В России сформировалось общество собственников. К чему это приведет?

Overview

The episode of Meduza’s “What Happened?” podcast centers on Maxim Trudolyubov’s book People Behind Fences (expanded into a second revised edition). It uses Russia’s experience with property to explain broader social and political dynamics.

1) Property as a “redistribution” engine in Russia

Trudolyubov argues that in Russia the “institution of private property” has been repeatedly undermined by systemic, often violent or coercive “redistributions” whenever regimes change. He frames this as a distinctly Russian pattern: in nearly all regime transitions, property regimes are radically altered—not only by legal changes, but also by large-scale seizures and transfers tied to power.

After 2022, he says, talk about large property has been “sterilized,” and the erosion of property rights has accelerated, including:

• Redistribution connected with foreign companies leaving Russia
• Seizures tied to legislation for “foreign agents” and other punitive classifications
• Confiscation affecting even ordinary families’ apartments and homes

He uses cases from the news to illustrate how property can become conditional—especially for those who leave the country or fail to assert claims under occupation authorities.

2) A paradox: owners emerged, but owners can’t reliably speak or protect rights

A key claim is that over roughly 35 years of post-Soviet development (plus some late-Soviet background), Russia formed a mass society of property owners: tens of millions of people now have apartments, garages, land, etc. Trudolyubov notes that this is historically unusual for Russia.

However, he contends that this “owner society” is politically silent. The state does not want autonomous owners because property ideally provides citizenship-like participation in community life. In practice, he says:

• People who remain with property are incentivized to stay quiet to avoid losing it
• People who lose property (or leave) may have a voice, but their ability to influence the country is structurally reduced—because they are outside the system and often lose leverage

3) The “Dolina case” as a small-property litmus test

Trudolyubov discusses the Dolina apartment story as a micro-level example of how courts and public attention can become mechanisms protecting small private property—at least compared to larger, Kremlin-controlled assets.

He interprets the heavy media amplification of this type of case as politically calculated: authorities appear to signal that small-property disputes won’t necessarily be treated like confiscations. This, he suggests, helps reassure both:

• The general population (owners)
• Investors and real-estate interests

He emphasizes that while many negative stories exist, there are also millions of normal transactions. The Dolina-scale case is rare, but deliberately made visible.

4) What this implies for the coming transfer of power

Trudolyubov frames the current regime as headed toward an inevitable, traumatic power transition. He argues that the central humanitarian risk is that it will trigger another redistribution of property—pulling what people built into a political reckoning.

He expresses pessimism that the system will preserve ownership stability across transitions, but hopes property rights won’t be destroyed again during the next crisis period.

5) “Diptych” and the long arc of housing and Soviet modernity

The interview also expands into Trudolyubov’s second book, Diptych, presented as a continuation. It examines Soviet mass housing and microdistrict life (e.g., panel housing) as a revolution in practical terms: after decades of war and deprivation, millions obtained private space (roughly “20 square meters” in Khrushchev-era housing). People learned to live separately—cook, raise children, and organize daily life.

He also discusses a historical irony: grand socialist/humanistic plans for social space ultimately materialized in Soviet panel microdistrict form. Stalin chose “grand” urban architecture over socialist-city ideals, but this was corrected somewhat later under Khrushchev.

6) Shift from journalism to art: language crisis and new optics

Trudolyubov explains why he increasingly works in visual art. After losing institutional opportunities (including the Vedomosti project), he says he returned to being an artist. He links this shift to a broader “loss of the power of speech”—an inability to comment meaningfully on politics using social-science or journalistic language.

Instead, he describes art as a way of studying the world at a different “language” level—down to non-human relations (he mentions mice and animals). Through this lens, he explores intelligence, agency, and human-animal relationships, arguing that it is no longer possible (or appropriate) to treat humans as the sole “crown of creation.”

Presenters / contributors

• Vladislav Gorin (presenter/interviewer)
• Maxim Trudolyubov (guest; artist, journalist, author)