Читать книгу Red. Fundamentalism - Алмаз Браев - Страница 5

There must be an emperor in 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.

A lot of time spent online has confirmed the opinion that now people are very conservative. It is difficult for them to 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 to the extras of the soviet life (which is better, I do not know, but we want to live in a predictable world, and, in my opinion, in 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 Napoleon 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 a European culture. This association is also historical and is confirmed by 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