Navalny's Utopia for Realists

"The fight should not be solely against the fact that Russia is unfree, but that it is unhappy in all aspects. We have everything - yet we are an unhappy country. Open any Russian literature - it's all descriptions of misery and suffering. And we can't break out of this cycle, but we want to. Therefore, the slogan needs to change - Russia should be not only free but also happy. Russia will be happy. That's it." “Prison [exists] in one’s mind,” Navalny wrote from his cell in 2021. “And if you think carefully, I am not in prison but on a space voyage…to a wonderful new world.” [That voyage ended on February 16th.] - Alexey Navalny

To my shame, I only read 'Delivering Happiness', this 2010 book, at the beginning of 2013. In June 2013, I visited Tony Hsieh at the Zappos Family of Companies headquarters, where I also met jenn lim . Over time, we met and corresponded several times. And then Tony was gone - and it hurt and left some emptiness inside, - and now Alexey is gone too. I don't know if he read Tony, but I definitely gave him this book within this “pack”. An amazing story of becoming an Entrepreneur, captivating in its "chemistry" and energy. Overall, the book is about culture (which is more important than business) - values that unite employees and the satisfaction of not only functional but also intellectual-spiritual-aesthetic needs of customers is more important than the race for profit.

For the first few years, the company was unprofitable and could not reorganize its business processes - and at some point to cut expenses, Tony suggested moving to a cheaper city in terms of office rent, staff salaries, - Las Vegas. This approach became part of the company's DNA - people inclined to relocate not only broke old social ties and created new ones but were also generally more "resilient" to stepping out of their comfort zone. This is how I feel about Navalny, I think: not so many people are "for Putin" as there are even more people in the country who don't want to change anything or move from their place at all.

Over a year ago, on New Year's Eve on the island of Phangan, my friend Alex recommended the book Rutger Bregman 's "Utopia for Realists" to me. A little later, on March 20, 2023, I sat with the Liberman brothers in Los Angeles, and I discussed with them a compelling essay by another Alex - about the (crisis of) political imagination. In the context of this book and this essay, I believed that Alexey Navalny's main contribution was that he, with a very unobstructed creative view of the world and design thinking, constantly challenged commonly accepted political norms, developed our political imagination and ability to dream, and explored new realms of possibility. I then recorded a series of thoughts and shared them with the leaders of the Navalny Foundation (which I consistently supported with donations): Vladimir, Alex, and Anna. David and Daniel suggested I publish them as a complete text, but I forgot. Putin killed Alexey Navalny on February 16, 2024 - and now I remembered that text, let it be my words of gratitude to Alexey for giving us all hope and the ability to dream for so long.

Rutger Bregman's book "Utopia for Realists" discusses several ideas aimed at creating a more just and prosperous society. The main point is the importance of utopian thinking (political imagination, the ability to dream): Bregman argues that to achieve significant social progress, one must be able to dream and envision a better future, not being afraid to propose ideas that seem unattainable. The author criticizes the current economic (capitalist) system for its inability to solve social and environmental problems, as well as for contributing to the growth of inequality and worsening working conditions. One of the central themes of the book is the introduction of a universal basic income, providing everyone with a fixed amount of money regardless of their work or social status. The author argues that this could solve many social problems, including poverty, inequality, and lack of motivation to work. Bregman discusses the idea of significantly reducing working hours (a 15-hour workweek), which, in his opinion, would allow people to spend more time with their families, rest, and personal growth. The book makes an argument for open borders (borderless country, metastate) and free movement of people around the world, emphasizing that it is not only ethically correct but also economically beneficial for countries.

Alex Zamyatin vividly wrote in March 2023 about Alexey Navalny's essay "15 Points for a Citizen of Russia Who Wishes Well for Their Country," in which he outlined a broad platform for people with anti-war views: "Can the opposition's brightest minds not unite into a think tank and finally devise a plan to lead the country out of dictatorship and towards prosperity? Why is this task being undertaken by a single politician, currently under harsh prison conditions?

