Konstantin Raikin speech to the Union of Theater Workers. Who did Konstantin Raikin argue with at the congress of the Union of Theater Workers? Those who are against

The artistic director of the Satyricon theater, Konstantin Raikin, sharply criticized censorship in art and expressed concern about the frequent Lately attempts by a number of public organizations to put pressure on art in one form or another.

Konstantin Raikin gave the following assessment of such actions: “completely lawless, extremist, arrogant, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, morality, and in general all sorts of, so to speak, good and high words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality” .

In his speech, the artist emphasized that “words about morality, the Motherland and people, and patriotism, as a rule, cover up very low goals.”

“These are these groups of supposedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly, to whom the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - distancing themselves,” he noted.

Raikin warned the congress participants that Russian society there is a threat of a return to Stalinist times, to censorship. The artistic director of Satyricon described the abolition of censorship after the collapse of the USSR as greatest event centuries-old significance.

In February 2016, member of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg Vitaly Milonov announced his readiness to send a request to the prosecutor’s office and ask to check Raikin’s play “All Shades of Blue.” The politician considered that the production violated the legislative ban on gay propaganda among minors, Lenta.ru recalls.

The People's Artist of Russia has headed the Moscow Satyricon Theater since 1988. "Satyricon" is the heir to the Leningrad Theater of Miniatures, founded in 1939 by the famous Soviet artist Arkady Raikin, father of Konstantin Raikin.

He explained that the theater does not have enough money to rent temporary premises. The main theater building in this moment is under reconstruction.

“We have been downtime for six months now, I was forced to postpone the rehearsal and production of a new play, we have no money. This is a direct path to death. I will wait for a decision from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, from the minister. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll go somewhere else ", said Konstantin Raikin.

Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Alexander Zhuravsky responded to the statement of the artistic director of Satyricon: the official expressed surprise, recalling that in 2016 the theater received 235 million rubles from the state. According to the Deputy Minister, 44 million rubles of this money were additionally allocated for the rental of the Moscow youth center "Planet KVN".

The deputy minister also said that he did not understand what kind of six-month downtime the theater director was talking about.

“Suffice it to say that the theater is actively touring and staging premieres. In September, I attended the troupe’s meeting and did not hear anything alarming from the management,” Zhuravsky said.

The Deputy Minister of Culture later stated that the issue of financing Satyricon for 2017 will be resolved after the State Duma of the Russian Federation approves the draft federal budget.

You can listen to the text of Konstantin Raikin’s speech.

Regarding Lenin's quote in relation to Raikin. I especially cite Ilyich’s article from shaggy 1905, which is interesting not only for its opinion about the freedom of creativity of some individualists.

PARTY ORGANIZATION AND PARTY LITERATURE

New conditions for social democratic work created in Russia after October revolution, brought forward the question of party literature. The distinction between the illegal and legal press - this sad legacy of feudal, autocratic Russia - is beginning to disappear. It is not dead yet, far from it. The hypocritical government of our Prime Minister is still rampant to the point that Izvestia of the Council of Workers' Deputies is published "illegally", but, apart from shame for the government, apart from new moral blows to it, nothing comes of the stupid attempts to "ban" what the government prevents I can't.

Given the existence of a distinction between illegal and legal press, the question of party and non-party press was resolved extremely simply and in an extremely false and ugly way. All illegal press was party-related, published by organizations, conducted by groups connected in one way or another with groups of practical party workers. The entire legal press was not partisan - because partisanship was prohibited - but “gravitated” towards one party or another. Ugly unions, abnormal “cohabitations,” and false covers were inevitable; mixed with the forced omissions of people who wanted to express party views was the thoughtlessness or cowardice of the thoughts of those who had not matured to these views, who were not, in essence, party people.

Damned time of Aesopian speeches, literary servility, slave language, ideological serfdom! The proletariat put an end to this vileness, which suffocated everything living and fresh in Rus'. But the proletariat has so far won only half of freedom for Russia.
The revolution is not over yet. If tsarism is no longer able to defeat the revolution, then the revolution is not yet able to defeat tsarism. And we live in a time when everywhere and everything is affected by this unnatural combination of open, honest, direct, consistent partisanship with underground, covert, “diplomatic,” evasive “legality.” This unnatural combination also affects our newspaper: no matter how much Mr. Guchkov jokes about the social-democratic tyranny that prohibits the printing of liberal-bourgeois, moderate newspapers, the fact still remains a fact - Central Authority Russian Social Democratic workers' party, "Proletary", still remains outside the door of autocratic police Russia.

