Different peoples had different mobilizations. If three-quarters ofВ the population consisted ofВ Zerefs, then this is Soviet socialism. Privileged elites and their favorites were given the opportunity toВ embark on an evolutionary path inВ 1991. But the new Russian elite is not recognized inВ the West as equals.
If the population was half conservative, then this is German National Socialism. The elite ofВ the German Nazis could easily fit into the Western elite.
If the population is totally feudal, it is the Jamahiriya and other African and Asian socialisms. There is no third way. There are different degrees ofВ imitation ofВ Western ideals. And what are Western ideals? Today it is aВ victorious democracy that everyone wants toВ build, even inВ completely traditional, hence backward communities. The whole question is whether the elite ofВ the West recognizes the privileged elites from past mobilization projects.
Equality, justice, socialism.
Actually, why did the proletarians, as the last faction ofВ the peasantry that escaped from the village, like the ideas ofВ Karl Marx? Did they think about the good ofВ humanity or only about the good ofВ themselves?
Lenin as a politician acted correctly. Bolshevik slogans “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 could collapse in 1928, when 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.
ChapterВ 5
Dura lex, sedВ lex
Is it possible toВ explain the modern secondary nature ofВ socialism? Is socialism secondary aВ priori? Does this explain the global crisis ofВ 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, a judge. Any administrator can humanly understand the petitioner. In Germany, the USA, such actions are corrupt, and both sides are fraught with such an informal agreement.
If we are discussing drawing up aВ secret and informal contract inВ this territory, then we are talking about aВ traditional society. Let it be far from primitive, not natural from the outside, uses modern technology, but it is feudal inВ its essence. An informal contract is characteristic ofВ aВ society where there has always been aВ 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 toВ show humanity. After all, human solidarity inВ 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, then the moral and even 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 for informal solidarity to disappear, a huge migration is required to mix the population.
But even in this case, attempts to negotiate will remain, for this is a tradition. Mass migration certainly weakens the laws of blood and even religion, but it does not get rid of intermediaries. The number of intermediaries between the state and the people is growing. Fame is no longer critical to officials, and money always is important to officials for bribing officials from above. Any traditional society is highly corrupt. Even in a society without relatives and fellow countrymen, everyone will look for both relatives and fellow countrymen because of the 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 of people, 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 legal 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 talk about 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, alternative elite). Thus, the peasants in 1917 needed only land. The French in 1789 demanded the abolition of high taxes. (Feels the difference? Today, all opposition economists in Russia talk only about Keynes, that Nabiullina is sitting in the Central Bank. 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), and 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 has been a massive internal “migration” of property in Russia. It was simply abolished by the socialist law.
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, peoples were unable to see any other socialism other than peasant socialism.
ChapterВ 6
Worse thanВ 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 woman by the age of his mother. Merkel lives like ordinary people. The crowd sees and rejoices: “They are worse than me!”
What is the difference between totalitarianism, sorry, autocracy, from such aВ democracy with aВ choice on the principle that he is worse than me? Dictators pick up harmless, spineless people without aВ face toВ secure their unlimited power. The degradation ofВ totalitarianism comes from theВ top.
In a democracy, the crowd chooses idols, including politicians, on the same principle. But instead of power as the goal of life, self-love. The crowd chooses people worse than themselves. That’s why democracy degrades from below.
However, why does democracy look more stable than dictatorships? Because the choice of the crowd does not rise above the required level. With totalitarianism, a layer of managers is affected. Therefore, after the dictator’s departure, troubled times came. There are no guarantees of a quiet life for anyone.
In a democracy, the same, really not independent people are selected. Parliament severely limits the Chancellor’s power. That’s why even women are appointed military ministers. You can safely say: after all, nothing will happen. There is another invisible power over the state machine. But these are not the people. The crowd is interested in choosing a funny, harmless person. The crowd has long been studied. The egoism of the crowd has long been accustomed to and adjusted. The crowd was allowed to choose anyone, only after controlling the consequences of the choice, you are worse than me. That is why any modern president does not and cannot raise the issue of national security. The crowd never understands, it only feels. Therefore, voters are allowed to choose every four years. These elections don’t solve anything. Not because the crowd reduces the level of candidates to their egoism, but because there is another level above the state level. This level is the new fascism, which is still unknown to the folks, but they feel it and are surprised by their modern so-called impotent elite.
