Читать книгу Tradition against communism - Алмаз Браев - Страница 9

WHERE DID “TAKE AND SHARE” COME FROM”

All traditional families have many children. Traditional fathers could not pass on the same inheritance to all their sons. In Europe, the father passed the inheritance to the eldest son. This transfer of inheritance to the eldest son in the family was called a majorat. The younger children were forced to find their own luck. The younger sons went to the city. They created dynasties of urban artisans. All urban burghers – this is all once deprived of the inheritance of their grandfather’s younger sons. Of course, dynasties were created more than one year. All people grow up, grow old, the moment comes when the younger sons are already deprived of their inheritance, and they themselves must pass on the inheritance as fathers. The fathers of the city burghers themselves became stewards of their property. And again, the inheritance was transferred, as it was once in the native village. But in the city it was not so tyrannical, not so abrupt. The bourgeoisie has always had opportunities to soften the old mores. Therefore, in the city, the discontent of the younger sons and indignation occurred gently. Younger sons mixed with older sons and the transfer of inheritance became a formal action. Of course, by tradition, the privileges of the elders were formally preserved. But the older ones might be idiots. Although it was always the younger sons who were frivolous. Because their parents spoiled them. It is impossible and impossible to transfer the property that was acquired by many works of the father and maybe several generations of ancestors to a stupid heir. This can’t be happening. But no one, no father, ever thought of sharing the inheritance equally. This would violate paternal ethics. For traditional people, hierarchy is important in any form. Otherwise according to its elite (zerots) will ensue chaos. But where and in what place could the idea arise-to take and divide all the property?

There are places and societies where no one likes the rights of eldest sons. Such a mood and indignation was always in the minds of the younger sons! The traditional world itself is rebelling in the face of younger sons, and slaves can also be sons, as well as peasants, pirates, bandits, raiders, even proletarians. Not all rebellious workers are the youngest in their families, but all” proletarians have nothing to lose but chains.” That is, all the rebellious in the world of tradition, and the whole world of mankind lived in a hierarchy, among the injustices and exploitation of the weak by the strong, but all of the rebels rose up against injustice, against hierarchy, against the order established by the elite. The traditional elite is a common father for all. The comparison of the discontent of the younger son, of all the younger sons, with the despair of all the slaves of the world is somewhat strange. But you can’t start a family without a material base! And in the name of what should all the oppressed in the world rebel? In the name of human rights, in the name of justice? This justice was invented by the poets. By the philosophers of the New time. All traditional people are outraged if they cannot repeat the path of their ancestors, the path of their fathers. In the name of this they must break the system if the system does not allow them to have children. In the name of what then should they live zeref? Who needs then it’s a dog’s life? That’s why the “take and share” appeared not in the primitive socialists of the people, but within the people themselves, which can not, if deprived of the opportunity, repeat the path of their ancestors. There is no tradition, and there is no popular sense. Take and share appeared in the crater of tradition. It was those people who were deprived of their conditional inheritance who raised their fiery lava of protest. Who is there again before your eyes? Traditional people are zerefs. Yes, at first glance, Sharikov’s new Communist looks as stupid as the former dog. But weren’t all the world’s slaves dogs for the exploiting elite? You can not compare all the poor and deprived of the world with the fool and upstart Sharikov. But all the unfortunate people before Sharikov and after Scharikov thought exactly like a Communist Sharikov-take and divide. And Sharikov is a former dog based on Bulgakov’s novel. Previously, there was no teaching of scientific communism. Was neither Karl Marx. There was no one to tell the great Spartacus and his slave companions that their cause was that of the doomed. Slaves could still beat the Romans. They could break out of a Roman prison or a Roman empire. But no more. Then the slaves would create their own state. And this state would be paternal again. That is, there would be their own tribal fathers. All the fathers have their own older and younger sons. There would be favorites, but also outcasts. In many, many centuries, hundreds of thousands of slaves of capitalism will begin to storm the proletarian sky. And what are we going to do with them? Don’t look at all the suffering slaves with perfect eyes. Not all slaves are saints, and not all are unhappy. They will take and divide all the property of the “father”, as they think-according to scientific communism, but in fact, as their fathers divided them. But what will happen in the end? It is necessary to look not only at the source of the mountain river but also at the swamp of the Delta. Like all traditional people before and after them, they will create a society of new paternal ethics. Where there will be their rulers-the red elite and there will be their oppressed with red faces from indignation. Some will have privileges, others will work for them. And their grandchildren, that is, the third privileged generation will receive the inheritance bequeathed by their fathers bosses-the property of the entire state of the USSR. Where there is tradition, there is always repetition. That’s why all the revolutionaries and slaves are disenfranchised in our country as conditional younger sons.