Читать книгу Red. Fundamentalism - Алмаз Браев - Страница 7

Dura lex, sed lex

Is it possible to explain the modern secondary nature of socialism? Is socialism secondary a priori? Does this explain the global crisis of 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 a secret and informal contract in this territory, then we are talking about a traditional society. Let it be far from primitive, not natural from the outside, uses modern technology, but it is feudal in its essence. An informal contract is characteristic of a society where there has always been a 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 to show humanity. After all, human solidarity in 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.