Almaz Braev - Red. Fundamentalism

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

How the left Pharisees manifest themselves.

They say the West’s 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. That’s 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 don’t 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 elite’s dictatorship (Lenin’s 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.