Red. Fundamentalism
Almaz Braev
Over 150 years of modern history, Marxism has become a religion. Crowds of old Pharisees have created communist churches, but now they do not have the main building – the International. Today, when there is an offensive of world fascism against humanity, the so-called communists are a crowd of talkers and hypocrites. Old prayers cannot defeat world fascism. The situation around has changed. But the Pharisees never cared. They have fed their vanity at all times.
Red
Fundamentalism
Almaz Braev
© Almaz Braev, 2022
ISBNВ 978-5-0056-1012-6
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
Content
ChapterВ 1
Old dogmas. Trotsky’s foreign body
Only social democracy has remained ofВ the left movement inВ the modern world.
It has shown vitality only in Europe and only thanks to democratic habits. In the democratic ark, there should be “a pair from each species.”
There are also no prospects for the so-called leftists inВ other parts ofВ the world. If you want social guarantees, go toВ the polling station.
One after another, the countries ofВ South America stumble upon the electoral rake. There seem toВ be no more precedents, such as until the overthrow ofВ Allende byВ the junta. But the victories ofВ left-wing coalitions still happen as it was during Allende. The world has changed. It became tolerant because maybe the USA became tolerant. Coups have also disappeared from world practice. Or rather, the danger has disappeared because the second camp and the second world subject, the USSR, have disappeared. Now it has become easier toВ turn people over and give injections. Who can prohibit, for example, vaccination?
We state that the left does not have any other way toВ achieve power today. However, there are no leftists inВ the world either inВ the sense ofВ the leftism ofВ the 20th century. Once again, the world has changed. From the left, there are now only talkers, only left-wing Pharisees. Actually, this is evidence ofВ aВ global crisis. For inВ the tolerant world ofВ democracy, not only individuals disappear, but also intellectuals. Democracy has always led toВ degradation everywhere. InВ the system and social networks, the crowd selects lecturers and idols for themselves. The system leaves communist artists toВ play communists, and on social networks, aВ crowd ofВ hedonists is looking for different clowns. Therefore, bloggers want toВ avoid explaining, not toВ teach, but toВ gain aВ crowd ofВ subscribers.
So.
Our leftists repeat the mantras ofВ aВ century ago; they resemble the Pharisees ofВ the ancient Sanhedrin ofВ Judea. But no, the ancient Jews are no longer looking at them because the ancient Jews should talk about the Old Testament. Therefore, imitating the hoary antiquity, our left-wing lecturers automatically turned into ancient Jewish Caiaphas because reliance on old dogmas is always more reliable. This is what distinguishes the Pharisees.
The more often they repeat the old formulas of Marx and Lenin, the more they know that they are talking nonsense. We can say that they are hiding behind the old men – Marx and Lenin. But the old people, even if they were authoritative, lived in a different time, in a different environment. This is not Ancient Judea with its thousand-year history. The world has changed rapidly in a hundred years.
What toВ do?
We need toВ figure itВ out.
Why young people don’t want communism today. Young people want democracy and be living like in the West. Young people want equal rights. Or respect for their rights.
But should the left-wing Pharisees say, are you also waiting for the second coming? As they immediately accuse revisionism. It has already been so! Marx and the dictatorship ofВ the proletariat! Many have tried but what happened inВ practice?.
What? What is the dictatorship?
There were feudal peoples inВ the world, which means peasant peoples.
These feudal-class peoples gave the so-called socialism inВ the first half ofВ the 20th century. No matter how Trotsky defied the world system with the dictatorship ofВ the proletariat after the time ofВ Marx, there were no proletarian peoples inВ the world! Therefore, Trotskyism was always opposed byВ former peasants who turned into aВ new communist elite. Trotsky could never win (there is one condition, but it is not for this short article.). And Trotskyism could never win because the factories do not make the state. They are part ofВ the economy ofВ industrial modernization. They disappear as aВ stage ofВ development. If there are no factories, there is no proletariat. If there is no proletariat, there is no dictatorship. If there are no activists ofВ history, the basic subjects ofВ action, then go toВ the ballot boxes! This is the simplest explanation for the crisis ofВ the left idea.
