Red. Fundamentalism. Almaz BraevЧитать онлайн книгу.
peoples had different mobilizations. If three-quarters of the population consisted of Zerefs, then this is Soviet socialism. Privileged elites and their favorites were allowed to embark on an evolutionary path in 1991. However, the new Russian elite is not recognized as equals to the Western elite in the West.
If the population was half conservative, then this is German National Socialism. Therefore the elite of German Nazis could easily fit into the Western elite.
If the population is totally feudal, it is the Jamahiriya and other African and Asian socialism. There is no third way. There are different degrees of imitation of Western ideals. And what are Western ideals? Today, it is a victorious democracy that everyone wants to build, even in completely traditional, backward communities. The whole question is whether the elite of the West recognizes the privileged elites from past mobilization projects.
Equality, justice, socialism.
Actually, why did the proletarians, as the last faction of the peasantry that escaped from the village, like the ideas of Karl Marx? Did they think about the good of humanity or only about the good of themselves?
Lenin, as a politician, acted correctly. Bolshevik slogan “Land to the peasants!” “Factories to workers!” They were absolute. When the workers seized the factories and began to divide the profits among themselves, Lenin disliked it as the head of state. The state could collapse. The state would collapse in 1928 if the peasants, who seized all the landowners’ lands, left the cities of the USSR without bread. This was unacceptable for a mobilization project. These examples show what slogans are like and what is actually happening.
Chapter 5
Dura lex, sed lex
Is it possible to explain the modern secondary nature of socialism? Is socialism secondary a priori? Does this explain the global crisis of socialism?
The ancient Romans talked about the severity of the law, which needs to be enforced. Just what law are we talking about? In the traditional world, the informal law is stronger than the official “which must be executed”. You can negotiate with an official, a traffic policeman, a lawyer, or a judge. Any administrator can humanly understand the petitioner. In Germany and the USA, such actions are corrupt, and both sides are fraught with such an informal agreement.
If we are discussing drawing up a secret and informal contract in this territory, then we are talking about a traditional society. Let it be far from primitive, not natural from the outside, and use modern technology, but it is feudal in its essence. An informal contract is characteristic of a society where there has always been a collective. Consequently, there have always been objective historical prerequisites for socialism here. The official takes an informal fee for the service. But he may not take it to show humanity. After all, in human solidarity in the traditional world, collective morality has always been first.
It turns out what? It turns out that society has lost its humanity in the West – nothing like that. A legal law replaced the informal contract. Officials from generation to generation are tired of “understanding” the petitioners. The number of petitioners has increased a thousandfold. They are cunning; they are pretending. They are tiring. Besides, there was no connection between people anymore. First, the blood relationship disappeared, and then the moral and religious kinship. (When the Rabbis came to Trotsky after the October Revolution in the Kremlin, he replied to them that he was not a Jew but a revolutionary). The second conclusion is that a huge migration must mix the population for informal solidarity to disappear.
But even in this case, attempts to negotiate will remain, for this is a tradition. Mass migration weakens the laws of blood and even religion but does not eliminate intermediaries. The number of intermediaries between the state and the people is growing. Fame is no longer critical to officials; money is always important for bribing officials from down. Any traditional society is highly corrupt. Even in a society without relatives and fellow countrymen, everyone will look for relatives and fellow countrymen because of their culture. Will these people seek socialism in this case? No, first, they will look for nationalism. Nationalism is the first stage of solidarity in the mixed world of citizens and new migrants. Large groups, maybe even a people (not a clan, not a tribe), can get sick with nationalism. Paradoxically, the French of the late XVIII century could have fallen ill with nationalism – chauvinism rather than the Russian revolutionary proletarians of the early XX century. All because the French have learned what property is. Still, the Russian peasants had no property (For xenophobia to appear, most of the population must get used to property, which gives the first freedom to hate different “chocks” wholesale). Therefore, deserters of the Russian imperial army, who escaped from the German front in the summer of 1917, seized landlords’ lands. French peasants burned debt books and beat lawyers (by the way, there were many lawyers then; Robespierre was also a lawyer, his parents preparing him to take bribes.
The Russian Federation is also full of lawyers. Everything repeats itself). The French had mastered property by the time of their revolution; that’s why Everything happened quickly for them. The dictatorship of the Jacobins lasted for one year (The Soviet government stood for a long time – 73 years.) Napoleon also quickly established his dictatorship. The reason for everything was the willingness of Europeans to legalize laws because they were protecting their property (and not the vast expanses of Russia, as an explanation for its “slowness”). Today, everyone in the Russian Federation has property.
To summarize the trend, the old Soviet socialism is the last thing they want, although they often discuss it. Here, rather, there is a craving for National Socialism. Thus, fascism is not explained by traditional culture and the victory over fascism in 1945. This is always the reaction of the mass of owners. In the USSR, private property was abolished. This is the main reason for the delay in the global evolution of democracy in the USSR. But no one can deny that everyone now loves democracy. The main difference between the population’s readiness for democratic universalism is elections. And they are not creating an alternative idea, party, or alternative elite). Thus, the peasants in 1917 needed only land. In 1789, the French demanded the abolition of high taxes. (Feels the difference? Today, all opposition economists in Russia talk only about Keynes and Nabiullina sitting in the Central Bank. We say we need to reduce taxes! Introduce duties).
Therefore, all migrants or raiders need to legalize new property. Karl Marx and the Bolsheviks helped the Russian peasants to legalize their new property. This explains the population’s love for socialism (“in the weak link of capitalism,” according to Lenin), not innate collectivism. Marx failed in Europe because of this very habit of Europeans. They had the property for a long time, hence freedom. (In 1933, the bourgeoisie reacted quite naturally when it supported Hitler and his fight against communism). But Marx was raised to the banner in Soviet Russia because there had been a massive internal “migration” of property in Russia. The socialist law simply abolished the property.
Redistribution of property and its simultaneous abolition by legal law immediately revived the old informal (folklore) laws and connections. It led to a variant of a new absolute monarchy, to the leader’s omnipotence and his bureaucracy. This new elite could not abandon Marx because it needed to show continuity. That’s why all traditional folks expect approximately such socialism if they undertake mass migration from the countryside to the city. But there are no such people in the world anymore. Or they are petite. This also explains why, throughout the 20th century, people were unable to see any other socialism other than peasant socialism.
Chapter 6
Worse than me!
Western culture blames dictatorships that dictators create a cult. They want to create themselves. Because they know perfectly well that the crowd chooses, according to the principle, “worse than me.” Take a look at the European leaders. The voters chose them. But for what? Macron married an adult