After all, half of the revolution forces us all to immediately begin to improve things anew. Literature can now, even “legally,” be owned by the party. Literature must become party literature. In contrast to bourgeois morals, in contrast to the bourgeois entrepreneurial, merchant press, in contrast to bourgeois literary careerism and individualism, “lordly anarchism” and the pursuit of profit, the socialist proletariat must put forward the principle of party literature, develop this principle and put it into practice as quickly as possible. complete and complete form.

What is this principle of party literature? Not only that for the socialist proletariat, literary work cannot be an instrument of profit for individuals or groups, it cannot be an individual matter at all, independent of the general proletarian cause. Down with non-party writers! Down with the superhuman writers! The literary cause must become part of the general proletarian cause, the “wheel and cog” of one single, great social-democratic mechanism, set in motion by the entire conscious vanguard of the entire working class. Literary work should become integral part organized, systematic, united social democratic party work.

“Any comparison is lame,” says German proverb. My comparison of literature with a cog, living movement with a mechanism is also lame. There will even, perhaps, be hysterical intellectuals who will raise a cry about such a comparison, which belittles, deadens, “bureaucratizes” the free ideological struggle, freedom of criticism, freedom of literary creativity, etc., etc. In essence, such cries would only be an expression of bourgeois-intelligentsia individualism. There is no doubt that literary work is least amenable to mechanical equalization, leveling, and the domination of the majority over the minority. There is no doubt that in this matter it is certainly necessary to provide more space for personal initiative, individual inclinations, space for thought and imagination, form and content. All this is indisputable, but all this only proves that the literary part of the party cause of the proletariat cannot be stereotypedly identified with other parts of the party cause of the proletariat. All this does not at all refute the position, alien and strange for the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy, that literary work must certainly and without fail become an inextricably linked part of social-democratic party work with other parts.

Newspapers should become organs of various party organizations. Writers must certainly join party organizations. Publishing houses and warehouses, shops and reading rooms, libraries and various book trades - all this should become accountable to the party. The organized socialist proletariat must monitor all this work, control it all, and introduce into all this work, without a single exception, a living stream of living proletarian cause, thus taking away all ground from the ancient, semi-Oblomov, semi-merchant Russian principle: the writer writes, the reader reads. We will not say, of course, that this transformation of the literary work, spoiled by Asian censorship and the European bourgeoisie, could happen immediately. We are far from the idea of ​​preaching any uniform system or solving a problem by several regulations. No, there is less to talk about schematism in this area. The point is that our entire party, that the entire conscious Social-Democratic proletariat throughout Russia, recognizes this, clearly stated it and took up its solution everywhere and everywhere. Having emerged from the captivity of serf censorship, we do not want to go and will not go into captivity of bourgeois-mercantile literary relations. We want to create and we will create a free press, not only in the police sense, but also in the sense of freedom from capital, freedom from careerism; - not only that: also in the sense of freedom from bourgeois-anarchist individualism.

These last words will seem like a paradox or a mockery to the readers. How! Perhaps some intellectual, an ardent supporter of freedom, will shout. How! You want such a subtle, individual matter as subordination to collectivity. literary creativity! You want the workers to decide questions of science, philosophy, and aesthetics by majority vote! You deny the absolute freedom of absolutely individual ideological creativity!
Calm down, gentlemen! Firstly, we're talking about about party literature and its subordination to party control. Everyone is free to write and say whatever he wants, without the slightest restrictions. But every free union (including the party) is also free to expel such members who use the party firm to preach anti-party views. Freedom of speech and press must be complete. But there should also be complete freedom of association. I am obliged to provide you, in the name of freedom of speech, every right scream, lie and write whatever you want. But you owe me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into or dissolve an alliance with people who say such and such. The party is a voluntary union, which would inevitably disintegrate, first ideologically and then materially, if it did not clear itself of members who preach anti-party views. To determine the line between party and anti-party, the party program is used, the tactical resolutions of the party and its charter are used, and, finally, the entire experience of international social democracy, international voluntary unions of the proletariat, which constantly included in their parties individual elements or trends, not entirely consistent, serves. not entirely purely Marxist, not entirely correct, but also constantly undertaking periodic “purifications” of his party.