Trotsky personally and Trotskyism have only one gratitude – for the left alternative to Stalinist-peasant communism. But, again and again. The world could not get any other socialism in the 20th century, except socialism, which grew out of a class-feudal culture – from tradition. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea are in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The peoples with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism, but new bureaucrats replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These are the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. But the alienation in which the Eastern (fertile peoples) lived at that time was enormous. There could be no other communism. It’s all objective. For today, Marxists have one task or those who consider themselves such. Understand. From which follows planetary individualism. Democracy or the market system has proved that a person needs alienation. He wants to separate himself from the crowd, to put it simply. Therefore, the left has no future with the old dogmas. Young people are for democracy.
Hence, the so-called Marxists have no choice but to join the crowd of ancient “Jews” and shout crucify him! I have not met any other reaction from hypocrites, impotent, and therefore envious, except for accusations of revisionism. Well, of course! Repeating the conclusions of a century ago in a new environment is not only a habit. It’s also an excuse. The Pharisees also justified themselves by the millennial experience of the people.
ChapterВ 2
Russia after the formal victory of Zyuganov’s Communists
What would have changed if the Communist Party faction had taken the majority inВ the Duma?
Nothing. Because the second head of the fairy-tale dragon of the local bureaucracy would have risen conditionally. Actually, the Communist Party formally won. But this victory is not hers. People voted from the opposite. Democracy is different in this. Everywhere. What is not pleasant, annoying is replaced by something less unpleasant. Communist Party was the less unpleasant for people, in a conditional store, where give up-the same conditional things are sold. The Communist Party, together with its experienced leader, the compromiser, was chosen only from Russian hopelessness. The domination of the main boyars of the EP became simply unbearable. Even the main competitors of the state oligarchs on the business idea – Navalny’s people, called for voting for the Communist Party through smart voting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This, too, is from hopelessness. Even with their cultural modernization and market tolerance, conditional Democrats would never vote for conditional Gulag members.
Modern communists, or people who call themselves such, are no less greedy. But they have limitations because of their ideology. Each profession has its specific professional clothing, like the doctor, for example, has a white coat. The worker has a roba. The orchestra conductor has a tailcoat. Zyuganov’s communists learned to sell communist ideology professionally, although people thought less about communism in these elections. Members of the Communist Party, and many other left-wing Pharisees, are obliged to talk about the people. The people are suffering, and the people are getting poorer. But no one will leave the Duma. To live as a people? What for? The Communist Party is a profession in one word. And so, let’s imagine, the professional actors of the second plan were brought out as main artists. What would have happened? But nothing. First, the quality of the performance would drop. It’s natural. Then the supporting actors would get a little comfortable with their new role. The old mechanism or system would have been cleaned up and started working again at the same speed. What will change if you change the car’s details in the blue wrapper to the details in the red wrapper? Its replays of cargo cult. Is that clear? Hypocrites and Pharisees cannot change anything; they can only repeat.
Few people came to the symbolic protest rallies. That’s why they are symbolic. And now let’s remember how much came out for liberal Navalny throughout the Russian Federation. Thousands of times more. The electoral triumph of the Communist Party, albeit formal, is not a victory of the communist idea. Nobody needs the communist idea. These symbolic rallies are the evidence of this. Modern leftists, those who are called, or those who consider themselves Marxists prefer not to see this. Modern leftism is full of old Pharisees, middle-aged, and even there are young parrots about the dictatorship of the proletariat, about justice, about other ideas of Karl Marx from the 19th century. Modern left-wing Pharisees think in terms of a century ago and even more. (This is if the Marxists of Lenin’s time were talking about the Mazdakids and the eternal, holy methods of their struggle). The modern left does not even understand why they are in crisis. They are nervously leafing through Lenin’s hundred-year-old records. They carry gibberish. They calm their ego.
