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 Philips 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?
Its 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 710 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
Chapter 4
Doomed to lag
How the left Pharisees manifest themselves.
They say the Wests 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 of the proletariat.
Of course, unlike stockbrokers and bankers, the proletariat had scanty chances to build developed capitalism in its proletarian state. To turn into a banker, the luckiest proletarian had to find a treasure trove of gold. If a hundred thousand proletarians had simultaneously found a treasure trove of gold, then staged a dictatorship of treasure hunters, then they would have pushed back the descendants of 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 in any way with the early peasants, that is, those who escaped from the village from hunger a hundred years earlier, and maybe two hundred, three hundred and four hundred years as the haberdashers of 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. Thats why they lie.
Catch up and overtake the West! Such a slogan has been preached in the USSR since the time of Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet secretaries also added that a little more and we will live under communism. Why need to 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 dont 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 elites dictatorship (Lenins 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 of the 20th century and all other peasant socialisms are doomed to repeat Western evolution? Yes, it is. (If China manages to carry out urbanization, it will skip the Soviet stage of the coup, it will not repeat Russia) All peasant socialisms are doomed to catch up with the West because these were mobilization projects. The dictatorship of the proletariat was suitable for technologically backward peoples to create material goods with their culture, with the whole traditional collective. Only in the atmosphere of war communism, discipline, and fear was a socialist man of the 20th century possible. If each Zeref individually wanted the profit for himself, this state would turn into a colony (the proclamation of democracy in the USSR immediately turned the USSR into a colony). Therefore, all peasant socialisms of the 20th century should be considered a mobilization form of the same evolution of humanity? (What Marx did not see and could not see.)
Different peoples had different mobilizations. If three-quarters of the population consisted of Zerefs, then this is Soviet socialism. Privileged elites and their favorites were given the opportunity to embark on an evolutionary path in 1991. But the new Russian elite is not recognized in the West as equals.
If the population was half conservative, then this is German National Socialism. The elite of 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 of imitation of Western ideals. And what are Western ideals? Today it is a victorious democracy that everyone wants to build, even in completely traditional, hence backward communities. The whole question is whether the elite of the West recognizes the privileged elites from past mobilization projects.
Equality, justice, socialism.
Actually, why did the proletarians, as the last faction of the peasantry that escaped from the village, like the ideas of Karl Marx? Did they think about the good of humanity or only about the good of 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.
Chapter 5
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; thats 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 populations 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 populations 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.