About propaganda, ideology and information superiority of the USA

141
Recently, an article “In Defense of Propaganda” by B. Dzhereliyevsky appeared on the “VO”. In it, the distinguished author examines some issues of information confrontation, the global information struggle, which is being conducted in the world today. He quite rightly cites as an example the first Chechen war, when we lost one round of this struggle, and, doubly sadly, we lost at home. The federal services were unable to properly highlight the events in Chechnya, while the Dudayevites, having “turned on” the regime of maximum favor for journalists (they were taken hostage and cut later), provided themselves with comfortable informational support for the “independent media”.





It is difficult to disagree with B. Dzherilievsky and that:

“... to achieve victories on the information front of a hybrid war is not enough efforts of the army press services and units of psychological operations. The question is about the consolidated work of law enforcement agencies, the media, the authorities and the patriotic forces within the framework of a single propaganda paradigm. ”


But the question is: where do we get this very “single propaganda paradigm”?

What is propaganda? It is, in essence, a tool for the formation of public opinion. Which, in fact, leads this very opinion to a single denominator - the goal of propaganda is to form a unified opinion on any issue (or many issues) in the overwhelming majority of the population. And, strictly speaking, at first glance, propaganda seems to be unrelated to ideology. After all, ideology is a system of ideas about the structure of society and the state. That is, ideology draws us such a picture of what our being should be now and in the future, and what we should strive for and dream about. Ideology can be promoted in order to achieve an increase in the number of people who share it. Propaganda may be part of ideology — for example, part of the Soviet ideology was the enlightenment of the working class in other countries. But in general, ideology and propaganda correlate with each other in much the same way as the product and its advertising campaign.

But this is only at first glance. In fact ...

Take the same advertisement. Any advertising campaign is focused on a specific group of the population and must take into account their interests, life and presentation. A simple example is that there is no point in advertising mayonnaise of economy class, claiming that it gives a unique taste to lobsters. Just because the target audience, that is, the majority of potential buyers of such mayonnaise have never eaten these lobsters, or at least have no lobsters in their regular diet. In general, advertising should be customer-oriented: that is, it is designed for a certain group of people who have (at a minimum) similar needs and opportunities to meet them, and better - similar interests, and so on. Generally speaking, one of the most important tasks of an advertiser is to identify the target audience and its interests - an error in this important matter with the rare exception leads to the ineffectiveness of the advertising campaign as a whole.

So, with propaganda, oddly enough, everything is the same way. It effectively affects only a society that has some common, similar interests and perceptions. Let us explain this with an example.

Take the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Our propaganda presented this process as it is - that is, the return of a part of our country that was torn away from Russia and was once artificially separated and who did not accept this and did not want to become part of another society. Thus, the annexation of Crimea is a restoration historical justice, and, at the same time, accomplishing the will of the overwhelming majority of Crimean residents who want to become Russian people again. This is exactly how the act of the annexation of Crimea was presented to us by our official propaganda.

And now let's imagine how this propaganda had an effect on the bearers of various ideologies existing in our country. Let us take the rank-and-file members of the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation — namely, the rank-and-file members (and not the leadership of parties whose interests, alas, do not always coincide with the declared ideology), which fully share the ideology of their party.

I must say that the ideologies of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party are essentially antagonistic. The Liberal Democratic Party, in favor of liberalism and democracy, categorically rejects communist ideology and Marxism. Well, the communists of the Russian Federation, like the communists of the USSR before that, retain the rejection of capitalism, although they have to make some compromises with it. Nevertheless, despite all the difference in ideology, both the communist and a member of the LDPR rejoice in the return of the Crimea to the Russian Federation. Why?

Because, despite the antagonism of ideologies, both the LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, oddly enough, have a certain common basis, a commonality of a number of global goals. Both the liberal-democratic ideology (performed by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) and the communist ideology seek to restore to Russia the status of a great power, make it a powerful and prosperous state. That is, in this case, both the Liberal Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have the same goal, but differ in the ways of achieving it. Without a doubt, the return of the Crimea to Russia contributes to the revival of Russia as a great power, and therefore it is warmly welcomed by an ordinary member of the Liberal Democratic Party and an ordinary communist.

Thus, we see that the official propaganda of the event in the form in which it was applied, caused a similar reaction from representatives of antagonistic ideologies - but only because, despite the contradictions, there are common goals in the ideologies of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party.

And now let's imagine a kind of classic domestic “Westerner” of the 90's times with its basic set of ideological attitudes: he lives in “this country”, which is forever behind 500 years from the democracies of the West, in which there was no, there is no and never will be good Is that crazy enough in the West to buy something, but they will still immediately break or lose ... Neglect of fellow citizens is combined with fawning on foreigners. Any failure of Russia is perceived by him with gloating: well, of course, here it is, confirmation of the correctness of his point of view! Any achievement is declared a lie or propaganda, because in "this country" there can be nothing good, and if it does appear, see the first paragraph.

Could our official propaganda affect such a citizen? Yes, not at all. The concept of patriotism is alien to him, because it is “fables for cotton”, but the fact that people of the whole peninsula of their own will wish to become part of “this country” is generally wild and speaks only of the mental inferiority of the population of Crimea. Well, or that they were actually forced to enter Russia by force, at gunpoint. Accordingly, our official propaganda will not cause anything like a contemptuous and vile smile at such a person.

Or take another person, say, a small-scale entrepreneur, who was in grief and with thugs on 90, and with government agencies, who was disappointed in everything and lived by the principle: "Here I am and my family, I will take care of them, and the rest of the world will be me damn it and I didn't give a damn about it from a high tower. ” Will he rejoice at the patriotic rhetoric when the Crimea returns? No, it will not, he is from this neither cold nor hot.

Generally speaking, official propaganda can affect such people. But for this it will need to be completely rebuilt. It is better not even to mention patriotism, historical justice and other things, but to stick out the economic benefits of such a reunion (if they are not there, come up with it!). In general, something in this style: “We returned the Crimea and now we do not need to pay rent to Ukraine, we do not need to spend money on the construction of the base fleet in Novorossiysk, we “squeezed” first-class shipyards from an independent one, now the Russians will have an affordable vacation in the wonderful Crimean resorts, the stalls will be filled up with fruits from the sunny Crimea, Crimean wines will become cheaper, and in general it’s very European, let’s recall the unification of Germany, Germany and East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall ”, etc. etc.

Something like this may affect some of the strings in the souls of the “Westerner” and “disappointed”, but you need to understand that such propaganda will cause a feeling of rejection and disgust in a communist and a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, whose reaction we have analyzed earlier. The patriot, of course, will still rejoice at the return of Crimea, but he will be abhorred by such a purely utilitarian position of the government, voiced officially. “We count all rubles, but don't you care about people?” Who do they take us for ?! ”- such feelings would be caused by such propaganda.

But what is interesting is that neither the patriotic nor the “utilitarian” form of propaganda will in any way affect the senses ... say, a certain Tatar who was instilled in extreme nationalist ideas and who dreams of separating Tatarstan into an independent state. For him, Russia is an oppressor, and no reinforcement of such a person will please: he, of course, is a patriot ... but only of another country.

And what have we come to?

But to what. We see that to win the information war (or at least to achieve a certain parity, in which we do not allow foreign propaganda to wash our brains), we must oppose our own centralized propaganda. But propaganda will only be effective when it is focused on a group of people who have similar views on the structure of the state. Thus, official propaganda will be successful among a large part of the country's population, if this population is united by some common views, general ideas about the state structure, life goals, the country in which they live ...

In other words, it will be united by a common ideology. But how then is the freedom of speech, will and so on? After all, state ideology is a direct path to monopolization of power, the elimination of a multi-party system, the end of democracy, etc. etc.? And what about the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article No. 13 of which reads:

"1. In the Russian Federation, ideological diversity is recognized.

2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.

3. The Russian Federation recognizes political diversity, multi-party system.

4. Public associations are equal before the law.

5. The creation and activity of public associations whose goals or actions are aimed at changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, creating armed groups, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred are prohibited. "


Dead end?

It looks like yes. But let's see how the Americans dealt with this.

In the US, there are a lot of political parties of various kinds. We used to talk about the United States as a two-party system, but there are enough “third parties”: the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Independent Party, etc. There is freedom of speech, and there is a lot of this freedom. That is, having arrived in the US and fluent in English, you can turn on the TV and find a channel to your liking - the one where, for example, the current US President D. Trump is praised, or the one that gets him in the mud, or which gives a more balanced or neutral assessment of its activities.

The US parties do not duplicate each other at all - their Democrats and Republicans are still antagonistic. Interestingly, many Americans do not vote for a particular candidate for the presidency of the United States - they vote for the one who nominated the party they sympathize with. And it is worth remembering the division into states, and the very broad powers that these states enjoy - here and various laws that are in force in some states, but not in others (up to the death penalty!), Fundamentally different judicial systems (in most states English law is in effect, but in Louisiana there is a Roman-Germanic), and so on.

It would seem that, with such pluralism and polarity in the opinions of the United States, they would simply be doomed, falling under the influence of hostile propaganda: the split of society, one might say, is guaranteed. Meanwhile, we see the opposite picture: despite the many parties, internal contradictions, freedom of speech, etc., the US society is very, very monolithic, and very resistant to external information influences.

How so?

A very simple. The fact is that with all the breadth of American pluralism, this pluralism is contained within certain limits that every American literally absorbs with mother's milk. What is it beyond these? Here are their main points:

1. United States of America - Great Country. With two big letters, yes.

2. USA is the coolest in the world. Point.

3. Sometimes other countries manage to do something better than the Americans (Japanese - cars, Russians - rockets, etc.). But compared to the US, they are still losers, because ... see p. 2.

4. The United States has become so cool because they have a democracy. Some other countries also have democracy, and they are also cool, but the Americans are anyway cooler, because American democracy is the most democratic democracy in the world.

