you remember with pleasure? Because if you listen to everything that you said, then, in general, there was not much joy.
GRADSKY: Political program, so without any pleasure. If we talked about cultural values, we would have the pleasures of all different.
PRESENTER: In fact, this year did anything seem positive to you in the development of the country?
GRADSKY: Of course, the general trend.
MODERATOR: Does she make you happy?
GRADSKY: Yes. The general trend. I do not know, in percent I do not understand anything, 7 percent for six months, I do not understand.
I see that people finally understand that you will not work hard, starve to death. Here, on the sly they begin to understand this. I think that in 50 years they will understand it properly.
MODERATOR: Please tell me, Ilya Sergeevich, you have something this year ...
GLAZUNOV: Only political or even in life?
HOST: For this year something positive for the country, for our country with you, was something positive?
GLAZUNOV: I presented all my pictures and a gallery is being built on Volkhonka. I'm happy.
HOST: Georgy Mikhailovich.
GRECHKO: It's a very difficult question, you can joke, you can remember a trifle, you can turn it around, by and large I do not remember. By and large for Russia, for our people.
MODERATOR: Galina Borisovna.
VOLCHEC: I want to inspire not an illusion, not in any way, but some kind of belief in people, that all the same it is impossible to live and not to hope that at least it will be better. First, so much, then a little more, then lighter, then, if we somehow wrest this aggression, this muck, this envy, which is so characteristic of us. I am now talking about human things. All that was said about the state system and its strengthening, as it were, did not find a reasonable person who would be against it. It's just ridiculous, even? I sometimes catch myself on that, no incredibly joyful emotion about the fact that something was. Of course, all kinds of negative aspects are very burdensome, which crawl under the crust. Or not just under the crust. Your clip is the answer to it. Therefore, I want to hope, but I do not know what to rejoice.
MODERATOR: I see. Alexander Nikolaevich.
Sokurov: I do not envy our President. He has a hard work. Heavy problems before him are. It's frightening at times, if you can even solve them in the foreseeable future. But at the same time I can say that many of my colleagues in the cinema have made new pictures and these paintings are already more than last year. It's fine.
PRESENTER: I thank you all for participating in today's program. We are leaving for the summer holidays. This is our last program in this television year. We'll be back in September. I hope, we will return with the idea that in the program "Times" we will talk about the times widely. About that there is both bad and good. I also want to say that I would like to convey to you the best wishes, good rest, good summer from all those who make the program "The Times".