Red. Fundamentalism. Almaz BraevЧитать онлайн книгу.
have been sitting in rockets for a long time and making money on them again.
Yes, but there is no socialism around, is there? Some naive fool will answer me; maybe he is a fanatic or even an old man.
But the technology is there. Why did the dictatorship of the proletariat lag behind – this version of the primitive (clan) dictatorship was modernized by political science. Despite all the hidden primitiveness, peasants worldwide still liked this option. And it is absolutely not the peasants who repeat the same mantra, hoping that another chaos of capitalism will bring the proletariat to power; there is a new whim that guarantees inevitable defeat.
The proletariat cannot come to power.
What does not exist cannot come to power? Today it is clearer than clear. But such darkness leads to the mental devastation of any young activist.
The mass of workers, who represented physical strength for the battering ram of power, has long been not a mass; all citizens are the same now. Workers now are no different from all other people. They are not subject to class segregation. Feudal segregation is the main condition of the past socialism. Throughout the 20th century, workers flooded the squares of the suburbs first, then the squares of cities, and until the 20th century, when the petty bourgeoisie fought for their rights and equality with monarchies.
In the age of total market cynicism and hypocrisy, nothing is clear: who, why, why is shouting. On the contrary, all the world’s democracies claim that all people are equal, and equality is written in hundreds of their laws and in their constitutions. What is missing for people who want to wear the clothes of irreconcilable proletarian fighters? Although there are still other forms and names to express their dissatisfaction. Are there hypocrites among these loudmouths? Are there any naive people? And why do leftists stand side by side with liberals on maidan?
Today, when the most powerful totalitarianism in history is being established globally, why is there no organization against this new totalitarianism? Yes, because democracy leads to the degradation of the ruling elites. We’ve already talked about this. Especially now when the democratic system is considered ideal for the whole world. But this is a new global deception.
The proletarians resemble syndicalist anarchists. Everyone is interested in what is happening at his factory, at least in his country at most. There are two Trotskyist parties (parties of the world revolution) in France simultaneously; what are they doing? They are busy fighting for parliamentary seats and endless disputes among themselves – which of them is a Trotskyist. Democracy is the degradation not only of the revolution but of revolutionaries. A popular French postman activist wants to return to his post office. Why does he want to return to the post office and deliver cards? Yes, because in democracies, they choose under the motto “You are worse than I.” You’re just a mailman. You’re funny, and that’s why we like you. An activist wants to be liked and popular. That’s what the French Trotskyists are doing. Clowning.
Marx was utterly wrong when he relied on technology. All the provincials of the world still love technical inventions. And in the 19th century, all the provincials of the world loved inventions. Marx also loved, apparently, inventions. But he completely lost sight of the traditional world and its values. However, he chose a primitive dictatorship, a form of primitive communist dictatorship – the dictatorship of the proletariat as a guide for all the oppressed. This form was so universal that it was suitable everywhere, even in places like China, Vietnam, and Afghanistan – in peasant countries with no proletarians because there were no factories. But this very universality, which helped to win temporarily, also led to the total future defeat of world socialism because, once again, the tradition was hidden behind words. No one is still going to figure out the reasons for the defeat. All bureaucrats and fools accuse traitors and look for spies inside the peasant communists. However, all the world’s peasants should be obliged by evolution to turn into bourgeois, even if they held congresses as in the USSR with the righteous appearance of messiahs (or now in China). Hypocritical chatter has never saved anyone from collapse.
The collapse of feudal regimes of any type is inevitable – history has shown this. Anyone who learns from history and Marx also used historical material should be sure that the collapse of the feudal regime was primarily a feudal war, disassembly within the elite. The third figure and the third party can only play on the side of one of the nobles. Conditional masses and conditional proletarians played the role of a battering ram in 1917, but without their elite, they would have remained observers without their left aristocracy. What happened, that happened. The revolutionaries took power in Russia thanks to an excited mass of soldiers and sailors. Power itself fell into the hands of Lenin and Trotsky. (The feudal lords, even if they dress up in the outfits of capitalists and oligarchs, will do the same now. We need to be ready and create cells of the future government) Then, thanks to the bureaucracy and the dark masses, Stalin destroyed the revolutionaries. Then started the old evolution of the maturation of the bourgeois frog from the peasant tadpole again. The question here is not about the mass of proletarians. Here is the problem of the left elite. After the victory, neither slaves, peasants, nor conditional proletarians needed talented people, the left aristocracy. They want clothes and meat. They want to give their children clothes, meat, and primitive privileges. The dictatorship of the proletariat as a meme helped revolutionaries take power. Today, demagogues use this meme from basements and rubble; they scream every time a slab falls from above. What else can they shout? It is tradition and the traditional hierarchy that look out from the same basement simultaneously.
If you deal with traditional people, you are not protected from betrayal again. The Zerefs want to dominate simply by culture. Genetically, they would like to become a ruling caste again.
Chapter 11
There will be no more Stalinism
The Italian cynic and sage Machiavelli said that there are states where it is difficult to take power but easy to keep. And there are states where power is quickly taken, but it is difficult to keep. I do not know what type of society Asiopa belongs to; it is most likely Asian. This means that it is difficult to take power, but it is easy to keep it. Such society, cultural underdevelopment, and tradition will do everything for any dictator. The main thing is to take power. Then he will be deified, even during his lifetime. He will even be cursed, most likely after death (and so it is; this practice is a struggle for the sanctity of any new father of the nation), and then descendants will raise him on the shield again, at least in dreams. And so on, all that is characteristic of Eastern despotism.
Then I asked myself the question: why are despotisms the same everywhere? There are similarities with other countries and continents not only in Asia; historical facts are connected by an invisible similarity but disconnected in time.
And then I realized that all folks go through the same growing-up practice. These are the traditional peoples that multiply tirelessly. They multiply so diligently that they don’t have time to think. There is no time for them to raise their head and look around. This means they are not prepared for circumstances by regime, tyranny, climate, or tradition. Tradition is the most important reason for what follows what and what sequence. All dictatorships are the tips of folk culture. Fathers – family tyrants tyrannize and subjugate their loved ones, first of all, their wives and children. This paternal crowd of all fathers ends with the obligatory father of the nation, the father of all local fathers.
By the way, the modern “dictatorship of the proletariat” question also depends on the next large family and the number of heirs for some kind of conditional profit (previously, it was land, a piece, a plot of land). As you understand, there has been a Cultural Revolution and industrial modernization in the world today. This means that the cultured urbanized population does not set the old tasks: building a house and having numerous heirs. It’s just not possible. The population cannot consume and give birth at the same time. Which of these two collective actions: either consumption and self-love or work for the benefit of all?