5. Every citizen of the United States has rights - they are given to him from birth, he knows them well and knows how to achieve their execution. And even has the right to own weapons and apply it in defense of your rights.

6. Since all US citizens have rights, they are all equal. Black, white, yellow and green (from drugs). But some citizens were previously not equal and were persecuted on a national, gender or any other basis. The United States is very ashamed of this, and they feel guilty in front of those who were previously persecuted. Such persecution in the United States is now and forever strictly forbidden.

7. Once all citizens are equal, then the law is the same for all, and its violations are unacceptable. But you need to understand the nuances. For example, if you saw how your neighbor got into a drunken car and reported this regrettable fact to the police, you are an exemplary citizen. But if your neighbor is a Negro, then you are most likely just a Nazi and a Kukluksklanovets. However, if you manage to zakosit under the face of gay sex, then maybe you are still an exemplary citizen, but this is how the court will decide. But he can decide in any way, because if at the trial it turns out that the Negro is “blue”, then you should be a Nazi, with no options. And since the Negro is easier to follow under the “blue” than the “blue” under the Negro, then, unless you yourself are African American, your work is definitely losing, and therefore you should not start.

8. A US citizen should be successful. Success is measured by the money you earn and your material wealth. However, the concept of "success" in America does not divide the country into "millionaires" and "losers", because it is tied not only to absolute, but also to relative values: the concept of "success" applies both to those who have reached transcendental heights and for those who are just getting better than they were before. In other words, the scavenger loader who became the driver of the garbage truck is, in a way, successful. And the overall success of citizens is the basis of success of the United States as a superpower.

9. Professionalism is one of the formulas for success. The United States respects the pros - only by becoming a professional can you succeed in your chosen occupation, i.e. to be successful.

10. A US citizen loves his country, because in no other country in the world can he be so free, have so many rights and be as successful as possible for him in the USA. This is called the American way of life, and it is the best of the best.

All of the above can be called ... but somehow. A national idea, for example. Over-ideology if you want. But the above-mentioned postulates unite Americans, give them a single basis, turn them into a society of like-minded people at a certain macro level, and all these party republican, democratic, libertarian and other ideologies are a step down. Because, no matter how antagonistic the ideologies of the same Democrats and Republicans, they generally recognize all the above 10 points and do not go beyond them.

That is, as in the example of ordinary members of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the antagonism of ideologies does not manifest itself for the purposes of parties (for example, both Democrats and Republicans want to see the United States as a successful superpower, they advocate the preservation of the “American dream”, "They do not give offense to blacks, more precisely, allow them to offend whites with impunity, etc.), and in the means to achieve these goals.

Of course, not everyone in the United States unconditionally shares the above-mentioned 10 points of their national idea. But those who share, the majority, and, one can say, the vast majority. Thus, despite the many parties, the US society, in general, is united in the perception of what the state in which they live should be, what are the goals, roles, rights and duties of the citizens of this state.

This, in turn, means that American society is a single target audience for centralized, official propaganda. And, of course, the US government uses it quite effectively, presenting certain events in the world so that it is understandable and acceptable to US citizens. In other words, the United States has a state ideology, a national idea, if you like, and, although we can chuckle at its individual postulates, it is shared by most Americans. At the same time, official American propaganda, of course, is strictly focused on this audience. That is, in fact, the reason that our attempts with RT and similar broadcasting facilities in the USA are more like attempts of a mosquito to forget the rock festival. Possessing a national idea and not stopping to use the methods of modern propaganda, the United States, in fact, is an invulnerable bastion of information warfare.

And we? Alas, nothing can be said about the Russian Federation. The reason is very simple - we managed to confuse the concepts of pluralism of opinions and national ideas. In the US, there is a set of rules that are not discussed and for the attempt on which you can easily fall behind bars: this is a national idea. But here ways of its realization are discussed - here pluralism and freedom of speech. There is freedom of ideology of any parties, but! Exactly as long as this ideology does not go beyond the framework outlined by the national idea. We have no national idea - we did not create it and destroyed the very possibility of its occurrence by the 13 article of the Constitution, confusing the national idea with party ideologies.



Thus, we have not created the prerequisites for the emergence of Russia as a society united by some sort of common ideas. And this is very bad, and for many reasons ...

To be continued ...
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

141 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    1 October 2018 14: 15
    I hope that what is ideological power and what is power - everyone understands.

    "Ideology - This is the concept of governance, set out in a way that is understandable to the masses of the people so that it does not cause them to be rejected, much less actively targeted against it. The object of influence of ideological power is the whole society, however, with the exception of those who are themselves conceptually powerful, and therefore stand above ideological power. Ideology is needed for conceptual power in order to form a worldview of people in society corresponding to the chosen concept so that people are under its power in changing life circumstances.

    The function of ideological power - to clothe a conceptually beneficial concept in such ideological forms in which it would appear in the opinion of people handsome and therefore acceptable, in which the concept would not cause rejection, and even more so - a targeted active opposition to the introduction of the concept into management practice up to the development and implementation into the life of an alternative concept to her.

    Freedom from ideologies - this is self-deception, but not spontaneous psychological, but purposefully cultivated by the conceptual power. Ideology can be understood or not understood, accepted or denied, but members of society are always confronted with manifestations of one or another ideology, which is a shell of the concept of managing society by the holders of conceptual power. "


    And since there is such an understanding (I hope), then there is an understanding that ideological power cannot exist without conceptual power. In other words, we first determine how we will live, what to build (concept), and only then we convince everyone else (ideology) of this.

    Until we have decided on the concept of the device’s life, it makes no sense to talk about ideology - there’s nothing to agitate.
    1. +3
      1 October 2018 15: 02
      Quote: Boris55
      Ideology is a management concept.

      fool

      Ideology is a system of political, legal, moral, religious, aesthetic and philosophical views and ideas in which people's attitudes to reality are realized and evaluated.

      In another way - the totality of a system of values ​​and a worldview based on this system.

      Ideology is the basis for assessing reality - what is good and what is bad.
      1. +2
        1 October 2018 15: 36
        Quote: Claymore
        Ideology - the totality of a system of values ​​and a worldview based on this system

        The basis of which is the concept. First, we determine how we will live, what to build (concept), and only then we convince everyone else (ideology) of this.

        Quote: Claymore
        Ideology is the basis for assessing reality - what is good and what is bad.

        In other words, you wrote the following: The ideological apparatus of the Central Committee of the party acts as the basis for assessing reality — what is good and what is bad.

        Ideology does not value anything and is not the basis for evaluation. It is an instrument of conceptual power, working on its introduction to the masses in a form conveniently used by them. Depending on the goals of the concept, ideology uses certain philosophical views of the necessary politicians, exalts one morality without morality ...

        There was a concept of building communism. There were some political, moral, aesthetic and other views. The concept of construction has changed from communism to capitalism - ideology has also changed. Political, moral, aesthetic and other views have become different.
        1. +2
          1 October 2018 16: 32
          Quote: Boris55
          Underlying the concept

          Seriously?! belay

          Concept - (from lat. conceptio - understanding, system) a certain way of understanding, interpreting an object, phenomenon, process, the main point of view on an object or phenomenon, a guiding idea - underlies ideology ?! wassat

          Likbez.

          Ideology initially appears as a reaction to environmental stimuli - so hunger causes discomfort and leads to death, as a result of which food wealth becomes a value for an individual, group and society (i.e. becomes an element of ideology).

          But the explanation of why some should starve, while others at their expense eat from the belly - this is the task of the concept (teaching, way of understanding, interpretation), which always arises on the basis of an existing ideology, and not vice versa.

          First, we determine how we will live

          On the basis of what are we determined, how? laughing

          In order to decide how to live (to the best of your ability - you cannot decide to live without eruptions, earthquakes and aging of the body), you need to understand what is good and what is bad.

          And understanding this is possible only if there is already a formed worldview, which always has a value system - i.e. in the presence of ideology.

          In other words, you wrote the following: The ideological apparatus of the Party Central Committee acts as the basis for assessing reality

          I wrote exactly what I wrote.

          The ideological apparatus is not ideology.
          The device does not invent an ideology - it distributes it, having previously designed it in the form of its own interpretation - i.e. in the form of a concept.

          Ideology does not value anything and is not the basis for evaluation. She is an instrument of conceptual power

          1 Power is the ability to impose your will.
          Therefore, the phrase "conceptual power" (= power of interpretation, power of interpretation) is nonsense.

          2 As mentioned above, ideology is the basis for assessing reality, and not evaluating it.
          Therefore, you do not need to pass off your stupid speculation for my allegations.

          ideology uses certain philosophical views of the right politicians

          Ideology is not a living thinking creature, as a result of which it cannot use anything / anyone.

          The concept of construction has changed from communism to capitalism - ideology has also changed

          The form of production relations (environmental stimuli) has changed - a part of society has begun to change its ideology.
          1. -1
            1 October 2018 17: 05
            Quote: Claymore
            The form of production relations has changed

            Did she take it and change like that? laughing For a better understanding of the types of power (I’m talking about this - about power) I offer you this poster:

            1. +3
              1 October 2018 17: 33
              Quote: Boris55
              Did she take it and change like that?

              No, the form of software has changed in the same way as the concept - as a result of the activities of the remnants of the bourgeoisie professing the corresponding ideology.