A political program is usually understood to be a list of specific state policy measures. The vision or project of the future is something more general, an ideal of how society and power should be organized, towards which we aim. A pragmatically thinking person might say: without a concrete program, any imagined ideal remains a useless (or even dangerous) utopia [- but] this is false pragmatism, built on a mistaken understanding of the role of visions of the future in politics.

To gain support, politicians and movements must make a clear proposal to citizens. However, paradoxically, demanding a program in the form of a "business plan" is often a symptom of apoliticalness, not political discernment.

The rapid decline in people's interest in politics as such suggests that voters do not behave as rational consumers. It turns out that the vast majority of citizens in liberal democracies do not feel they can genuinely influence power. The more politics resembles a market, the stronger the indifference and distrust of citizens towards conventional forms of political participation. In response to the "unfulfilled promises of democracy" and the crisis of representation, populist movements have emerged, refusing to compete on programmatic grounds and simply demanding the dismantling of the entire system as too detached from the people.

When a person does not want to engage in political discussion and rebuffs agitation with the words "give me a concrete program, I'll study it myself," they are likely just finding a formal excuse to opt out of political participation while maintaining the facade of a rational citizen. Behind the mask of impartial calculativeness in these cases lies simple apoliticalness.

But if we want to work towards building a Beautiful Russia of the Future, we cannot do without an ideal image of the goal for which we strive. Indeed, in ordinary labor, its goal must exist from the beginning of the process. In politics, everything is complicated by the fact that the object of labor is ourselves as participants in one community or another, so the goal here cannot emerge before getting to know and interact with others, that is, before the political activity itself.

This is the key to understanding the nature of future political projects. It all starts with our desire for political changes, bearing in mind certain ideals and beliefs (about freedom, equality, justice, etc.). Then we begin to act collectively, guided by these ideals, and only in the process of this activity do we form our notions of specific goals. This reverses the whole scheme of ordinary labor, where a person knows in advance what they want to achieve and begins action with a ready image in their mind.

We know we want a peaceful, free, democratic (each can continue for themselves) Russia, and that is enough to engage in political struggle for it. But how exactly such a Russia should be organized is something we can only learn in the political process itself. Trying to find a project of the future that will tell us in advance how to act is putting the cart before the horse.

Influential German thinker Max Weber wrote that "all historical experience confirms that what was possible could not have been achieved if the world had not repeatedly reached for the impossible." Half a century later, the slogan of the Paris May 1968 "Be realistic - demand the impossible!" echoed him.

While political leaders and intellectuals, for objective reasons, cannot create space for political actions, they can engage in another important task — the development of political imagination. This is far more useful than it might seem at first glance. The thing is, as a result of years of depolitization, normative reasoning has almost disappeared from our socio-political sphere: we have unlearned how to speak and think about how society and power should be organized and what a good life actually means. Instead, we have focused on cynically guessing what will "actually" happen, i.e., what the elites will do.

In Russia, discussions on how we want to live are considered naive dreaming, utopianism. In such cases, it's said that "one needs to be a realist." [] However, this is a known mental trap: we attribute greater probability to events that are easier for us to imagine. The more impoverished our political imagination (i.e., the harder it is for us to imagine a different socio-political order), the lower we assess the possibility of achieving it. Consequently, we do less for our own better future, impoverishing our practice and thereby depleting our political imagination. This vicious cycle benefits those who gain from the status quo, so the most consistent realists are people in power and privileged elites.

Developing political imagination implies that we can critically look at the existing frameworks of our notions and ponder what world we would indeed like to eventually obtain. For example, we can move away from discussions about who will replace Putin in his position — and try to imagine Russia without a president at the head of the state. In this regard, the suggestion to think about a parliamentary republic is already very useful. Other obvious directions for developing political imagination — self-governance, social justice, ecology — should also return to the agenda.

The good news is that, as Karl Marx wrote, "humanity always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve, since closer examination will always show that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation."