So it will be with us, gentlemen, supporters of bourgeois “freedom of criticism”, within the party: now our party is immediately becoming mass, now we are experiencing a sharp transition to open organization, now inevitably many inconsistent (from a Marxist point of view) people will come to us, maybe even some Christians, maybe even some mystics. We have strong stomachs, we are die-hard Marxists. We will get over these inconsistent people. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the party will never make us forget about the freedom to group people into free unions called parties.

Secondly, gentlemen, bourgeois individualists, we must tell you that your talk about absolute freedom is nothing but hypocrisy. In a society based on the power of money, in a society where the masses of working people are begging and a few rich people are parasitizing, there cannot be real and effective “freedom”. Are you free from your bourgeois publisher, Mr. Writer? from your bourgeois public, which demands from you pornography in novels and paintings, prostitution as an “addition” to the “sacred” performing arts? After all, this absolute freedom is a bourgeois or anarchist phrase (for, as a worldview, anarchism is bourgeoisism turned inside out). It is impossible to live in society and be free from society. The freedom of a bourgeois writer, artist, actress is only a disguised (or hypocritically disguised) dependence on the money bag, on bribery, on maintenance.

And we, socialists, expose this hypocrisy, tear down false signs - not in order to get non-class literature and art (this will be possible only in a socialist non-class society), but in order to be hypocritically free, but in fact connected with the bourgeoisie , literature should be contrasted with truly free literature, openly connected with the proletariat.
This will be free literature, because it is not self-interest or career, but the idea of ​​socialism and sympathy for the working people that will recruit more and more forces into its ranks. This will be free literature, because it will serve not the jaded heroine, not the bored and obese “top ten thousand,” but millions and tens of millions of working people who make up the color of the country, its strength, its future. It will be free literature, fertilizing the last word the revolutionary thought of humanity with the experience and living work of the socialist proletariat, creating a constant interaction between the experience of the past (scientific socialism, which completed the development of socialism from its primitive, utopian forms) and the experience of the present (the real struggle of comrade workers).

Let's get to work, comrades! We are faced with a difficult and new, but great and rewarding task - to organize a vast, versatile, diverse literary work in close and inextricable connection with the Social Democratic labor movement. All Social Democratic literature must become party literature. All newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, etc. must immediately begin reorganization work, to prepare such a situation that they will be included entirely on one basis or another in one or another party organization. Only then will “social-democratic” literature become such in reality, only then will it be able to fulfill its duty, only then will it be able, within the framework of bourgeois society, to break out of slavery to the bourgeoisie and merge with the movement of a truly advanced and ultimately revolutionary class.

"New Life" No. 12, November 13, 1905 Signed: N. Lenin
Published according to the text of the New Life newspaper
We print from: V.I. Lenin Complete collection Works, 5th ed., volume 12, pp. 99-105.

PS. What, in my opinion, is the main thing in relation to the theme of freedom of creativity in this story.

1. It cannot be divorced from society and must take into account its interests, and the interests not of a narrow group of elites, but of the broad masses. Culture should be for the people, and not for the elite, since it should first of all contribute to the rise of popular consciousness and cultural education, and not to please the bored “elite”.

2. In the USSR itself, some of Ilyich’s behests on the topic of freedom of creativity were also thrown away, both from the point of view of attempts to manage culture through purely administrative measures in isolation of the broad masses, and in terms of flirting with noisy individualist creators who opposed themselves interests of society.

3. Claims of hellish censorship on the part of modern creators are doubly ridiculous, since they want to receive money from state and non-state sponsors (since they are not financially independent, and from the point of view of market relations, without third-party funding, the overwhelming majority of creators are not competitive), but at the same time they want to retain the ability to get into a pose. Because of this, cognitive dissonance arises when a noisy individualist creator demands absolute freedom of creativity and at the same time demands money from the state, which allegedly prevents him from expressing himself. In fact, they primarily depend on money, because without money you cannot stage a play or make a movie. But if he makes films and stages performances for himself, completely ignoring society’s reactions to his work, then such a creator, in my opinion, is seriously out of touch with real life(or pretends well) - the simplest reaction of the audience to a piece of art they don’t like is to throw rotten vegetables at the hapless “theater-goers” at a medieval fair.