              And now about the picture shoved by BER sectarians wherever you go laughing

              Until your sect has provided evidence of the existence of one of the gods (of which there are several thousand in mythology), the presence of this god’s power and the realization of this power in reality, this picture will remain a funny result of the schizophrenic’s creative work, and nothing else. lol
              1. -2
                1 October 2018 17: 54
                Quote: Claymore
                the form of software has changed

                Herself? Even everything happens for you by itself. Maybe you just don’t see the control action? laughing

                Quote: Claymore
                sectarians BER

                By sect:

                "At least five characteristic features are characteristic of all sects without exception, regardless of their age and number of participants:
                - The presence of esoteric and exoteric teachings, which in Russian means: in a sect there is always a teaching for the crowd and a teaching for the elite - dedicated hierarchs.
                - The presence of certain dogmas of the doctrine, which are not subject to discussion and should be accepted by adherents of the doctrine as true without any doubt or reasoning.
                - The presence of a ritual that accompanies any meeting of representatives of the sect and is actually a means of zombifying their psyche.
                - The existence of an arbitrarily branched hierarchy, which is strictly forbidden to enter into a dispute with which according to the main dogmas of the sect’s teachings.
                - Since the teaching of the sect is based on dogmas that are not subject to discussion, there is and cannot be a place in it for the formation of a personal culture of mastering new knowledge (there is no method of mastering) and a meaningful attitude to Life according to conscience. "

                BER does not fit into any parameter of the concept of a sect. Just like the teaching in the Bible, the teaching of Marx is not a sect in itself, and the teaching of BER is not such a sect.

                A sect is always a structure. There is no structure in BER - this is freely distributed information.

                Quote: Claymore
                one of the gods

                God is alone, religion is darkness.
                1. 0
                  1 October 2018 19: 42
                  Quote: Boris55
                  Herself?

                  Do you have an attack of dyslexia? laughing

                  Even everything happens for you by itself

                  Winter gave way to spring - itself?

                  Maybe you just don’t see the control action?

                  Or maybe the sectarians of the KOB do not take the phrase "as a result of the activities of the remnants of the bourgeoisie ..." and replace the concept of "politics" (= activities to ensure the interests of large social groups) with a problem they call a controlling influence?

                  BER does not fit any parameter of the concept of a sect

                  A sect is a teaching that is not a mass and officially recognized one (= concept), in which the figure of God plays a decisive role.

                  Now go up the branch to your picture and see what appears at number 1 there. smile

                  God is alone, religion is darkness.

                  So prove that he is, that he is one, that he is the very one, that he has power and implements this power in objective reality. laughing

                  And until you or your sect have brought such evidence, your picture and your statements will remain amusing results of the schizophrenic’s creative work - and nothing else.
          2. 0
            30 October 2018 23: 31
            explaining why some should starve, while others at their expense eat from the belly - this is the task of the concept

            It is, rather, the task of propaganda.
            1. 0
              30 October 2018 23: 45
              PROPAGANDA
              (from lat. propaganda - subject to distribution) - the popularization and distribution of political, philosopher. religious, scientific, artistic or other ideas in society through oral speech, the media, visual or other means of influencing public consciousness.

              Propaganda spreads ideas, the totality of which represents a concept.
    2. +10
      1 October 2018 15: 42
      Quote: Boris55
      Until we have decided on the concept of the device’s life, it makes no sense to talk about ideology - there’s nothing to agitate.

      The correct conclusion!
      A very interesting article .. but there are moments with which I disagree in principle:
      1. America and the ideology of Americans are given as an example. Here with this example, I strongly disagree. I do not mind that we would take an example from this country, there is nothing attractive in the way America is organized, but for some reason, we are hard copying the American idea ..
      According to the author of the article, the ideology of the Americans is a pluralism of opinions enclosed in a certain framework ... And then, it is explained in detail .. But, as I see, first of all, the Americans have one ideology - the ideology of success and that’s all, from here comes the greatness of America and a view of the whole world from a height .. Secondly, the entire American system is imprisoned for tough suppression of dissent .. Here we can agree with the author that pluralism is enclosed in a certain framework. But this is not an ideology, an ideology should unite people, but in the USA , people are united by fear, to be unsuccessful, or fear of prison, by the way there is the largest number of prisoners in the world ..
      I can’t stand it when our authorities try to copy the US lifestyle and every year we are getting closer to this image .. The state is taking off all social obligations, it’s doing it slowly, but right .. Everyone can see it, medicine already almost became paid, everything goes to the point that in 5-10 years, it will finally be paid, housing and communal services .. Now they have deprived of pensions and so on .. All this will lead to the fact that most of our population will be poor, stop giving birth, mortality will increase, as a result, in 50-100 years, we will lose our country .. The Chinese will populate the Far East and Siberia .. In general, Moscow and the Moscow region will remain.
      Therefore, I believe that the ideology of the Americans is flawed and was afloat, for one reason only, namely, the Second World War, when they were able to take advantage of the situation and make the dollar a world currency, of course, it’s not only the dollar that matters .. In general, if we copy their lifestyle, then we are doomed ..


      Quote: Boris55
      But to what. We see that in order to win the information war (or at least achieve a certain parity in which we do not allow foreign propaganda to brainwash us), we must contrast it with our own centralized propaganda. But propaganda will only be effective when it focuses on a group of people who have similar views on the structure of the state

      [i] [/ i]
      I don’t agree here either, propaganda will be effective when it looks like the truth .. And the more truthful it is, the more effective it will be ... You can fool people several times, but then, as you don’t propagandize, nobody will believe it will not, moreover, even stop believing in the truth .. For this reason, propaganda does not need to be given so much place in life, it is enough to have an idea and tell the truth .. Although, of course, it is needed .. But if Kiselyov or the Patriarch begin to convince me that raising the retirement age is good, I won’t believe them anymore, never .. (this was the simplest example)
      There is no need to search for ideas and ideology that is alien to us; we need to return to the ideas of socialism and develop this idea. All the good that was in the USSR needs to be returned! (and there was a lot of good), work on errors ..
      1. +8
        1 October 2018 15: 50
        Quote: Svarog
        America and the ideology of Americans are given as an example. Here with this example, I strongly disagree. I do not mind that we would take an example from this country

        You see, I do not propose to copy America’s national idea. I propose to create my own, but we should have it, just as it is in the USA, it just has to be different, ours.
        Quote: Svarog
        I do not agree here either, propaganda will be effective when it looks like the truth.

        The problem is that everyone has their own truth, which I showed on the example of members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party, the "Westerner" and the "disappointed". The fact of the matter is that only those who are united by a common national idea will have a similar truth.
        1. +9
          1 October 2018 15: 57
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The problem is that everyone has their own truth,

          Once I tried to write a story about this, but I didn’t polish it to the end. Here's what happened. Maybe someone will come in handy:

          At sunset, a flock of village children, as usual, gathered around Grandfather Fomich.
          Olezhka asked:
          - Grandfather, what is the truth?
          “This is what you believe in.”
          - But is it really different?
          - It happens. Do you believe me to be old?
          - Yes I believe you.
          - This is your truth, but your father believes that I am still young - this is his truth.
          “So what is it that everyone has their own truth?”
          - It turns out that so.
          The kids thought. Ilya broke the silence:
          - Grandfather, what is truth?
          “This is what all of you believe.”
          - Grandfather, can there be different truths?
          - Maybe. Earlier, people believed that the earth was flat and that was the truth. Now people believe that the earth is round and that is the truth.
          Alena with genuine surprise in her voice asked:
          - Grandfather, what then, if the truth is different for everyone? I heard that truth is born in a dispute.
          - No, Alyonushka. In a dispute, only enmity is born. One must live in love and respect. Then there will be truth and truth alone for all, and while people argue, there will be no peace either in the house, in the village, or in the whole World ...
          1. +3
            1 October 2018 17: 43
            Plus, definitely
            1. +2
              1 October 2018 19: 54
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Plus, definitely

              Undoubtedly! I regard my plus for this story as 1 in 10 good
          2. +1
            1 October 2018 21: 19
            To you, comrade Boris55 good You Are A Real Storyteller Yes , so easily and clearly explain the basics, good fellows a good lesson!
            Sincerely hi
          3. +3
            1 October 2018 22: 01
            Quote: Boris55
            - Grandfather, what is the truth?
            “This is what you believe in.”
            - But is it really different?
            - It happens.

            - Grandfather, what is truth?
            “This is what all of you believe.”
            - Grandfather, can there be different truths?
            - Maybe.

            wassat

            The truth is that what exists in reality corresponds to the real state of things.

            Truth is a correct, adequate reflection of objects and phenomena of reality by the knowing subject.
        2. +5
          1 October 2018 16: 22
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          You see, I do not propose to copy America’s national idea. I propose to create my own, but we should have it, just as it is in the USA, it just has to be different, ours.

          The fact that you think that we should have an ideology, I completely agree here. But most of the article, you shined the light on America ..
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The problem is that everyone has their own truth, which I showed on the example of members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party, the "Westerner" and the "disappointed". The fact of the matter is that only those who are united by a common national idea will have a similar truth.

          People can be united, only by the idea that will be socially oriented .. what is the idea of ​​the Liberal Democratic Party? or at the EP? yes they have no ideology and no idea. Let's take, for example, "our property" oil, gas, natural resources .. how can people be united by what propaganda shouts to them that this is "national property", but in fact, prices are no longer popular .. That is, people are beginning to understand that they are being fooled ... Why a bunch of people own our resources? By what right? There must be social justice .. you must have a sequel, I look forward to it .. A very interesting topic and you are all excellent, laid out in detail .. But America is definitely not an example for us))
          1. +3
            1 October 2018 17: 42
            Quote: Svarog
            The fact that you think that we should have an ideology, I completely agree here. But most of the article, you shined the light on America ..

            Yes. Because they have a national idea and it works, but we do not. Here it is worth reflecting once again on what we were "swindled" by during the years of perestroika - we were "sold" to pluralism without a national idea, essentially laying a nuclear bomb under our statehood. Those who did this are not even called traitors.
            Quote: Svarog
            People can be united only by the idea that will be socially oriented ..