First, the modern left must admit that they are a product of tradition, that the so-called planetary communism was established on earth only thanks to, and despite, Marx. Only nations with a rigid tradition have established a new traditional system and called it communist. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea is in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The peoples with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism but in fact came new bureaucrats who replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These were the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. But the alienation in which the Eastern (fertile peoples) lived at that time was enormous. Europe solved its overpopulation by World War. Then it made an upgrade. By this time, the peoples of the East were not ready for a world war. These were the peoples of the periphery. They were late for planetary modernization, so they chose a catch-up project. The communist project is a catch-up project, yes, as rigid collectivism in the tradition is compensation for the severity of the climate and conditions by common labor. The countries of the Asian tradition chose communist ideas because they approached their dictatorship (of the proletariat) to the collective memory of peoples, to the production culture of reflexes. Karl Marx, an urbanized citizen, despised feudalism, Asia, and Russia. Therefore, empirically, he could not in any way connect the alienation of the slave personality from the alienation of the proletarian personality. The alienation of the proletarian personality is the same as a member of a generic collective. The generic “nothing” alienation could not happen unnoticed in the modern Marx city. It happened just in the kind of alienation described by Marx. But Marx concluded the reasons for a person’s dependence on society. Industrial relations in a duet with production forces did not allow a person to be free. From this, Marx found a solution to replace people with machines that create abundance. But if a tribal person is freed from relatives, will he become free? If a peasant is left without a village, won’t he run wild?
Similarly, a person who is not working, freed from alienation, will not write poetry and philosophize. Abundance will not make a person kinder. But the fact that Marx jumped over the traditional alienation, did not see the old tradition in capitalist alienation, still blinds all the so-called Marxists on the left, (for me – a large crowd of Pharisees). They feel it would be better not to think at all. Alienation is changing, the city is replacing the village, but the culture and traditions remain. And production robots and other mechanisms cannot solve this problem.
That’s how Zyuganov and Co. are primarily traditional people from the village. What the system, the tradition, tells them, they will do. They received from the system all profits, and they will still receive, like that meek heifer sucking at two cows.
ChapterВ 3
There must be an emperor inВ the empire
The world of information and its consumers needs resonances. Information channels scare all the time, or write “that the world shuddered.” The world shuddered because divers found something at the bottom of the ocean. The world shuddered that a famous politician said something. And so on. But who in Russia shuddered to the wedding? For the wedding of a man from the last tsarist Russian monarchical dynasty. After all, the late Russian tsar was overthrown in 1917. There was the same resonance. Who in modern Russia was not lazy, paid attention?
The world of information and its consumers needs resonances. Information channels scare or write “the world shuddered” all the time. Therefore, in the Russian Federation, not everybody is true, but interested citizens also shuddered. Although, no one now cares about anyone or anything. These newsmakers and other creators of ideas “shuddered”. The townsfolk have been in suspended animation for a long time at the resonances. Only the primary instincts remained. It seems the modern man in the street has no other traits. Such a tendency that soon reasonable people will not be found.
AВ lot ofВ time spent online has confirmed the opinion that now people are very conservative. It is difficult for them toВ leave their cozy worlds. (They also rarely leave their apartments, sofas). Now people look at the world with lonely egoism. This is such an answer toВ the extras ofВ the soviet life (which is better, IВ do not know, but we want toВ live inВ aВ predictable world, and, inВ my opinion, inВ the soviet past was easier).
The so-called elite looks at the world with the same egoism. They also watch something during the breaks of their big affairs. They are also tired and want the world not to “shudder”. Furthermore, they are also painfully thinking about how to live and save their billions of stolen dollars.
Where is the coincidence of the “trembling” of people from large palaces and people from sofas? But the inhabitants of sofas are more inclined to equality of rights with the inhabitants of palaces and self-exclusivity, in contrast to Central Asian migrants. Nothing has happened to traditional conservatism. It didn’t disappear. It turned into the struggle of the European bourgeoisie for equality of rights, like in the 18th century. This concerns ordinary citizens and the opposition to the existing regime. Conservatism usually turns into xenophobia.
