Almaz Braev - Red. Fundamentalism

Few people came to the symbolic protest rallies. That’s why they are symbolic. And now let’s remember how much came out for liberal Navalny throughout the Russian Federation. Thousands of times more. The electoral triumph of the Communist Party, albeit formal, is not a victory of the communist idea. Nobody needs the communist idea. These symbolic rallies are the evidence of this. Modern leftists, those who are called, or those who consider themselves Marxists prefer not to see this. Modern leftism is full of old Pharisees, middle-aged, and even there are young parrots about the dictatorship of the proletariat, about justice, about other ideas of Karl Marx from the 19th century. Modern left-wing Pharisees think in terms of a century ago and even more. (This is if the Marxists of Lenin’s time were talking about the Mazdakids and the eternal, holy methods of their struggle). The modern left does not even understand why they are in crisis. They are nervously leafing through Lenin’s hundred-year-old records. They carry gibberish. They calm their ego.

First, the modern left must admit that they are a product of tradition, that the so-called planetary communism was established on earth only thanks to, and despite, Marx. Only nations with a rigid tradition have established a new traditional system and called it communist. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Kampuchea is in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The peoples with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism but in fact came new bureaucrats who replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These were the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. But the alienation in which the Eastern (fertile peoples) lived at that time was enormous. Europe solved its overpopulation by World War. Then it made an upgrade. By this time, the peoples of the East were not ready for a world war. These were the peoples of the periphery. They were late for planetary modernization, so they chose a catch-up project. The communist project is a catch-up project, yes, as rigid collectivism in the tradition is compensation for the severity of the climate and conditions by common labor. The countries of the Asian tradition chose communist ideas because they approached their dictatorship (of the proletariat) to the collective memory of peoples, to the production culture of reflexes. Karl Marx, an urbanized citizen, despised feudalism, Asia, and Russia. Therefore, empirically, he could not in any way connect the alienation of the slave personality from the alienation of the proletarian personality. The alienation of the proletarian personality is the same as a member of a generic collective. The generic “nothing” alienation could not happen unnoticed in the modern Marx city. It happened just in the kind of alienation described by Marx. But Marx concluded the reasons for a person’s dependence on society. Industrial relations in a duet with production forces did not allow a person to be free. From this, Marx found a solution to replace people with machines that create abundance. But if a tribal person is freed from relatives, will he become free? If a peasant is left without a village, won’t he run wild?

Similarly, a person who is not working, freed from alienation, will not write poetry and philosophize. Abundance will not make a person kinder. But the fact that Marx jumped over the traditional alienation, did not see the old tradition in capitalist alienation, still blinds all the so-called Marxists on the left, (for me – a large crowd of Pharisees). They feel it would be better not to think at all. Alienation is changing, the city is replacing the village, but the culture and traditions remain. And production robots and other mechanisms cannot solve this problem.

That’s how Zyuganov and Co. are primarily traditional people from the village. What the system, the tradition, tells them, they will do. They received from the system all profits, and they will still receive, like that meek heifer sucking at two cows.

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.