            That's right :))))) But instead ... but that's in the next article :))
            Quote: Svarog
            But America is definitely not an example for us))

            Yes. Their national idea definitely does not suit us. Strictly speaking, I generally have deep doubts that the Russian national idea can be combined with capitalism ...
        3. +6
          2 October 2018 05: 26
          In a nutshell, the US national idea of ​​success is based on the postulate "man to man is a wolf", because it is impossible to succeed in a capitalist society otherwise. The more successful in any case is the one who has more money, which means the exploiter. This applies both to individuals and to broader layers of society, and to states, and to the Western civilization of the colonialists as a whole.
          In turn, the Russian ethnos for centuries nurtured its own national idea - the idea of ​​justice. And this immediately contrasts it with the global world order. Unfortunately, the idea of ​​justice is to some extent antagonistic to the natural principle in man. And here in the first place comes the spirituality, morality and education of a person, which are brought up and accumulated from infancy. This is where you need to look for the roots of the collapse of the USSR. It is precisely in this that they were "undeveloped".
          Now the idea of ​​justice (first of all, social) is carefully trampled into the mud by the actions of the ruling class. For under capitalism we live. But since this idea has not yet been completely etched, there is hope!
          1. +3
            2 October 2018 13: 25
            Quote: kuznec
            the US national idea of ​​success is based on the postulate "man to man is a wolf"

            the strongest win the capitalists say, the socialists say capable of social adaptation win. Example: a strong leader of a wolf pack in conditions of hunger regularly appropriates prey. A flock of combined unites the leader. The strength of Socialism is in unity, guarantees of social security, in educating members of society of the ability to infringe on for the good of society.
        4. +2
          2 October 2018 13: 20
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          The problem is that everyone has their own truth,

          do not confuse the categories truth and truth. No truth or opinion in the world is the ultimate truth. I propose a method of analogy. Even before our era, above the entrance to the Roman Senate, it was written: "salus populi suprema lex" - the welfare of the people is the highest goal. The Roman Empire collapsed. The tops have rotted and corrupted. It's the same with the Persian Empire of Cyrus, the same with the Ottoman Empire. The same is with the Soviet. This cannot be the case with America. Because such supranational entities as the IMF, the World Bank ... that use the state apparatus and the armed forces of America as a guarantee of power. Therefore, the state apparatus is regularly updated. For world money, socialism is a loss of power. The ideological struggle against money is to belittle the role of money in society.
      2. 0
        1 October 2018 16: 41
        Quote: Svarog
        The correct conclusion!

        Private idealistic
        stupidity.

        Quote: Svarog
        All the good that was in the USSR needs to be returned!

        All the good things that happened in the USSR were based on the socialist mode of production — completely excluding the presence of small and medium-sized businesses for which you advocate.
        1. +4
          1 October 2018 16: 59
          Quote: Claymore
          All the good things that happened in the USSR were based on the socialist mode of production — completely excluding the presence of small and medium-sized businesses for which you advocate.

          I don’t see any problem when the largest factories, enterprises, natural resources are owned by the state and at the same time there will be small and medium-sized businesses. Everything changes and my main thought is that you do not need to copy everything that was during the USSR, but copy and leave only the best. Why does the socialist mode of production exclude small and medium-sized businesses? Can you give a more detailed answer?
          1. 0
            1 October 2018 18: 08
            Quote: Svarog

            I don’t see any problem when the largest factories, enterprises, natural resources are owned by the state and at the same time there will be small and medium-sized businesses

            But she is - a consequence of her appearance in the 60s is the current state of affairs, which does not suit you.

            Everything changes

            The logic of social processes and class interests remain unchanged.

            Why does the socialist mode of production exclude small and medium-sized businesses? Can you give a more detailed answer?

            Any business (both large and small) aims to maximize the profit of the owner, which is the unpaid labor of an employee.
            The profit of the owner is the result of exploitation (unequal exchange, incomplete remuneration of labor - there are no other ways of generating profit).
            At the same time, the essence and meaning of the socialist form of production is the exclusion of exploitation (hence the prohibition of ownership of the means of production).

            This is the main insoluble contradiction, which excludes the possibility of long coexistence of 2 systems.
            1. +7
              1 October 2018 19: 34
              Quote: Claymore
              Any business (both large and small) aims to maximize the profit of the owner, which is the unpaid labor of an employee.
              The profit of the owner is the result of exploitation (unequal exchange, incomplete remuneration of labor - there are no other ways of generating profit).

              Any enterprise is created and works for profit, whether socialist or capitalist .. otherwise it is not possible .. The whole difference is how this profit is distributed ..
              Quote: Claymore
              This is the main insoluble contradiction, which excludes the possibility of long coexistence of 2 systems.

              There is no contradiction here .. All the contradiction in the distribution of profits. For example, let's take VAZ OJSC, it’s private, and the state, as it invested a lot of money, continues to do so .. that is, under capitalism, it should be bent for a long time .. But it works, while all the profit is not received by workers, engineers itd, and shareholders and owners .. So why is this company not to nationalize? Is it already on subsidies? Or natural resources, by what right, do they belong to a narrow group of individuals? And this group of people deducts miserable crumbs from profits in the form of taxes, and transfers most of it to offshore and to the salary of top management .. while increasing the retirement age, which, in fact, simply takes away pensions ..
              1. +3
                1 October 2018 21: 20
                Quote: Svarog
                Any enterprise is created and works for profit

                The reason for economic activity (production, exchange, consumption of an economic product) is the need (for food, clothing, comfort, knowledge, relaxation), due to the nature of man.
                No profit (the difference between income and costs) here and did not lie close.

                Profit appeared as a result of commodity-money relations in a class society, and not as an integral part of economic activity as such.

                There is no contradiction here .. All the contradiction in the distribution of profits.

                So there are no contradictions, or do they still exist in the distribution, which is an integral part of the system of production relations? laughing

                For example, take VAZ OJSC,

                For example, what?
                1. +4
                  1 October 2018 21: 49
                  Quote: Claymore
                  The first company was established and is working for profit.

                  The reason for economic activity (production, exchange, consumption of an economic product) is the need (for food, clothing, comfort, knowledge, relaxation), due to the nature of man.
                  No profit (the difference between income and costs) here and did not lie close.

                  Where not lying? I'm starting to understand you less and less laughing

                  Quote: Claymore
                  So there are no contradictions, or do they still exist in the distribution, which is an integral part of the system of production relations?

                  They are only in distribution, but they are not insurmountable, as you try to convince everyone laughing
                  Quote: Claymore
                  For example, take VAZ OJSC,

                  For example, what?

                  For example, the fact that VAZ now does not look like a private capitalist enterprise .. By the fact that, according to the law of the genre (capitalism), this enterprise should be ruined for a long time .. But it does not go broke, for the reason that the state our money with you, pours there infinitely large volumes .. That is, I help the private trader, although no one asked me about it .. do I want to help him .. But this private trader, for 20 years, has not given birth to a good, modern, not expensive product ..But ogogog sawed his own money ..For this reason, I believe that all large-scale production and natural resources should be nationalized ..
                  1. 0
                    1 October 2018 23: 22
                    Quote: Svarog
                    Where not lying?

                    Not lying next to any enterprise smile

                    The company does not have a goal to make a profit - the goal of the company is production.

                    Making a profit is the goal of the private owner, not the enterprise.

                    They are only in distribution, but they are not insurmountable

                    Distribution is part of a specific form of production relationship.

                    If the form of relations is capitalist (business), then the distribution will occur according to capital, and not according to labor.
                    If the current distribution option is prohibited (prohibition of exploitation = prohibition of private ownership of the means of production), then business (generating income through exploitation) will simply become impossible.

                    For example, the fact that VAZ now does not look like a private capitalist enterprise

                    And he is not private.

                    This is a public-private partnership (state capitalism), which is the best way to privatize profits while nationalizing costs (but we have a different topic).
              2. +2
                2 October 2018 05: 47
                Not always
                Quote: Svarog
                And this group of people deducts miserable crumbs from profit in the form of taxes, and most of it is transferred to offshore and for salaries to top management ..

                In the structure of prices for petroleum products, for example, 27% is the cost of production (geological exploration, production, refining, etc.), 71% are excise taxes, taxes and fees, and only 2% go to the remuneration of everyone, starting from the geologist and ending with a cashier at a gas station. By the way, this 2% also includes dividends of shareholders, and from them "drips" onto palaces and yachts to the owners of the companies. So it is the state that cuts the maximum coupons. About this in the video from about the 19th minute, although I highly recommend watching everything

                And something tells me that this is not only the case with the oil industry, but to one extent or another with all mining and processing of minerals.
        2. +3
          1 October 2018 18: 19
          Quote: Claymore
          All the good things that happened in the USSR were based on the socialist mode of production — completely excluding the presence of small and medium-sized businesses for which you advocate.

          Read on IN: "Stalin's businessmen":
          "... The Leningrad artel" Joiner-builder ", having started in 1923 with the production of sleds, wheels, clamps, by 1955 changed its name to" Radist "and was a major manufacturer of furniture and radio equipment. Yakutsk artel" Metallist ", created in 1941, by the mid-1950s it had a powerful factory industrial base. The Gatchina artel "Jupiter", which since 1924 produced various household items, in 1944 produced nails, locks, lanterns, shovels, and in the early 1950s years produced aluminum dishes, drilling machines and presses, washing machines. And there were thousands of such examples ... "
          https://topwar.ru/82220-predprinimateli-stalina.html
          1. 0
            1 October 2018 19: 53
            Quote: Boris55
            Read on VO: "Entrepreneurs of Stalin"

            Open any textbook on economics and see how the collective form of ownership (artel) differs from the private (JSC, OAO ...), and labor activity from entrepreneurial.
        3. +4
          1 October 2018 18: 50
          I do not agree with you. In the planned economy of the USSR, both small and medium-sized businesses could well combine, embroidering a minimum of consumer goods and jeans, too, to cook for the sake of different mods. This happened in the 80s but in the form of a shadow sector. The leaders were old dogmas who did not feel what the people wanted.
          And now we’ll go around for another hundred years until we reach the obvious strategic areas of the economy, education and vital activity in general, and the bowels of the state and the rest in the form of services for businesses, and if they, like Demidov, develop their goods to strategically yours components, then the conversation with them is already separate (there will be such units — which facilitates state control to the mutual benefit of both — the same Boeing and lockheed as an example)
          1. +2
            1 October 2018 20: 41
            Quote: evgen1221
            I do not agree with you. In the planned economy of the USSR, both small and medium-sized businesses could well combine

            Neither artels (collective farms, small enterprises), nor individual labor activity (individual peasants, handicraftsmen) were never business (commerce), and the transfer of an enterprise to commercial rails was punished in the USSR with all severity.