What is the trend from below?
There are three of them. The first and main one is the liberal trend. There is a link between a group of liberals and young people who want to live like in the West. The second one is still nationalism. If you give nationalism the first place, Russia will not stand. And judging by the past elections, the voters used the oppositionists like part of the regime in the form of official communists to solve their problems. Nobody really wants Soviet-type communism. The people have been specifically free for a long time and thus corrupted. I watch the conservatism of former Soviet and modern people, which turns into xenophobia. There are many disparate speakers. But the puzzle has not yet matched. They’re looking too. They search exit paths. But the elite is also looking. They’re looking too. They want to rule forever. Empowerment with a sense of superiority is the very imperial thesis. The so-called bourgeoisie wants the same equality as the third French estate of Louis XVI. The topic of civil equality is a European topic. Fascism emerged from bourgeois internal equality and external superiority. (There were no bourgeois revolutions and the old nobility was preserved). The old generation quickly transferred the old superiority to the new civilian generation. They tell the young that there was a time when we were great. Therefore, any failure outside and a crisis inside all the time created a mini-war, which was sent out by succession. That is why the former empires, even in disassembled form, have an active foreign policy, rattle weapons, and powerful propaganda. The population also likes such an active foreign policy (partly because it continues greatness). Napoleon III, for example, also led an active policy (the Crimean War, the war with Austria, the war with Mexico, the war with Prussia). But the bourgeoisie and the Democrats didn’t care. They demanded equality and accountability from Napoleon. Although the people around Napoleon III were not going to report to anyone. France is once again mired in corruption.
Actually, who is NapoleonВ III?
After the defeat of Napoleon I by the coalition of European monarchs, a restoration took place in France. The people, who had tasted freedom, at the first opportunity overthrew first the Bourbons (1830), then the Orleans family (1848). Napoleon III was not a king, but an emperor like his uncle did not dismiss the monarchical tradition. The Second Republic was not much different from the regime of Louis Philippe (although it is the regime of Lee Philippe that is very similar to the modern regime of the Russian Federation. No, to Marxists this phenomenon of similarity of regimes between which 200 years cannot be explained in any way. If you combine the regime of Louis Philippe, where the big bourgeoisie elected a parliament for itself, and Philip’s friends were mired in corruption, plus the foreign policy of Napoleon III, to solve internal issues with imperial policy, you will get a modern Russian Federation one in one). But there has been no monarchy in Russia since 1917. There is no monarchy, but the authoritarian power of Putin is a modern variation. Which is not much different from an absolute monarchy, and in terms of population control, it surpasses all the monarchies of the world combined.
It turns out what?
Nationalism in the general retrospective arena in the empire is contraindicated. It turns out that imperial policy needs historical continuity. Furthermore, it is approved within the framework only in traditional legitimacy. But no one can cancel market relations, either – market relations in the permafrost of traditional hierarchical culture. Therefore, nationalists should love the monarchy as well as the current elite advertises it. Here they converge on the path of superiority over peripheral peoples, in short over migrants. Although the elite will need migrants all the time, not only do they support the economy of the regime, they are beneficial to the oligarchs. Labor migrants confirm the triumphant imperial policy (even in this form of a dismantled state. The Empire is stored in memory and imitated). At the same time, nationalists represent the second stage after democracy, which does not exist and cannot exist in the traditional permafrost.
Civil equal rights are aВ European culture. This association is also historical and is confirmed byВ examples. The bourgeoisie will unite against autocracy, empire and the probable monarchy.
But, where are the Communists here? And why did the official communists suddenly become popular?
It’s all about elections without a choice. If you look at the Russian Federation through France of the 19th century, there were communists in France. Gavroche and the Paris Commune. They were also bourgeois democrats, in fact, and fought for equality. But that liberal Navalny spontaneously propagandized his ideological opponents, the communists, and this is the first objective unification.
