What are these 156 articles about? They concern many aspects of the lives of various groups of citizens as well as such things as, for instance, the social support of children-orphans, the State support of cinematography, the ecology of Lake Baikal, the amendments in the law about the veterans, the law about the disabled people, amendments in the law “About fire security”, the law about the federal military courier, and hundreds of other things. In other words the law Number 122 is a real encyclopedia of Russian life. It is also a gloomy song of grief for those concerned by the law Number 122; and it concerns the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens. I am not writing a separate book about this refined sadist work; therefore I have to limit myself to certain observations. The most frequently encountered provisions in all 156 articles of the law are “to exclude the word ‘free’ ”, as well as “declare part such-and-such as obsolete”. Number F3 122 begins with Article one, which brings amendments to the RF Law of April 18th 1991 Number 1026-1 “About the police”. Thus, in order to understand Article one about the amendments in the Law “About the police”, a police officer will have to have before him the text of the law Number 1026-1 as well, otherwise he will not realize that he is being forced to pay what was once free and that many benefits are simply taken away from him by this laconic “declare as obsolete”. But he will not understand what he is being taken away. For instance the police officers are among other hings deprived of free use of public transport.
The fact that the first blow was made to the police, those who are called to protect the existing State order demonstrates the serene foolishness of those who siege in the Kremlin and in the White House. I doubt that they would have deprived their own security guards of benefits because they would get upset and turn on the people’s side in a critical situation. But apparently these gentlemen have faith in their inviolable divine nature and are not afraid.
Here it should be said that the little word “benefits” does not exactly, or even does not at all exactly, defines the nature of the rights that are being taken away from the RF citizens (because they were not taken away yet, the people got upset, got mad and came out on the streets with the help of the nazbols and communists). For a pensioner, for a handicapped person, for a police officer, for a veteran, the right to free use of public transport was only the realization not in the form of money of a part of his pension or his salary. Because the pension of the majority of citizens is so small that even by adding the real cost of public transport rides of a single citizen who used the benefits, we still get a meager amount. Therefore “benefits” did not mean “privileges” at all; it was a part of a salary, but expressed in kind, not in money. It seemed to the Kremlin who was reorganizing the society and the State according to the standards of, as they put it, “market economy”, that the time has come to put an end to the benefits, to these vestiges (as the Kremlin thinks) of the socialist system. And that the people are obedient enough; that they will accept it. If instead of the benefits the citizens would have been proposed a real compensation, more precisely, the cost of all the tickets that a citizen veteran, handicapped, pensioner, policeman, Chernobyl victim can use in a month and maybe even with a reserve for the inflation, then possibly nobody would have protested. But the greedy government, the pitiless developers Zurabov and Gref in over-expensive European suits (it is striking but both are extremely fashionable and thoroughly dressed individuals) have planned shabby compensations that do not cover 10% of the possible cost of public transport tickets. For convenience I am speaking here about public transport, preferring to narrow down the amount. Therefore the law Number 122 has caused a storm of emotions in the people and outrage unheard of in the usually submissive Russia. The power’s real criterion of benignancy or malignancy is its attitude towards the people. Does the power treat the popular masses as equals or does it treat them like weak and silly, whose interests can be overlooked? There is no doubt that these Putin’s guys in expensive suits and ties treat the popular masses with haughty scorn and fastidiousness. The law Number 122 is a detailed proof of it. It can be certainly used as evidence in court. After Gaydar’s shock therapy, law Number 122 is the second national tragedy and I am not exaggerating, I weight my words. A responsible power cannot allow a brutal fall in the standard of living of the majority of the population because the main tasks of any State power in the modern world is guaranteeing the citizens’ well-being and security. Shakespearian kings or the tyrant Peter I could have followed other, personal goals on the border of the XVII and XVIII centuries. Today, similar violence, let us say, the implantation of certain reforms that Zurabov and Putin judge necessary, are taboo for a responsible power. But the problem is that Putin’s group is irresponsible. And archaic. Despite their fashionable suits, their work methods make them people with an autocratic conscience. In the third volume of its “Politics” Aristotle has dedicated a short paragraph to the form of government that he called “paternalist”, in which the king governs his State in the same way in which a father governs his family. This form of government existed in Europe’s absolutist monarchies, but was gradually relegated to history’s archives, replaced by republican regimes or, if they were monarchist regimes, the power of the father-sovereign was brought to naught by the rights of the parliaments. In Russia the paternalist form of government lasted until 1917, but even after that the Bolsheviks, in the end, turned after a short period of revolutionary unruliness, again to paternalism with the mustached harsh father Stalin in its head. Putin and his people, whether they wear silk ties or service caps, are governing Russia in the former paternalist spirit. The tsars were as usual cruel fathers, beating up those who did not obey them. Stalin was like this. And Putin’s people are like this. They would not even think to ask the people if, for example, they want reforms or the law Number 122. After all, who asks little children? Cut back on their ration and that’s all. Like Aristotle said. Let them suffer a bit.
The National-Bolsheviks watched the preparation of the law Number 122. We received documents from the friendly State Duma deputy Viktor Alksnis back in spring 2004. We knew what was coming. When on July 2nd the State Duma was adopting law Number 122 in the first reading, the National-Bolsheviks managed to get inside the State Duma on the balcony for the journalists and spread leaflets in the hall, protesting against the law. At the same time another group of nazbols got on top of the Moscow Hotel and unfolded a banner: “The cancellation of benefits is a crime before the people!” It was not easy to do all that because the authorities were expecting protest actions and it was almost impossible to get inside the State Duma these days. On August 2nd 2004, before the adoption of law Number 122 was declared in the State Duma after the second reading, a group of 50 National-Bolsheviks peacefully arrived to the Health Ministry and “captured” some offices, including the office of the principal author of the Law about the monetization of benefits – the minister Zurabov. The National-Bolsheviks hung out flags, opened windows and the president’s portrait, removed from the wall, was thrown out (it was caught while it was falling by dozens of journalists’ lenses and got not only in the Russian, but also in the international press). The National-Bolsheviks held about two hours in the ministry besieged by “the forces of order”. During their arrest they were all brutally beaten. Subsequently on December 20th 2004 Moscow’s Tverskoy court sentenced the National-Bolsheviks Maxim Gromov, Anatoly Globa-Mikhailenko, Grigory Tishin, Sergey Ezhov, Anatoly Korshunski, Oleg Bespalov and Kirill Klenov, each to five years of detention. A bit later Moscow’s Municipal court reduced their sentences to 3 and 2,5 years. I will talk about the process of the seven National-Bolsheviks in the chapter “Resumption of political repressions in Russia”, here I only want to emphasize that the National-Bolsheviks stood up for popular interests. They stood up before the society could even grasp all the unjust and anti-popular nature of the Law about the monetization of benefits.