Now the level of money is above the level of the state. Money is the only deity for humanity. If you turn off moral values, it’s natural. The state-level is the highest moral level of society. While there is still no de jure world government and the basic principle of the planet’s existence, the state principle remains the most recognizable and understandable. In fact, the new leadership style of nations is determined by money, the world currency. Hence, the crisis of state management. The state turns from the guarantor of the Constitution, that is, local morality, to put it simply, into a feeder. At this very time, people who have no access to power are trying to have it in every way…money. In addition, they select idols – singers, buffoons, showmen, talkers, etc. They select according to the principle – worse than me.
PS
What is pleasant and at the same time unpleasant guest worker Jamshut for Russian fascists? It’s cheap. He is an executive slave.
What is pleasant and at the same time unpleasant about Conchita Wurst? She has deviations (worse than me), but going out inВ public is nice. Only conservative (moral) peoples find it unpleasant. But these people do not decide anything at home. The media and the local corrupt rulers taught them toВ love money from the very beginning. InВ aВ generation, they will also love non-standard people like Conchita.
ChapterВ 7
The dictatorship ofВ the proletariat is inВ the hands ofВ Pharisees and fools
Who was the third? Will be aВ Future situation teaching German Nazism?
There are different dictatorships. Basically, these are the dictatorships ofВ the elites. The ancestral nobility, the aristocracy ofВ the caste ofВ the military, the junta finally. The dictatorship ofВ the oligarchy. But where did the dictatorship ofВ the proletariat come from?
No, I know, everyone knows that Karl Marx invented this dictatorship in the heart of a revolutionary dispute with bourgeois opponents in the first half of the 19th century. But Karl Marx hated any primitive community (like the Russian one). In his letter to Vera Zasulich, he did not count on the Russians in any way. On the contrary, he considered them backward people from the Asian world. However, here’s the bad luck! It was in Russia that the proletarian revolution took place. In any case, everyone still calls it that.
In fact, it was a great peasant and not a revolution at all, but a global parochial revolt that could spread to exactly the same backward Asian peoples. Folks who lived as a community. People who “suffered” under the despotism of their Asian elites. Throughout the 20th century, only Asia went on strike like this. But who, in fact, thought that they suffered? Asian peoples still, until our age of high technology, the Internet, quite live “under the yoke” of their elites and would have lived on if no one had interfered to them, had not liberated with a mission of liberation. That is, in fact, the meme of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a cast from the primitive dictatorship of the genus, has lived an independent life of religious dogma. And it was picked up by all the religious, in fact, Asian despotic peoples. Not only the great revolutionaries shouted, but also fanatics with fools. The atheistic, at least deeply rational peoples of the West have abandoned the meme of Karl Marx. And they put forward their version of the dictatorship – fascism and the nation.
Why does this meme of dictatorship still live in the form of dogma? And prevents you from clearing the way from the old deity? There are also groups of dogmatists, fanatics, hypocrites, and talkers who will definitely use the proletariat, which does not exist in the coming revolt, but it still exists precisely because of stubbornness, the most primitive egoism of old believers. In each modern car, you can see a dray. And don’t strain yourself. Just turn on your imagination, and everything will match again. The descendants of Russian peasants under this meme will storm the monarch, with revolutionaries, seize power, choose their red monarch after killing revolutionaries (allegedly Jews). Then in the third generation, they will again break up into new, super modern feudal lords and no less modern, but such disenfranchised peasants. Wherever another group of dictators appears, such Pharisees will immediately see the hand of the meme. The strict ancestral morality of taboo turned into the dictatorship of the proletariat in the 19th century, thanks to Marx. But Marx did not know, could not know in the heat, that his meme would not just live an independent life of dogma, but would also repeat the evolution of the genus: a monarchy in the form of a dictatorship would take place again from the genus, then the fall of the monarchy, now red, and again disintegrate into new pieces, that is, the genus would necessarily decompose as it should. The meme of the dictatorship played its sinister joke with a lag of one century. Isn’t there the greatest catch here?
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию (https://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=67215751&lfrom=174836202) на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