P.S. In 7—10 years at this rate, the idea of a monarchy will sound open. After another five years, they can choose a monarch at the Cathedral. After another five years, the monarchy can be overthrown, and someone would proclaim emperor
ChapterВ 4
Doomed toВ lag
How the left Pharisees manifest themselves.
They say the West’s technological breakthroughs and social guarantees are a triumph of Marx. Lies! Marx did not write anywhere that bankers and stockbrokers would fulfill his thoughts. This is the highest falsification of Marxist Pharisees, Marxist bankrupts, Marxist swindlers.
He wrote about the dictatorship ofВ the proletariat.
OfВ course, unlike stockbrokers and bankers, the proletariat had scanty chances toВ build developed capitalism inВ its proletarian state. ToВ turn into aВ banker, the luckiest proletarian had toВ find aВ treasure trove ofВ gold. If aВ hundred thousand proletarians had simultaneously found aВ treasure trove ofВ gold, then staged aВ dictatorship ofВ treasure hunters, then they would have pushed back the descendants ofВ those peasants who fled from hunger from their villages long before the 20th century. The successful proletarians who found the treasure, that is, the late peasants could not compete inВ any way with the early peasants, that is, those who escaped from the village from hunger aВ hundred years earlier, and maybe two hundred, three hundred and four hundred years as the haberdashers ofВ Bonacieux. It was Bonacieux who became bankers.
But it was the late peasants in the wild estate society who made the so-called socialist revolution at the beginning of the 20th century. And all other traditional peoples had the opportunity to build only such socialism? Only at the stage of total migration of the traditional population to the cities socialism is possible. Therefore, communism of the 20th century has always been a catch-up project, and the modern Leftists, the so-called Marxists, are only catching up all the time they want to avoid getting ahead. That’s why they lie.
Catch up and overtake the West! Such aВ slogan has been preached inВ the USSR since the time ofВ Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet secretaries also added that aВ little more and we will live under communism. Why need toВ catch up and overtake the West?
Because this West was a model for the late group of Soviet bureaucracy, the first Bolsheviks had no such task. It was standing indirectly. Stalin said, “If we don’t do this, we will be crushed.” Who would do that? Who could crush the USSR? Of course, the technologically advanced West. For the Communists of the USSR in the 60s of the last century, the task was already social benefits because social guarantees were given to the population from the very beginning of the Soviet Union. But did the old Marxists or people who considered themselves Marxists know that by creating benefits and weakening the first elite’s dictatorship (Lenin’s close comrades), they were preparing a coup? Therefore, the descendants of the peasants instinctively exterminated the first Soviet leadership and maintained an atmosphere of defense and discipline all the time. They created a showcase of socialism from one city of the USSR and brought oranges and bananas there. The population went to Moscow for sausage. Could the old men of Brezhnev fill the entire USSR, even if not with sausage, but with bananas and jeans? Thereby bribing the youth. Yes, they could. But they instinctively maintained the old atmosphere in which they grew up. At the same time, they provided their families with everything they needed.
The children of the party leadership benefited from the “catch-up project”, from peasant socialism. And… turned into the inhabitants of the West.
Does this mean that all peasant socialisms ofВ the 20th century and all other peasant socialisms are doomed toВ repeat Western evolution? Yes, it is. (If China manages toВ carry out urbanization, it will skip the Soviet stage ofВ the coup, it will not repeat Russia) All peasant socialisms are doomed toВ catch up with the West because these were mobilization projects. The dictatorship ofВ the proletariat was suitable for technologically backward peoples toВ create material goods with their culture, with the whole traditional collective. Only inВ the atmosphere ofВ war communism, discipline, and fear was aВ socialist man ofВ the 20th century possible. If each Zeref individually wanted the profit for himself, this state would turn into aВ colony (the proclamation ofВ democracy inВ the USSR immediately turned the USSR into aВ colony). Therefore, all peasant socialisms ofВ the 20th century should be considered aВ mobilization form ofВ the same evolution ofВ humanity? (What Marx did not see and could not see.)