            And now we’ll go around in circles for another hundred years until we reach the obvious — strategic areas of the economy, education and vital activity in general, and subsoil for the state, and the rest in the form of services for commerce

            1 Business = exploitation + unequal exchange + competition, and socialism = lack of exploitation + equivalent exchange + solidarity are mutually exclusive things.

            2 Small and medium business is a small-scale production that does not withstand competition with a large producer.
            In order for business to exist under socialism, greenhouse conditions must be created for it at the expense of the whole society (selling raw materials at low prices, tax benefits, permitting exploitation), and this is nonsense under socialism.

            3 The goal of a business is not satisfaction of needs, but maximization of profits by satisfying effective demand, for which business is forced to expand (= replace state-owned enterprises) and seek to create favorable legislation for itself (= corrupt government bodies), which directly contradicts the interests of workers.

            So what for it is necessary?
            1. +5
              1 October 2018 21: 17
              Quote: Claymore
              So what for it is necessary?

              You are an obvious theorist, let's get to practice ..
              Quote: Claymore
              Small and medium business is a small-scale production that does not withstand competition with a large manufacturer.
              In order for business to exist under socialism, greenhouse conditions must be created for it at the expense of the whole society (selling raw materials at low prices, tax benefits, permitting exploitation), and this is nonsense under socialism.

              Firstly, business is not only production, but also services, wholesale, retail. All large-scale production at the moment, is no different from what was during the USSR, the difference is only in the distribution of income .. Raw materials in the production process it does not have a significant component, well, at least in many industries .. most of it is RFP and taxation, taxes are 54% approximately .. depending on which form is chosen, RFP is 20-25% the rest is raw material .. Tax benefits)) Well, we have -the oligarchs just use them, you probably remember how Putin freed his friends from taxes who were subject to sanctions .. So, if you take practice, everything will work fine .. Once again, the fundamental difference is only how profit is distributed .. And we are talking only about big business .. The small and medium ones will perfectly cope with the rest ..
              1. +2
                1 October 2018 23: 02
                Quote: Svarog
                Firstly, business is not only production, but also services, wholesale, retail

                Business is always the production of an economic product, with its subsequent sale to a consumer with solvent demand.

                An economic product produced for the purpose of sale is usually called goods and services (trade also refers to the latter).

                The phrase "production of services" for economics is a traditional turn of speech.

                All large-scale production at the moment, is no different from what was during the USSR, the difference is only in the distribution of income.

                Not only.

                The difference lies, first of all, in the form of ownership of the means of production - it is private property that makes possible the option of income distribution that is currently available in the Russian Federation.

                Raw materials in the production process does not take up a significant component, well, at least in many industries .. most of this is RFP and taxation, taxes are 54% approximately .. depending on which form is selected, RFP 20-25%

                Taxes to the production process (to the totality of all the actions of people and means of production aimed at manufacturing products) have nothing to do, and the main component of the PP is the work of the employee.

                Tax breaks)) Well, in our state, the oligarchs just use them, you probably remember how Putin freed his friends from taxes

                The oligarchy is the power of the few, not the power of the rich.
                The oligarchs are not tax-exempt, but those who are tax-exempt.

                So, if you take practice, then everything will work fine

                It will not be so long as private ownership of the means of production is retained, the only reason for which is the legitimate opportunity to exploit man by man and thereby maximize the profit of the private owner.

                Once again, the fundamental difference is only in how profit is distributed

                Profit belongs to whom?
                The profit belongs to the owner.

                And the decision on how the profit will be distributed is made solely by the owner - if it is a business, then the private owner of a private enterprise is in his private interests.
                1. +2
                  2 October 2018 08: 03
                  Quote: Claymore
                  and the main component of the PP is the work of the employee.

                  +++ pure Marxism. Not lost relevance, but somewhat dogmatic. Nowadays, it is required to attach greater importance to ENERGY. After all, there are wars not only because of class contradictions, but also because of resources. It is obvious.
                  1. +1
                    2 October 2018 14: 43
                    Quote: aybolyt678
                    Nowadays, it is required to attach greater importance to ENERGY. After all, wars not only because of class contradictions but also because of resources

                    Nowadays - yes, energy should be given greater importance.
                    But not the one that is contained in hydrocarbons, but the one that a person spends on their extraction (different forms of labor, which result in the emergence of use value, require not only + - the same amount of time, but also very different calories) smile

                    As for resources, capital wages wars not only for them, but also for markets.
                    This is not a reason to perceive resources as a kind of imperative, because without the application of labor (the creation of means of production, production, processing ...) the value contained in the resource will forever remain potential and will never become useable.
                    1. 0
                      2 October 2018 20: 47
                      Quote: Claymore
                      it becomes the appearance of use value, require not only + - the same amount of time, but also the cost of a very different number of calories) smile

                      Thanks for the answer, however, the property of storing and transporting these same calories is more important than the cost of obtaining them. What you are talking about is more about electricity.
                      1. 0
                        2 October 2018 23: 59
                        I am talking about the energy consumption of the human body that occurs in the course of labor activity. lol
              2. 0
                2 October 2018 08: 07
                Quote: Svarog
                Once again, the fundamental difference is only in how profit is distributed.

                no doubt, however, it is still important to know how it is formed. Some enterprises, using our domestic energy prices and some raw materials, sell goods at world prices, thereby unreasonably overestimating profits. There is a skew
            2. 0
              2 October 2018 08: 19
              Claymore. Why do you compare the Soviet economy with the cap. Economy? And do not compare ours
              an economy with any developed country. Can our head of a large company postpone
              5% for future development?
              1. +2
                2 October 2018 14: 48
                Quote: nikvic46
                Why do you compare the Soviet economy with the cap. Economy

                1 In what comment am I doing this?
                2 What prevents this comparison?

                And do not compare ours
                an economy with any developed country

                I compare if this topic is the subject of conversation.

                Can our head of a large company put off
                5% for future development?

                Maybe if such a task is posed.
                1. 0
                  2 October 2018 21: 29
                  Claymore. "Maybe, if such a task is set." And if not, then waste it all?
                  1. 0
                    3 October 2018 00: 03
                    Quote: nikvic46
                    And if it’s not set, then everything is lost?

                    If the owner so decided - yes.
              2. +2
                2 October 2018 20: 53
                Quote: nikvic46
                Why do you compare the Soviet economy with the capital economy?

                Why do we have a good position in aluminum? Yes, just because we have cheaper electricity! And the plant in Yelabug where the crankcase for engines of foreign cars is cast? the same thing, there is not a single Russian engineer, or a domestic machine tool! metal is melted by electrolysis (electricity is cheaper here) they make a crankcase, add their components from abroad. Our assembly, security sweeping. The question is how to develop science? if engineers are not required? How is machine tool industry if there is no demand?
                1. 0
                  4 October 2018 09: 07
                  As a machine tool if there is no demand. In the absence of goods there will be no demand. In due time
                  machine tool builders sent machine tools and centers abroad. In Europe we shot our electronics, and
                  set their own. We bought only electronics, and now we buy everything at once.
            3. +1
              2 October 2018 20: 25
              Quote: Claymore
              The goal of the business is not satisfaction of needs, but maximization of profit through satisfaction of effective demand

              But how do you like national socialism in the 30s in Germany?
              1. 0
                3 October 2018 00: 07
                Quote: aybolyt678
                But how do you like national socialism in the 30s in Germany?

                About the same as today's patriotism in the Russian Federation (a cover for the cannibalistic essence of capitalism - it is a cover, no matter what clothes it is dressed in).
              2. 0
                4 October 2018 09: 26
                Now the media shows us some kind of super-technologies of fascist Germany. And supposedly in this
                cosmic plates and things were created for the country. It must be remembered that all the desire of this criminal elite was subordinated to victory. But at the same time, this elite believed in supernatural forces that do not exist in nature. And all this is imposed on us, in the form
                asteroid. Someone seems to have vodka, and someone has a skull.
        4. +2
          2 October 2018 13: 28
          Quote: Claymore
          All the good things that happened in the USSR were based on the socialist mode of production - completely excluding the presence of small and medium-sized businesses, for which you advocate

          I do not agree. Under Stalin there were cooperatives and cooperatives. Under early Brezhnev there were cooperatives. Both of them flourished.
          1. +2
            2 October 2018 15: 03
            Quote: aybolyt678
            Under Stalin there were cooperatives and cooperatives. Under early Brezhnev there were cooperatives.

            Cooperatives and cooperatives in the USSR had nothing to do with commerce.

            They represented a collective form of ownership, their main means of production were leased from the state (were not private), and their profits were distributed in proportion to the labor contribution of the workers (and were not appropriated by the private owner).

