Содружество

A conflict has emerged within the Social Democratic Party SDR (“Social Democrats of Russia”) between two members of the founding group and the Organizing Committee. Those opposing the committee’s authority—who have been obstructing its work for the past six months—have escalated the situation into what can only be described, in English, as a hostile takeover: party media assets and a substantial portion of its funds have been seized.

Yury Ioffe and Dmitry Mikhailov, joined by Alexander Subbotin, have, under a contrived pretext, taken control of SDR resources. They are issuing ultimatums to other members while spreading defamatory claims about party members and allied social-democratic communities.

The hostile takeover may have been carried out with the aim of destroying an opposition political organization. Those involved in it—and those who attempt to justify this act—pose a threat not only to Russian left-wing movements, but to the global left as a whole. It is important that organizations such as the Socialist International, the Progressive Alliance, and leading social-democratic parties be informed about the roles and positions of Yury Ioffe, Dmitry Mikhailov, Alexander Subbotin, and Pavel Kudyukin in this takeover.

No internal dispute justifies dismantling an organization or seizing its assets.

At present, Yury Ioffe and Dmitry Mikhailov have been expelled from the party and removed from all leadership positions. Any decisions they claim to make carry no legitimacy. What has happened is widely regarded—by both the party leadership and rank-and-file members, as well as by social democrats and democratic socialists—as egregious and destructive behavior aimed at undermining the party and cooperation within the democratic left.

This takeover has also revealed something deeper about the internal sociology of social democracy. The issue here is not about dividing into left and right wings, nor about drawing boundaries between social democracy and democratic socialism. What matters more are the cultural values that have shaped the behavior of those involved.

The older generation of social democrats largely comes from the late Soviet and Perestroika era. They were shaped in a system marked by authoritarian structures and pervasive institutions, which has left a lasting imprint:

• Personal networks over principles: loyalty to one’s circle outweighs adherence to values
• Conformism: unethical behavior is often tolerated
• Paternalism: age and tenure are treated as sources of authority, above arguments

The newer generation has come of age in a more stable environment and a different cultural context (notably around platforms like Logic of Progress):

• Meritocracy: authority is earned through results and work
• Openness: readiness to embrace new ideas
• Principled stance: values take precedence over personal ties and friendships

This is, of course, a simplified model—but current events suggest these value systems do, in fact, influence generational behavior. The present crisis has made this divide visible.

When Yury Ioffe and Dmitry Mikhailov seized party resources, the younger generation of social democrats and democratic socialists refused to support them. Instead, they condemned these actions and sided with those who are actually doing the work.

It is also notable that Pavel Kudyukin—who likewise came of age during Perestroika (and whose political views carried little weight in the totalitarian Soviet system before that)—has not publicly condemned the actions of his associates. At times, he has even downplayed the situation, calling what occurred a “myth,” thereby effectively enabling conduct widely seen as unethical and destructive. This position is unacceptable to today’s social democrats. We reject duplicity and misconduct.

This situation is regrettable and damaging—but it is also a learning moment. Younger social democrats must draw conclusions from it.

That is the first observation.

The second is a clear and growing demand from the younger generation toward the older one:

• “Do the work—or step aside.”
• “Drop the elitism.”
• “Stop fueling internal conflicts.”

For younger members, endless internal disputes are seen as a waste of time. Instead of productive work, they lead to burnout, frustration, and a toxic atmosphere—often without any tangible results. The older generation, by contrast, has grown accustomed to operating within such conflicts, which increasingly frustrates younger participants.

As a result, one hears more frequent criticism that Perestroika-era social democrats are politically ineffective, with limited achievements and little to offer going forward. The key question now is whether the older generation is capable of adapting. So far, the answer appears to be negative. Four years of infighting, age-based condescension, top-down control, accusations of “arrogance,” and attempts to dismiss younger members have solidified into a persistent behavioral pattern—one that is deeply problematic.

And yet, the possibility of change still remains.