At the seventh congress of the Union of Theater Workers, he called for workshop solidarity and the fight against prohibitions and censorship, which, in his opinion, are becoming more and more noticeable in the country. Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov responded by saying that censorship and government orders should not be confused

Konstantin Raikin. Photo: Pavel Smertin/TASS

It seems like he didn’t say anything new. Everyone has known about the scandals involving the closure of the Sturges exhibition or the disruption of certain performances by Orthodox activists for a long time. Despite this, everyone is discussing Raikin’s performance. This is what Lenkom artistic director Mark Zakharov says.

director, artistic director of the Lenkom theater“This is quite a bold and unexpected - such a surge of emotions is probably occurring in our society - a time that is not entirely clear to me, when pseudo-ideological pressure on art, on exhibitions, on theaters is increasing. And we have witnessed several such very unpleasant actions. But this suddenly flared up, it also worries me very much, and Konstantin Raikin, in my opinion, spoke about it very emotionally. I am completely on his side."

One of the notable statements belongs to the leader of the Night Wolves, Alexander the Surgeon Zaldostanov. He said literally: “These Raikins want to turn Russia into a sewer.” Oleg Tabakov spoke vaguely about Raikin’s speech, but did not clearly support the head of Satyricon.

artistic director of the Moscow Art Theater named after A.P. Chekhov"Commissioned new theater Moscow, in two years the branch will be put into operation Art Theater. It’s not me who’s great, it’s me who’s doing my job! Working! I never considered Kostya a slacker, but, speaking seriously, I once again address you to Chekhov, the character is Professor Serebryakov, who says: “The work must be done, gentlemen! We have to do the job!”

The director of the Hermitage, Mikhail Piotrovsky, like Raikin, is concerned about the dictates of the crowd: if something could be explained to the regional committee censors, then the mass of offended citizens can no longer be explained. Raikin’s performance is commented on by the School’s artistic director modern play Joseph Raikhelgauz.

Joseph Raikhelgauzartistic director of the School of Contemporary Play“How can I say, what should I compare all this to? Compared to the hardest times Soviet power, when for any play, when for any appearance on stage it was necessary to obtain permission, then we live in complete freedom, in complete democracy. But if at the same time we look at the fact that the theater is run by a certain curator, and this curator is most often a poorly educated girl who, based on her ideas, begins to dictate to Konstantin Raikin the rules for creating, composing a work, well then this is madness, and we will lose that what we have today."

Raikin's most vehement opponents write: he wants money. Last week, the head of Satyricon complained that due to a lack of funds, the theater was on the verge of closing.

At the All-Russian Theater Forum STD, held on October 24, the greatest resonance was caused by the speech of the artistic director of the Satyricon Theater Konstantin RAIKIN. In his emotional 10-minute speech, interrupted several times by applause, Konstantin Arkadyevich reported on what particularly worries him today, and in fact, he spoke out against even such a subtype of censorship as the struggle of officials for morality in art. Later, many delegates to the congress said that they subscribed to Raikin’s words and completely shared his position. "Theatre" gives this speech in full.

– Now I’m going to sound a little eccentric, because I’m back from rehearsal, I still have an evening performance, and I’m internally kicking my legs a little. I am used to coming to the theater in advance and preparing for the performance that I will perform. And it’s also quite difficult for me to speak calmly on the topic I want to touch on. Firstly, today is October 24 - the 105th anniversary of the birth of Arkady Raikin. I congratulate you all on this date. And, you know, I’ll tell you this, when my dad realized that I would become an artist, he taught me one thing. He put into my consciousness an important thing called workshop solidarity. That is, this is ethics towards colleagues who are doing the same thing with you. And it seems to me that now is the time for us to remember this.

I am very worried (I think, like you all) by the phenomena that are happening in our lives. These, so to speak, “attacks” on art and theater in particular. These are completely lawless, extremist, arrogant, aggressive [statements], hiding behind words about morality, about morality and in general all sorts of good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality”. These groups of supposedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave impudently, to whom the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - distance themselves... It seems to me that these are ugly encroachments on freedom of creativity, on the ban on censorship. And the ban on censorship (I don’t know how anyone feels about this) is the greatest event of centuries-old significance in the artistic, spiritual life of our country... In our country, this curse and centuries-old shame of our culture, our art, was finally banned.