To achieve this, firstly, one needs to open up to normative political philosophy and take seriously those who have already thought about a better future before you [like Navalny]. And secondly, what is even more important, it is necessary to sometimes look around and pay attention to successful examples of self-organization, even at the most local level."

In this context, I proposed to Navalny three days before his demise, and his team, to stop thinking about a specific Russia on the map and that there's no need to win elections against Putin - one must invent their own Russia (or not even Russia), and organize their own elections. Navalny and other oppositionists do not need to try to win elections against Putin and Co - I believe it's a waste of energy and resources, as it's their game, by their rules (not by law), and therefore it's unwinnable. Create your own game and your own rules - unite your supporters, both within Russia and abroad, realize that there are many of us, hold your own elections! Like change.org, but with full KYC (to enter the legal field and) according to the standards of the UK, EU, and USA - for recognition by the international community.

More than a million Russians left after the start of the war with Ukraine - according to recent news, the state will try to prevent and not consider the votes of Russians abroad. But how many Russians inside and outside the country are, if not "for Navalny," then at least "against Putin and his war with Ukraine"? Enough surely for the population of a quite large European country. Propagandists constantly try to convince us that we are few and we are "various minorities," lumpens, counter-culturists, seceders, renegades, - and we buy into it. So how many of us are there? I'm sure far more than we're afraid to imagine. This, incidentally, would give us a bit of courage.

Are we not allowed to "count ourselves" and not allowed to "express our voice"? This is precisely what I would fight for now, in the place of Navalny and other politicians - digital identity for all the "dissenters," which would allow us to both count ourselves and vote ("Putin's elections" we won't win - but at least we won't remain silent and will express our opinion within the legal framework!).

In "The Story of a German" by Haffner, among other things, he talks about the attempt of those disagreeing with Hitler to create a project of "good Germans" (there was such a project) - their failure then and the herd-like disparagement of the idea by Chichvarkin-Kasparov now does not remove the belief (and responsibility) from us to still try: Nansen managed to do it.

More than a million Russians left after the start of the war with Ukraine. How many more supporters does Navalny have inside and outside the country? Let's not wait for a bright future - there are enough of us to start making it for ourselves. And the problem of uniting is not in Putin but in ourselves, and he takes advantage of this.

Too much is demanded of Navalny while he was in prison, and now he's been killed. I think and thought that the main problem here is that Navalny is "fighting for power in Russia," "wants to win the elections against Putin" - and this is a dead-end path (sorry). Mother Russia, 140 million such diverse Russians, all these centuries of history, victories, and defeats, all these accumulated problems - it's all too complicated a "system with an outdated backend and unclear user experience."

Here we need to answer the question: do we want "checkers" or to "go"? If "to go" - then enough burdening him, and him listening to us and coming up with (often futile strained) answers "what to do with Russia?" and so on. Nothing, just leave it aside for a while, it hasn't collapsed for so many centuries and won't collapse now.

Navalny has long been more than Russia. And the real "innovation" (sorry) of Navalny was to "go beyond the boundaries of the possible," to become the first cross-border politician, a borderless politician. He has supporters not only from Russia, right? But from Belarus, from Ukraine, Poland, the USA, the UK, Germany? Why does he cut them off from himself? He already appeals to them, they feel that he is much closer to them in understanding and spirit, - and in return, he takes and tapes himself firmly with scotch to the abstract "millions of Russians"? Many of whom do not need him and will not need him! Why? Because it's been "traditionally accepted" for centuries - you're from Russia, so fight for the presidential post in Russia, and only think about Russians, never think about the others... Sorry, but who said so?

If Navalny were from the tech sector - he wouldn't worry at all: "I'm aligned with those who are aligned with me, and the rest, I'm not against them, but they're not my problem." It's even a matter of values: what if Navalny won the elections, then what? What to do with Putin's supporters? Again "violence"? Can't Navalny do something useful for those who like him, and let Putin please his supporters? How to move away from violence at all?