            Moreover, their activity was a temporary forced measure - it was allowed to meet demand in those market segments in which state-owned enterprises, at that time, were not able to satisfy demand.
            1. 0
              2 October 2018 20: 43
              Quote: Claymore
              Moreover, their activities were a temporary forced measure

              you see, in any society there are elements of socialism and capitalism, somewhere it is a progressive tax, somewhere a collective form of ownership, these processes are somewhere revolutionary somewhere else evolutionary. . the trouble is different: we are all looking for a way to live on, we all understand that what is happening is wrong, to understand each other is often hindered by a free interpretation of specific terms. I already wrote what happens if you understand the word freedom as permissiveness, and so on everywhere. The term tolerance in immunology means the absence of an immune response. Can you imagine what will happen if a pathogenic agent invades the body and there is no immune response? - the disease will bloom in double color! If tolerance is understood literally, then it is necessary to fight it, apply immunostimulants. A stimulus is a stick for fitting slaves and mules. I'm generally for terms that call themselves. Your concepts of socialism are too categorical. Socialism is when public interests are more important than personal but not their absence. How do you like socialism in Germany in the 30 years of the last century ??
              1. 0
                3 October 2018 00: 41
                Quote: aybolyt678
                in any society there are elements of socialism and capitalism

                Incorrectly formulated.

                In any modern capitalist society, there are elements of socialism that, after the disappearance of the USSR, are trying to reduce as much as possible.
                Also, in any transitional society, where socialism has replaced capitalism, there remain separate capitalist elements that must be eliminated over time.

                But these findings are not relevant to our topic.

                The bottom line is that capitalism and socialism are determined not by names, slogans or well-wishes, but by the form of production relations.

                In artels and agricultural cartels (collective farms) there was no private ownership and exploitation of man by man - i.e. it was a socialist production relationship, not a capitalist one; it was a labor activity, not an entrepreneurial one.

                understand each other often interferes with the free interpretation of specific terms

                To solve this problem, mankind has come up with dictionaries.

                Socialism is when public interests are more important than personal but not their absence.

                Socialism is a social system that excludes the exploitation of man by man (which means it is a classless society in which the means of production are socialized) and systematically developing in the interests of increasing the welfare of the people and the comprehensive development of each member of society.

                Naturally, individual interests not only cannot disappear under either socialism or communism - they should not disappear at all.
                But this does not mean at all that society should take into account the individual interests of chikatil or rotenbergs, expressed in the desire to satisfy their sick inclinations at the expense of others or live at the expense of others.

                How do you like socialism in Germany in the 30 years of the last century ??

                Answered above, but forgot to add - 1st word collocations "socialism" in Germany need to be quoted.
            2. 0
              3 October 2018 20: 15
              Quote: Claymore
              They represented a collective form of ownership, their main means of production were leased from the state (were not private), and their profits were distributed in proportion to the labor contribution of workers (rather than appropriated by the private owner

              That's it!!! you begin to understand !! smile You see, Stalin considered the education of a new person, the Collective, to be the main task, he studied this issue. He knew the individualist man. He studied collective forms, not only financially but also sociologically.
              1. 0
                3 October 2018 23: 53
                Quote: aybolyt678
                Stalin considered the main task of raising a new person, the Collective

                Collectivism is brought up by profit (collective activity is beneficial - collectivism will be).
                And the benefits of collective activity are proved by the evolution of human society itself - it is easier for a collective to survive, collective activity is more productive, "one head is good, and two are better."

                Stalin, on the other hand, spoke of educating a person not collective, but educated and cultural.

                "It is necessary to achieve such cultural growth of society, which would provide all members of society with the comprehensive development of their physical and mental abilities, so that members of society have the opportunity to receive an education sufficient to become active leaders in social development."
      3. 0
        30 October 2018 23: 39
        The author is not going to show / prove the attractiveness of the American idea at all. The US example shows how a nationwide idea works. Read attentively. Because if I didn’t even understand this, then all the other thoughts of the article will pass by.
    3. 0
      2 October 2018 07: 59
      dear Boris, you have very peculiar definitions, read "The war after the war, the information occupation continues" Lisichkin, Shelepin
  2. +3
    1 October 2018 14: 27
    And since it is not easier to put a black person under the “blue” as an example than the “blue” under the black, then if you yourself are not African American, your business is definitely losing, and therefore, it’s not worth starting.

    laughing
    Well, actually a couple of additions.
    1) The basic tenet of ecology - the ecosystem is more stable, the higher its diversity. Axiom. The state, by the way, is an ecosystem.
    2) The author slightly confused cause and effect - not society in the United States is a good substrate for ideology, because propaganda there "channels", but society there is an ideal substrate, for it is ideologized to the extreme. Bradbury wrote about this, for example, in the Martian Chronicles.
    But good or bad ... Here's how to say it. For example, in the United States, almost everyone is convinced that the whole world longs for democracy. And everyone around loves America. The result of propaganda. But the result of this result is that they approve of the US behavior in the world in the style of an elephant in a china shop (everyone loves us and wants us to feel good), thereby forcing those who steer propaganda (!) To behave like an elephant in a china shop . The tail wags the dog - because the United States is already at war with the whole world.
    And all because of the violation of principle number 1. Monotony - everyone thinks - so, urya-urya, only the ecosystem of nichrome not viable STEEL - was propagandized.
    1. +3
      1 October 2018 15: 16
      The basic tenet of ecology

      and I thought, the main tenet of ecology - do not think about what you consume. Most environmentalists live like that.
    2. +5
      1 October 2018 15: 20
      2) The author slightly confused cause and effect - not society in the United States is a good substrate for ideology, because propaganda there "channels", but society there is an ideal substrate, for it is ideologized to the extreme. Bradbury wrote about this, for example, in the Martian Chronicles.
      But good or bad ... Here's how to say it. For example, in the United States, almost everyone is convinced that the whole world longs for democracy.


      Absolutely agree. Adored by many "independent" Hollywood completely "accidentally" blurts out its films for the benefit of the US state propaganda. And now let's compare the tongue-tied speech at some congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (where much was said and correct!) With watching the movie "Rambo". Primitive? But in the United States, it has long been understood that there are always LESS connoisseurs of classical music and literature than connoisseurs of pop. The USSR tried to break these statistics ... but jeans and chewing gum won, and the glamorous news about "the life of the stars" and the Unified State Exam was consolidated.
      1. 0
        2 October 2018 08: 47
        Quote: Serge Gorely
        Now let's compare the tongue-tied speech at some congress of the CPSU

        at the congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union since the time of the late Brezhnev, continuous vanity, continuous cliches, praise of the Party, a bit of criticism in words - our comrades are still not all right BUT ...
        A huge minus to the propaganda department of the Central Committee. Damn him.
  3. +5
    1 October 2018 14: 32
    "No nation will prosper until it realizes that plowing a field is as worthy as writing a poem." - Booker Tagliaferro Washington
    Yes, we simply need to listen less to what they say about us and what we are "taught", but to do our own thing ...
    Andrei Nikolaevich, plus hi
    1. +3
      1 October 2018 19: 59
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Yes, we simply need to listen less to what they say about us and what they "teach" us, and to do our own thing ..

      hi , Andrew.
      That's for sure. Even Sir Billingsley indirectly confirms this:
      1. +8
        1 October 2018 20: 11
        Quote: Lelek
        Quote: Rurikovich
        Yes, we simply need to listen less to what they say about us and what they "teach" us, and to do our own thing ..

        hi , Andrew.
        That's for sure. Even Sir Billingsley indirectly confirms this:

        These are mantras in support of our government .. Everything they say is complete nonsense ... Because Russia suffers not from the fact that we are imposed by sanctions, but from the fact that we do not have a competitive product .. And all of our "partners" are satisfied with this, they are happy that we remain a gas station. Think about it, look around you, there is already nothing that we would produce, from cowards to televisions .. nothing .. and this is in 20 years ... Istria knows examples when, after the most destructive war, when literally most of the cities of the USSR were erased into dust, we have restored everything in 18 years, and even became the world's first space power .. And now even the VAZ is already not ours ..
    2. 0
      2 October 2018 20: 55
      Quote: Rurikovich
      "No nation will prosper until it realizes that plowing a field is as worthy as writing a poem."

      Margaret Thatcher: - "There is no state or budgetary, pension money. There is taxpayer money!" they have a lot to learn
  4. +6
    1 October 2018 14: 36
    Quote: Andrew ...
    state ideology is a direct path to monopolizing power ...

    Bearers of ideologies are parties. The party that won the elections to the Duma, when adopting certain laws, will primarily be guided by its ideology. Today, the bourgeois ideology dominated by the EP. The Communist Party will win - Marxist ideology, etc. will prevail. Such an ideology can be considered state.

    In order to effectively pursue an ideology, we must openly state what we want to build. EP never admits that it leads us into slavery.
    1. -1
      1 October 2018 15: 16
      Quote: Boris55
      Bearers of ideologies are parties

      Hmm ...

      Quote: Boris55
      The party that won the elections to the Duma, when adopting certain laws, will primarily be guided by its ideology

      IMHO rather - based on the current situation, as understood by the leadership of this party.

      Quote: Boris55
      Today, the bourgeois ideology dominated by the EP. Communist Party wins - Marxist ideology will prevail ...

      The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and Marxist ideology are both genius and villainy. Or - like chemistry and life. That is - two things are incompatible.

      Quote: Boris55
      EP never admits that it leads us into slavery

      EP, IMHO, she herself does not understand, neither where she leads, nor where she goes. The party is "on the wane" ... as well as the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.
      1. +2
        1 October 2018 15: 48
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        EP, IMHO, she herself does not understand, neither where she leads, nor where she goes. The party is "on the wane" ... as well as the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

        EP members have already found a new refuge for themselves - everyone is running together to the ONF, from which a new party will be born in the near future. Here it will definitely be for the people (joke) laughing

        The Communist Party was originally conceived as a party to drain all the Communists into the toilet bowl of history. Otherwise, we would never have seen her in the Duma, as we say, the same Ampilov and others are not visible and not heard.