So what's happening now? I see how someone’s hands are clearly itching to change everything and return it back. Moreover, to take us back not just to times of stagnation, but to even more ancient times - to Stalin times. Because our immediate superiors talk to us with such a Stalinist vocabulary, such Stalinist attitudes that you simply can’t believe your ears! This is what government officials say, my immediate superiors, Mr. Aristarkhov (First Deputy Minister of Culture - “T”) says this. Although he generally needs to be translated from Aristarchic into Russian, because he speaks in a language in which it is simply a shame that a person speaks like that on behalf of the Ministry of Culture.

We sit and listen to it. Why can’t we all speak out together somehow?

I understand we have enough different traditions, in our theater business-Same. We are very divided, it seems to me. We have very little interest in each other. But that's not so bad.

The main thing is that there is such a vile manner - to rivet and snitch on each other. It seems to me that this is simply unacceptable now! Shop solidarity, as my dad taught me, obliges each of us, a theater worker (whether an artist or a director), not to speak badly in the media about each other and in the authorities on which we depend. You can disagree creatively with some director or artist as much as you want - write him an angry text message, write him a letter, wait for him at the entrance, tell him. But the media should not get involved in this and make it available to everyone. Because our disagreements, which will definitely happen, will exist, creative disagreement, indignation are normal. But when we fill newspapers and magazines and television with this, it only plays into the hands of our enemies. That is, for those who want to bend art to the interests of the authorities. Small specific ideological interests. We, thank God, are freed from this.

I remember: we all come from the Soviet regime. I remember this shameful idiocy! This is the reason, the only one, why I don’t want to be young, I don’t want to go back there again, to this vile book. And they force me to read this book again. Because words about morality, the Motherland and the people, and patriotism, as a rule, cover up very low goals. I don’t believe these groups of indignant and offended people who, you see, religious feelings offended. I do not believe! I believe that they have been paid for. So these are groups of vile people who fight for morality in illegal vile ways, you see.

When photographs are poured with urine, is this a fight for morality, or what? No need at all public organizations fight for morality in art. Art itself has enough filters from directors, artistic directors, critics, spectators, the soul of the artist himself. These are the bearers of morality. There is no need to pretend that power is the only bearer of morality and ethics. This is wrong.

In general, power has so many temptations; there are so many temptations around it that smart power pays art for the fact that art holds a mirror in front of it and shows in this mirror the mistakes, miscalculations and vices of this power. The smart government pays him for THIS. But that’s not what the authorities pay for, as our leaders tell us: “Then do it. We pay you money, you do what you need to do.” Who knows? Will they know what is needed? Who will tell me? Now I hear: “These are values ​​that are alien to us. Harmful for the people." Who decides? Will they decide? They shouldn't interfere at all. They should help art and culture.

Actually, I think that we need to unite. I say again: we need to unite. We need to spit and forget for a while about our artistic subtle reflections in relation to each other. I can dislike some director as much as I want, but I will die so that he is allowed to speak out. This is me repeating the words of Voltaire in general. Practically. Well, because I have such high human qualities. Do you understand? In general, in fact, if you don’t joke, then it seems to me that everyone will understand it. This is normal: there will be disagreements, there will be outraged.
For once, our theater people are meeting with the president. These meetings are such infrequent ones. I would say decorative. But still they happen. And there you can solve some serious questions. No. For some reason, here, too, proposals begin to establish a possible boundary for the interpretation of the classics. Well, why does the president need to establish this border? Well, why does he need to get involved in these matters... He shouldn’t understand this at all. He doesn’t understand – and he doesn’t need to understand. And anyway, why set this boundary? Who will be the border guard on it? Aristarkhov... Well, don’t do that... Let them interpret it... Someone will be outraged - great.

