The Volkov Case and the Class Instincts of the Liberal Opposition

No to Putin, no to the oligarchs, no to the inept "opposition"

Boris Kagarlitsky

The left in Russia is constantly complaining about the population's lack of class consciousness. It is not like France, where as soon as the government announces a raise of the retirement age, strikes begin all over the country and millions of people take to the streets. In our country, pension reform incited only som lukewarm rallies, and further anti-social measures passed without encountering any resistance - if not with applause, then at least without any semblance of what we regularly see in the West.

But we do have class consciousness in our country. Only it is not found among workers and ordinary citizens, but among representatives of the opposite part of the social spectrum. This is demonstrated by the recent statement of the liberal opposition in defense of the oligarchs.

It should be noted as well that the current attack on the Russian oligarchy has been launched not by the lower social classes in Russia, who so far have been very nonchalant, if not thrilled, about the inequality of income and opportunities, but by European politicians (most of whom are not at all leftist), who have imposed sanctions on the capital and real estate of big Russian capitalists, who had been exporting their money abroad for decades.

Many volumes of research have already been written on the fact that the export of capital from the periphery and semi-periphery (which includes Russia) to the countries of the center is a natural tendency of the capitalist world system. So the Russian oligarchs' behavior is not due to a lack of patriotism, but simply in accordance with the systemic logic of the global market. But it would hardly occur to an ordinary person to feel sympathy when this logic has turned against them - the expropriation of some capital by others is also a normal and regularly recurring tendency, quite in line with the general logic of bourgeois society, no matter how much ideologists talk about the inviolability and sacred nature of the private property.

What is much more interesting is the consensus among members of the liberal opposition who have begun to defend the oligarchs close to President Putin. Not only by expressing sympathy but also by preparing petitions, composing public statements explaining that to punish those who have become rich through the policies of the current government is unfair, inefficient, and certainly will not facilitate the transition to democracy. Both Leonid Volkov, who was head of the Anti-Corruption Foundation in exile, and Ksenia Sobchak, who was accused of collaborating with the regime in the investigations of this foundation, are fully united here. The economist Vyacheslav Inozemtsev, the intellectual Leonid Gozman (who shared with me the fate of being designated a foreign agent), and many other people, often unable to agree among themselves even on fairly simple issues, are suddenly joined together in a common effort. Alexei Venediktov, who published a letter in defense of the oligarchs, did not condemn the text either.

All the same, a scandal has erupted. Not because of the letter's content or its general thrust, but because Volkov first said he had not signed the document although he agreed with its content; he then was confronted by Venediktov and later admitted he had lied. After that, he was forced to resign as head of the ACF.

Of course, for people who believe in capitalism and the free market, this position is logical. And by and large, they should be praised for their sincerity and consistency. The Left could learn a thing or two from them.

Of course, the willingness of moderate liberal emigrants to defend the rights of billionaires is not determined by class instinct alone. At first glance, it would seem that politicians expressing sympathy for oligarchs close to the Kremlin are not alienating the majority of the Russian population, which is not particularly happy with the current social order. After all, even many people from Vladimir Putin's entourage are now distancing themselves from the oligarchs. However, the authors of the letter do not care about the reaction of the masses in Russia or even about the impression they crete in the West. They understand perfectly well that the issue of power in our country is decided not by a majority vote, but by intrigues within the elite. And it is quite possible that a part of the Russian oligarchy, panicking today for a way out of the situation, will appreciate such loyalty of the oppositionists.

Leonid Volkov, who replaced the arrested Alexei Navalny as head of the ACF, was quite frank in formulating this situation. The only trouble is that there is a difference between behind-the-scenes strategy and public policy. By signing the letter and thus moving the issue into the realm of public discussion, Volkov inevitably aroused the resentment of ordinary supporters of ACF, who in their hatred of the oligarchs differ little from left wing activists (the only difference is that the former simply consider the oligarchs vicious people who torture the people, while the latter understand the economic and social nature of exploitation).

One way or another, Volkov's signature on the letter caused a scandal inside the ACF, where complaints against him had long been piling up. The politician tried to clumsily justify himself by saying that he had not signed the letter, after which Venediktov, himself previously attacked by ACF for his collaboration with the authorities, made public the original, with Volkov's signature on it, after which he was forced to resign his post.

Could this be the beginning of a cleansing and political reorientation of the liberal opposition? It would be premature, to say the least. Volkov resigned not because he admitted his mistakes, but because he was found guilty of lying. His position of defending the oligarchs, who flourished under the current regime, is a natural and logical one for a representative of the liberal right-wing camp. It's another matter to confess honestly to such views. Signing the scandalous letter was honest and in its way brave, but the attempts to somehow retroactively justify it look like hypocrisy.

But of all the political actions Volkov has taken over the past few years, his signature is the least of his problems. Much more questionable are the decisions he made during the campaign to defend Alexei Navalny, who was then the de facto head of the ACF. This campaign was not just defeated, but objectively disorganized and defeated the opposition, particularly that part that has most consistently followed the ACF. First, his demand for the release of all political prisoners was reduced to support for Navalny alone, and then a whole list of ineffective, pointless, and often simply ridiculous demonstrations, such as flashing lanterns into the night sky, was proposed. Despite the obvious futility of these actions, the penalties for them were very real. It remains to be seen to what extent the number of political prisoners increased as a result of this campaign. But it is more than obvious that the ACF leaders abroad were at least unaware of the serious risks for their supporters in Russia.

And yes, it must be said honestly that the political struggle often requires putting not only oneself but also one's followers at risk. But this is a huge responsibility, and the risk should not be futile.

It is possible to assume that Volkov and his colleagues simply made a mistake, underestimated the situation, and did not find better solutions. Yes, that happens too. But those were the very mistakes that must be acknowledged and accounted for. Alas, today we do not see the slightest desire to admit or at least analyze these truly serious mistakes, not only on the part of Volkov but also among those who continue to adhere to the political line he developed. Fortunately, we have enough people in our country who are capable of learning from the recent past, reevaluating not only the tactics but also the meaning of public struggle. After all, if disagreement with the country's leadership can so easily be paired with a readiness to defend the oligarchs who otherwise flourish under the current system, it means that something is wrong not only with the government but also with the part of the opposition that shares its fundamental economic values.