        Parties opposing the current unfair concept are destroyed in the bud.
        1. +1
          1 October 2018 16: 12
          Quote: Boris55
          ...
          Parties opposing the current unfair concept are destroyed in the bud

          You do not find that you will do it yourself?

          Quote: Boris55
          The party that won the elections to the Duma, when adopting certain laws, will primarily be guided by its ideology. Today, the bourgeois ideology dominated by the EP. The Communist Party wins - Marxist ideology will prevail, etc.

          recourse
          1. 0
            1 October 2018 16: 25
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            You do not find that you will do it yourself?

            No. There can be as many ideologies (parties) as you like, but they can all work for the same concept, satisfying the variety of desires of each for the sake of one goal. As there Zhirinovsky said: "Every woman has a man, every man has half a liter." Desires are different, but the goal is the same - the LDPR in the Duma.
            1. -1
              1 October 2018 17: 01
              Quote: Boris55
              No. Ideologies (parties) can be arbitrarily many, but all of them can work on the same concept ...

              Don't ... don't understand me. Well, okay...

              Quote: Svarog
              Have you ever expressed your thought

              Take a look higher. Thought - she is there Yes
              1. +3
                1 October 2018 17: 14
                Quote: Golovan Jack
                Take a look higher. Thought - she is there

                There is a statement of facts, and the topic of the article is "ideology and propaganda" ..
          2. +4
            1 October 2018 16: 45
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            You do not find that you will do it yourself?

            There is no contradiction here, I’m golovan, at least once you have expressed your thought, otherwise it’s continuous questions from you .. hi
      2. +1
        1 October 2018 22: 31
        Golovan Jack (Roman)
        Communist Party and Marxist ideology-it's like a genius and villainy

        The Communist Party is guided by Marxist-Leninist teachings. This ideology is somewhat different from Marxism. For example, the possibility of a proletarian revolution in one country.
      3. +2
        2 October 2018 13: 38
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        Or - like chemistry and life. That is - two things are incompatible.

        Novel! life is a way of existence of protein bodies, as a result of physical and chemical reactions. Chemistry is an integral part of life.
        1. +1
          2 October 2018 13: 45
          Quote: aybolyt678
          Chemistry is an integral part of life

          This was the name of the magazine popular with the Union.

          In this understanding, chemistry and life ... are incompatible. And, yes, I'm a physicist by first education wink
          1. +1
            2 October 2018 20: 59
            Thank God that it’s not a nuclear scientist! laughing
    2. +4
      1 October 2018 15: 23
      Bearers of ideologies are parties. The party that won the elections to the Duma, when adopting certain laws, will primarily be guided by its ideology. Today, the bourgeois ideology dominated by the EP


      Our parties are carriers of slogans, not ideologies. A typical example is the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party.
      United Russia is absolutely incompatible with the expression of bourgeois ideas.
      I do not like Lesha Nakhalny, but he is right - United Russia is a party of thieving ghouls, not the bourgeoisie.
      They are exactly the same and equally mediocre ready to defend the bourgeoisie, communism, Nazism or Zionism. As the wind blows, they will.
      Parties will then become carriers of ideas when they begin to fight for power, and not for a piece of the budget.
    3. +5
      1 October 2018 15: 26
      Quote: Boris55
      In order to effectively pursue an ideology, we must openly state what we want to build. EP never admits that it leads us into slavery.

      Exactly
    4. 0
      2 October 2018 08: 51
      Quote: Boris55
      Communist Party wins - Marxist ideology will prevail

      In addition to Zyuganov, I did not see the Communists at least somehow understanding Marx.
  5. 0
    1 October 2018 15: 34
    Only this was not done by us, but by those who control us.
  6. +8
    1 October 2018 16: 38
    In general, an interesting article and reasoning logic. I put a definite plus. Of the minuses - a superficial understanding of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which neither in itself nor in a systematic interpretation creates insurmountable obstacles for creating a competent ideology, promoting patriotism, the emergence of a unified national idea, uniting peoples under it, etc. This issue is devoted to enough scientific papers, replete with various approaches to solve this problem.

    However, the author seems to intend to propose his own version, using the understanding of article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that he voiced. Well, why not? - the more entertaining the approach.

    But I repeat again: the article is interesting: the problem is highlighted, generally disclosed, the position of the author is clear. Some representations of the author are, of course, debatable in nature and, in particular, do not coincide with my representations, however they are well-reasoned, logins and quite have a place to be. Artificially created incompleteness of reasoning is not accidental, therefore, we are waiting, from the continuation.
  7. -1
    1 October 2018 16: 54
    It is better not even to mention patriotism, historical justice and other things, but to stick out the economic benefits of such a reunion (if they are not there, come up with it!). In general, there is something in this style: “We returned the Crimea and now we do not need to pay rent to Ukraine, we do not need to spend money on building a fleet base in Novorossiysk, we“ squeezed ”first-class shipyards from an independent, now the Russians will have an affordable vacation on wonderful Crimean resorts, stalls will fill up with fruits from sunny Crimea, Crimean wines will become cheaper, and in general, it’s very European, here we recall the unification of Germany, Germany and East Germany, the fall of the Berlin Wall ”, etc. etc.

    Honestly, you need to compare spending on the base (and they are known) for spending now. Indeed, until 2014, 60% was financed by Ukraine (financing of the ARC Crimea), but given the large number of Russian passports and military personnel, the share of the Russian Federation was also rather big. It is difficult to display comparative data there. In addition, patriots will immediately begin to measure the material as "Invaluable" and expensive as a memory, and yet. The data should take into account damage from sanctions, loss of image, loss of business in Ukraine, tarts for the war in ORDiLO, and much more (the same bridge, water problem, etc.)
    There are two parameters - the first, on the patriotic side - is profitable (taken away at a favorable time, what could be done) pressed / returned Crimea.
    The second - losses in all parts, expressed in finances, are significant. Well, and most importantly, the Russian Federation was left without a single economic project. Having scattered its closest neighbors. Two of the largest Russian-speaking states in confrontation.
    The conclusion is loud, patriotic, but expensive. Spending will only increase.
    And no one has almost recognized and will not recognize. And the longest border in Europe is now very hostile.
    Propaganda is good when it provides not only domestic consumption (TV against the refrigerator) but when it allows saving on expenses in other areas. And here is some kind of opposite effect. The current one further increases opponents and expenses.
    So no USA is needed ... we spend resources ourselves on creating problems for ourselves.
  8. -1
    1 October 2018 17: 14
    Thus, we did not create the prerequisites for the emergence of Russia as a society united by a certain set of common ideas

    In a class society, a set of general ideas cannot exist.
    1. +2
      1 October 2018 17: 45
      Quote: Claymore
      In a class society, a set of general ideas cannot exist.

      Well, in the USA there is something
      1. 0
        1 October 2018 20: 47
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

        Well, in the USA there is something

        Why do you think so?
        1. +2
          1 October 2018 20: 59
          Quote: Claymore
          Why do you think so?

          The argument is stated in the article above :))) Did not read? :)
          1. +1
            1 October 2018 23: 52
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

            The argument is stated in the article above :))) Did not read? :)

            I read, but did not see the argument.
            But speculation and modern mythological stereotypes sown by the state propaganda of the Russian Federation, there is more than enough.

            So where did you get the idea that in the USA there is a certain set of ideas that is common for the exploited and exploiters, for the owners and employees, at the expense of which these owners live?
            1. +2
              2 October 2018 00: 09
              Quote: Claymore
              So where did you get the idea that in the USA there is a certain set of ideas that is common for the exploited and exploiters, for the owners and employees, at the expense of which these owners live?

              Mostly from communication with people who moved there for permanent residence and those who often go there. Although some of personal contacts.
              As for stereotypes ... I think if you think in terms of "exploiter - exploited", then talking about it is meaningless.
              1. +1
                2 October 2018 05: 36
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                Basically, from communicating with people who moved there for permanent residence and those who often go there

                Those. from those who were still here already had the goal of cutting down the dough for their beloved and considered this goal universal.

                But about stereotypes ... I think if you think in terms of "exploiter - exploited", then it makes no sense to talk about it
                .
                For someone who has been taught to believe that an abstract idea is primary in relation to the conditions of existence and objective interests, it is quite normal to think so. lol
                1. +2
                  2 October 2018 07: 51
                  Quote: Claymore
                  Those. from those who were still here already had the goal of cutting down the dough for their beloved and considered this goal universal.

                  I’m wondering why you wrote this? :)))) In fact, you are not quite right about these people. More precisely, you are right that the desire to receive a decent remuneration for work was one of the reasons for leaving (most of whom I know left from Kazakhstan, Ukraine and other depressed regions), but where did you get the idea that the loot is universal for them? Why would people who live and work in the Russian Federation but on duty often come to the USA to consider the log house as a universal goal?
                  You may see yourself as a thinker, but generally speaking such labeling is not characteristic of a wise person.
                  And then - let's say you're right. How does this change (or at least affect) the fact that they have a national idea of ​​the United States? :)))) The answer is no. If people observe the high patriotism of Americans and their confidence in the correctness of the American way of life (and by no means among millionaires, I don’t have such acquaintances), and, characteristically, the absence of any noticeable class contradictions, then how personal views on money can does it change?
                  Quote: Claymore
                  For someone who has been taught to believe that an abstract idea is primary in relation to the conditions of existence and objective interests, it is quite normal to think so.