Perhaps the problem (and the limitation in political imagination) of modern opposition politicians is that they think too much "about Russia," "about all Russians," "about our great past and culture," they think spectacularly a lot about Putin and "what he's wrong about" (nothing so effectively validates his participation in the game as their ability to not forget about him for a second), think about the legacy of Pushkin-Gagarin-Tchaikovsky, think "about public sector workers and pensioners"... There's nothing wrong with these thoughts, except that it constantly pulls them back, doesn't allow them to "break free from the ground" and really come up with some fresh and new plan, and we see all around only proposals for "improvement." At this moment, in technological startups, they say "the moose is dead - drop the moose."

Close your eyes, relax, don't be afraid to dream a bit - imagine that you are building a new state from absolute zero, what is it like? Maybe it's not Russia at all, don't be afraid to think not "by the rules," don't limit yourself - otherwise, your imagination will never work at full capacity. I think it's very important to talk not only about WHAT specifically we think, but also HOW we think: what we can think about at all, what we can question, what in reality is simpler than it seems, and so on.

In his book "The Network State: How to Start Your Own Country," Balaji Srinivasan, co-founder of Coinbase and a prominent figure in blockchain technologies and cryptocurrencies, details the structural changes that will occur as a result of introducing digital identity (I also recommend the book "Identity is the New Money" by David Birch). This will lead to the automation of the visa application process, hotel and flight registrations, border crossings, online courts, marriages-divorces and wills, petition signing (the problem with change.org is that it does not meet KYC requirements, and anyone can sign a petition any number of times), creating companies and unions, and even conducting (online, of course) elections. People will realize that they can quickly and inexpensively unite into new communities, establish their rules, and ensure their enforcement. With the increase in travel and remote work due to the digitization of the economy, the role of national states with geographical borders will decrease. Soon we will witness the emergence of new "borderless" or network states. The idea of a "network state" (metastate) involves transforming traditional states with geographical borders into global online communities built on common ideas, interests, and values. They can function alongside traditional national states, allowing people to have allegiance to ideologies, not just geography (or nation). As digital identity develops and the influence of network states grows, people will start to identify more with their chosen community based on values, rather than the country of their birth or residence. You don't necessarily have to become an advocate for the theories of new metastates right away - the text tried to raise two questions. Practically - no matter how many mutual misunderstandings and grievances we have, it's necessary to understand that our disunity is currently our biggest problem and the source of Putin's and his team's strength. Theoretically - not to fall for his bait and not play his games, but to not be afraid to think creatively and go beyond commonly accepted judgments and conceptions of what our future with you can be.

Ukraine has every chance to become the first metastate. We have been living for a long time in an economy where commodity goods are rapidly losing their value, while sectors related to technology and services, as well as the talents that create them, are becoming more and more valuable. In this context, why should Zelensky focus on reclaiming land when he can acquire a much more valuable asset in the form of at least 1 million talented Russians? Over 1 million well-educated Russians, who disagree with Putin and his war with Ukraine, and who work in technology companies and create new companies and jobs, have been forced to leave the country. Why not make them supporters? Why not offer them to become new Ukrainians, pay taxes in Ukraine, invest in the country's recovery, and the development of new technologies? If you take a minimum of $10,000 and multiply it by a million people, that's $10 billion USD. Perhaps they work remotely from different countries, but a minimal simplified tax regime could be established. Another $10 billion dollars a year?

A cool project was launched by the office of the legitimately elected president (in exile) Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya on the “alternative passport” for Belarusians living abroad or unable to leave the country. I think, given the current mourning for Alexey Navalny, his supporters being handed draft notices or being arrested with flowers, and Putin and his team already copying Lukashenko's experience of forcibly returning emigrants by not issuing them new passports — this experience could be very useful for Navalny's Foundation and his wife Yulia (or maybe for his daughter Dasha Navalnaya ). Another question is, why two identical projects? From the perspective of common problems and shared values, it would be much more effective to join forces with Tsikhanouskaya's team. 