In general, a lot of interesting things happen in our theater. And mass interesting performances. Well, mass – I call it when there is a lot. I think this is good. Different, controversial, beautiful! No, for some reason we want to again... We slander each other, sometimes we denounce each other - just like that, we tell lies. And again we want to go into the cage. Why in the cage again? “For censorship, let’s go!” No, no, no! Lord, what are we losing and giving up our conquests ourselves? What do we illustrate by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, who said: “Just deprive us of guardianship, we will immediately ask to be returned to guardianship.” Well, what are we? Well, is he really such a genius that he snitched on us a thousand years in advance? About our, so to speak, servility.

I suggest: guys, we need to speak out clearly on this matter. Regarding these closures, otherwise we are silent. Why are we silent all the time? They close the performances, they close this... They banned “Jesus Christ Superstar”. God! “No, someone was offended by it.” Yes, it will offend someone, so what?

And our church, unfortunate, which has forgotten how it was persecuted, priests were destroyed, crosses were torn down and vegetable storage facilities were made in our churches. She is starting to use the same methods now. This means that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was right when he said that the authorities should not unite with the church, otherwise it will begin to serve the authorities rather than serve God. Which is what we are seeing to a large extent.

And there is no need to be afraid that the church will be indignant. That is OK! There is no need to close everything at once. Or, if they close it, you need to react to it. We are together. They tried to do something there with Borey Milgram in Perm. Well, somehow we stood on end and returned it to its place. Can you imagine? Our government has taken a step back. Having done something stupid, I took a step back and corrected this stupidity. It's amazing. This is so rare and atypical. We did it. They gathered together and suddenly spoke out.

It seems to me that now, in very difficult times, very dangerous, very scary... It’s very similar... I won’t say what it’s like. But you understand. We need to unite together and fight back against this very clearly.

On October 24, the head of the Satyricon theater, Konstantin Raikin, gave a speech about censorship in the field of culture, which immediately became the subject of discussion online. He spoke out against the "offended group" who control theater and cinema, citing ideas about patriotism and morality. Today Alexander Zaldostanov (Surgeon) commented on his speech, accusing him of wanting to turn Russia into a “gutter.” Social media users stood up for Raikin.

On Monday, at the congress of the Union of Theater Workers (UTD), Konstantin Raikin made a speech in which he expressed his disappointment and dissatisfaction with the situation in the country. In particular, he spoke about pressure on theaters from the state, unreasonable censorship, negative changes that have occurred in the Russian Orthodox Church, and the growing politicization in culture.

I am very concerned - I think, like you all - by the phenomena that are happening in our lives. These, so to speak, attacks on art, on the theater in particular. These are completely lawless, extremist, arrogant, aggressive, hiding behind words about morality, morality and in general all sorts of, so to speak, good and lofty words: “patriotism”, “Motherland” and “high morality”. These groups of supposedly offended people who close performances, close exhibitions, behave very brazenly, to whom the authorities are somehow very strangely neutral - distance themselves.

Our immediate superiors speak to us with such Stalinist vocabulary, such Stalinist attitudes that you simply can’t believe your ears!

Our unfortunate church, which has forgotten how it was persecuted, priests were destroyed, crosses were torn down and vegetable storage facilities were made in our churches. She is starting to use the same methods now. This means that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy was right when he said that the authorities should not unite with the church, otherwise it will begin to serve not God, but the authorities.

Alexander (Surgeon) Zaldostanov, who actively supports the policies of Vladimir Putin, the president of the Night Wolves motorcycle club and the initiator of the creation of the Anti-Maidan movement, commented on Raikin’s words to the NSN publication.

The devil always seduces with freedom! And under the guise of freedom, these Raikins want to turn the country into a sewer through which sewage would flow. We will not remain idle, and I will do everything to protect us from American democracy. Despite all the repression they spread throughout the world!

He also stated that Russia today is the only country where “there really is freedom.”

The Surgeon's criticism caused a strong reaction online. In particular, Dmitry Gudkov, a former State Duma deputy, wrote on his Facebook page that he is deeply disappointed with how quickly culture is losing significance, and “hooligans” are becoming national heroes.

Gudkov's subscribers supported him in the comments. The majority agreed that the Surgeon has no right to criticize a person of such stature as Raikin. And some even write that Zaldostanov is not worth the attention that is paid to him.

Former senator Konstantin Dobrynin also spoke out in defense of Raikin.

Surgeon against Raikin. It was worth living to see.

Konstantin Dobrinin (@k_dobrinin)