On February 19, Yulia Navalnaya, at a meeting with the heads of the European Union in Brussels, said: "make a distinction between Putin and Russia. People fleeing from war and dictatorship are not your enemies. They need sympathy and protection. They should not be punished, they need help. A mechanism similar to the modern Nansen Commission is necessary".

Yulia Navalnaya at the meeting with the heads of the European Union in Brussels on February 19th: "make a distinction between Putin and Russia. People fleeing from war and dictatorship are not your enemies. They need sympathy and protection. They should not be punished; they need assistance. A mechanism similar to a modern Nansen commission is necessary." Yulia Navalnaya called on the Members of the European Parliament (the full text in Russian here) on February 28th: "Alexey was an innovator. Are you not allowed on TV? You start making videos on YouTube so that the whole country watches them. Are you not allowed to participate in elections? You come up with a strategy for tactical voting that will take seats away from the ruling party. Even from Putin's GULAG, Alexey managed to convey project ideas that panicked the Kremlin. He was the opposite of everything dull." "This is the answer to the question. If you truly want to defeat Putin, you need to become innovators. It's impossible to harm Putin with another resolution or another package of sanctions that is no different from the previous ones. It's impossible to defeat him by thinking of him as a man with principles, who has morals and rules. Putin is the leader of an organized crime group." "In this fight, you have reliable allies — tens of millions of Russians who are against the war, against Putin, against the evil he brings. You should not persecute them — on the contrary, you should work together with them. With us."

Alexey Navalny has emerged as a Chief Design Thinker in the tumultuous realm of contemporary politics, using his innovative approach to challenge the status quo and expand our collective imagination. In a political landscape often mired in conventional strategies and outdated ideologies, Navalny's approach stands out as a beacon of innovation and creativity. Navalny's method resonates with the principles of design thinking, a problem-solving process that involves empathy, creativity, and rationality to meet user needs and resolve complex issues. This approach, traditionally associated with the fields of business and technology, is rarely applied in politics, making Navalny's strategy both revolutionary and inspiring.

His ability to engage and mobilize the public, particularly the younger generation, through digital platforms and social media, showcases his understanding of the modern communication landscape. Navalny's campaigns and investigations into corruption not only uncover the malfeasance of those in power but also engage the public in a shared narrative of resistance and empowerment. This participatory model of political engagement mirrors the collaborative ethos of design thinking, where diverse perspectives and collective action lead to more effective solutions. Furthermore, Navalny's work reflects a deep understanding of the user experience, a key component of design thinking. By framing political participation as accessible and impactful, he has successfully motivated a segment of the population traditionally disillusioned with politics to become active participants in the democratic process. This shift in perception is akin to transforming a user's interaction with a product or service, enhancing its value and relevance.

Navalny's approach to politics as a Chief Design Thinker highlights the potential of design thinking to transcend its conventional boundaries and make significant impacts in new domains. His ability to dream big and challenge the limitations of what is considered possible in politics serves as a powerful reminder of the transformative potential of innovative thinking. In the context of Navalny's influence, it is clear that the principles of design thinking—empathy, collaboration, and user-centric problem-solving—can be powerful tools in reimagining the future of political engagement. Navalny, as the Chief Believer, has not only expanded the boundaries of what is possible in politics but has also inspired us to dream bigger and work collectively towards a more transparent, equitable, and democratic society.

P.S. "We didn't want any gifts from heaven. All we wanted, what we strived for, and fought for over the last 20 years, was the right to live in a normal country. A country that is friendly with its neighbors, not one that sends tanks into their lands. A country where everyone can live and earn based on their talents and skills. Where nobody cares who you sleep with, how, or with whom. Where scientists are inventing ways to cure cancer or fly to Mars, not fearing a knock on the door because they participated in a conference somewhere in Europe. Where you can speak your mind without fear. When, where, and what sin did we commit, that instead of all this, we got a bald asshole with history lectures and a smirk, who just can't get enough of blood. And in which church should we atone for this sin?" by Ilia Barabanov