                  Claymore, Claymore :)))) It's very funny to watch you blame me for what you sin yourself :))))
                  It is your abstract ideas that are primary for you - the ideas that you have learned from the textbook of political economy, and now carefully drive the reality surrounding you into their narrow framework. While classical political economy contains, as it were, no more mistakes than market economics. Personally, I am not a supporter of capitalism, considering it useful at some stage, but gradually dying, losing its former effectiveness, the social system. Just as feudalism changed slavery in its time, but then it became outdated and died.
                  But political economy contains many mistakes and in its pure form is inapplicable from the word "in any way". In itself, the desire for a fair distribution of the surplus product is correct. But to consider the surplus value of the product produced only as a result of the labor of the working class is not close. Because the owner invests in his business immeasurably more labor and risks than an employee, so his remuneration should be obviously higher. Another question is how much more? And neither political economy nor capitalism could clearly answer it. However, to see the owner only as an "exploiter" who "parasitizes" on someone there is my insistent advice to you, try to do business. Open ... I don't know, anything. A trade stall, a shoe repair shop - it doesn't matter. And then compare how much labor you put into this business, and how much - the seller (or foreman) whom you hired. I suppose you will be extremely surprised by the result :)))
                  1. 0
                    2 October 2018 16: 25
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    but where did you get that for them the loot is universal?

                    Since this is characteristic of anyone who emigrated to the USA, for any employee of companies whose professional activity is connected with trips to the USA.

                    Why would people who live and work in the Russian Federation but on duty often come to the USA to consider the log house as a universal goal?

                    Since such people, as a rule, are completely satisfied with the socio-economic situation existing in the Russian Federation - such people have "built into the market", perceive capitalist relations and their essence as a norm of being, consider personal enrichment a universal goal and a sign of success (although they love talk about eternal).

                    How does this change (or at least affect) the fact that they have a national idea of ​​the United States?

                    The most obvious.
                    Once in a social environment similar to the environment of their existence, they extrapolate their subjective ideas to all the inhabitants of this environment.

                    with, which is characteristic, the absence of some markedly expressed class contradictions

                    laughing
                    You see, class contradictions are an objective thing (that is, existing regardless of human consciousness).
                    The slave may be completely satisfied with his master (or portray it), but class contradictions do not disappear from this anywhere.

                    It’s your abstract ideas that are primary - the ideas that you learned from the textbook of political economy

                    A textbook is a book that contains information about objectively existing objects and phenomena whose existence has been proven (the only thing is that their interpretations may not correspond to reality), the textbooks do not contain abstract ideas. smile

                    But to consider the surplus value of the produced product only as a result of the labor of the working class is not close. Because the owner invests immeasurably more labor and risks in his business than the wage worker, therefore his remuneration should be obviously greater.

                    Oh what a familiar theme with a substitution of concepts laughing

                    The owner is not a profession, not a specialty, not a position, and not a form of labor.
                    The owner is an attitude (relation to the means of production, relation of ownership)

                    The owner does not invest his work as an owner, but as a self-employed worker, for which, of course, he should receive a remuneration appropriate to his labor contribution.
                    But the owner receives the main income not in the form of remuneration for labor activity, but in the form of profit (in the form of money that was earned from the realization of the surplus value created by the collective of wage earners), which significantly exceeds his actual labor contribution.

                    As for the risks, the miner risks more objectively than the owner of the mine, but receives (lo and behold) less.

                    And in an ordinary enterprise, the owner risks less.
                    Lost 9 out of 10 million dollars of his capital - he can go down to the level of consumption of an ordinary worker and live on the remaining million without working until the end of his life (he will still have children)
                    And the wage worker risks the only source of his income - to lose his job, with a salary of 30-40 tyr, it means that he will be on the verge of existence in 2-3 months.

                    And neither political economy nor capitalism could clearly answer to it.

                    This question has been answered a long time ago. smile
                    1. +2
                      2 October 2018 19: 02
                      Quote: Claymore
                      Since this is characteristic of anyone who emigrated to the USA, for any employee of companies whose professional activity is connected with trips to the USA.

                      Because said claymore? And I answer you that this is a completely false statement, stemming from your black and white perception of the world. I myself can easily give examples of the opposite, fortunately, I have many such acquaintances :))
                      Quote: Claymore
                      Since such people, as a rule, are completely satisfied with the socio-economic situation in the Russian Federation, such people have "integrated into the market."

                      You just killed your point of view in the bud. Just because you announced by CHOCH ALL people who emigrated to the United States and other countries, as well as those who travel there on permanent business trips, who agree with the lifestyle and do not feel class contradictions :)))
                      In other words, you just admitted that there are whole groups of people to whom your statement about irreconcilable class contradictions either does not apply, or they ignore it. And if so, then there are no reasons why other groups of people (the US population) could not count as well.
                      Even more fun this
                      Quote: Claymore
                      The slave may be completely satisfied with his master (or portray it), but class contradictions do not disappear from this anywhere.

                      That is, you just agreed that the slave is quite capable of sharing with his master the commitment to the slave system
                      Congratulations, I thought I would have to convince you longer :)))
                      Quote: Claymore
                      You see, class contradictions are an objective thing.

                      Yes. But you see, what’s the matter - contradictions, this is what our lives are built on. The theory of social contract itself is based on a reasonable and acceptable for all restriction of interests, that is, directly testifies to the contradiction between individual individuals. Any individual has contradictions with other individuals in any society. Even in the family there is a conflict of interests between its members :))) That is, classes, of course, have contradictions, but this does not mean at all that they cannot be united by any common ideas
                      Quote: Claymore
                      textbooks do not contain abstract ideas.

                      As a person who once studied the theory of multidimensional spaces and passed the test on them (oh, it was a long time ago!) I laugh in your face. Multidimensional spaces are pure abstractions that have no practical application in nature.
                      Tell me, but textbooks on the law of God, how are they? Also objective and proven? Both Islam and Christianity at the same time? And history books? Including conflicting?
                      In general ... m-dya. you have a bad definition :)))
                      Quote: Claymore
                      Oh what a familiar theme with a substitution of concepts

                      Nah, not guessed. They simply could not read what I wrote to you, hiding behind the usual dogmas. I can explain, of course, what you are wrong about. Should I spend time on this?
                      1. 0
                        3 October 2018 01: 49
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

                        Because said claymore?

                        Because in modern conditions (with rare exceptions) this is the only possible reason for emigration and professional activity associated with business trips to the USA.

                        In other words, you just admitted that there are whole groups of people to whom your statement about irreconcilable class contradictions either does not apply, or they ignore it

                        And where is the contradiction in what I said?

                        I have not "just admitted" - I openly declare that there is a class of the bourgeoisie, and there is a so-called "labor aristocracy", which, for the most part, are completely satisfied with the current state of affairs. they frankly do not care about the state of the rest of society.

                        However, as soon as the "working aristocrat" loses his job, and the representative of the bourgeois class goes bankrupt, everything changes dramatically, and the aforementioned citizens begin to feel on their own skin those objectively existing class contradictions that until that moment they preferred not to notice.

                        And if so, then there are no reasons why other groups of people (the US population) could not count as well.

                        There is such a reason - by no means all US citizens are the owners of the means of production and are part of the "labor aristocracy" stratum.

                        That is, you just agreed that the slave is quite capable of sharing with his master the commitment to the slave system

                        I could agree if this idea was expressed by you.
                        But I expressed this idea, therefore you agree with me, and not vice versa.

                        2nd moment.
                        Capitalist propaganda (including your article) naturally works to conceal existing contradictions, trying to erase from the masses scraps of class consciousness and replace them with the tricks of statism and the national idea of ​​reconciling the robbed with the robbers (all exactly according to Mussolini's "doctrine of fascism") ...

                        Only class contradictions do not disappear from this anywhere, and, being economic contradictions (and the individual’s life depends on the economy), they constantly break out, making the collection of ideas common to the whole society impossible.

                        The very theory of social contract

                        Does not hold water.

                        As a person who once studied the theory of multidimensional spaces and passed an offset on them (oh, it was a long time ago!) I laugh in your face

                        How can a person who once studied the theory of multidimensional spaces and pass tests on them can equate a warm (formalized theory) with a soft (abstract idea)?

                        Tell me, but textbooks on the law of God, how are they? Also objective and proven?

                        I report - you were misinformed, such textbooks do not exist.

                        Nah, not guessed

                        Understanding makes guesswork unnecessary.

                        I can explain, of course, what you are wrong about. Should I spend time on this?

                        Of course it's worth it - it's always interesting to familiarize yourself with new versions of the justification for legalized "theft" smile
            2. +1
              2 October 2018 17: 35
              Quote: Claymore
              So where did you get the idea that in the USA there is a certain set of ideas that is common for the exploited and exploiters, for the owners and employees, at the expense of which these owners live?

              But what about the American dream?
              1. +1
                3 October 2018 02: 04
                The American Dream is not a collection of ideas, but a kind of supreme imperative, expressed in the formula "cut the dough and not get caught."

                But this formula is true not only for the United States, but also for any capitalist society - this is a petty bourgeois dream, not an American one.
                1. 0
                  3 October 2018 20: 20
                  Quote: Claymore
                  "cut the dough and not get caught."

                  Odessa is praying: Lord, give me a lot of a lot of money! and that I wouldn’t have anything for it !!
    2. 0
      2 October 2018 08: 57
      Quote: Claymore
      In a class society, a set of general ideas cannot exist.

      You see, Class Society in relation to productive capital, this was more than 100 years ago. Now society is divided into society and kleptocracy. People have access to the budget, for example, Borya Mints, who took the Non-State Pension Fund with him. etc.
      1. +2
        2 October 2018 16: 37
        Kleptocracy is a category of idealistic philosophy, which in its semantic content is most consistent with the concept of "class of exploiters".

        And the situation with the access of capital to the budget (i.e. state-monopoly capitalism) was described by Lenin - there is nothing new.
        1. +2
          2 October 2018 20: 19
          Quote: Claymore
          Kleptocracy is a category of idealistic philosophy, which in its semantic content is most consistent with the concept of "class of exploiters".

          And the situation with the access of capital to the budget (i.e. state-monopoly capitalism) was described by Lenin - there is nothing new

          With you to discuss is to go through the minefield! I propose from the philosophy of 100 years ago to return to us, or to transfer today in the category of 100 years ago ...
          The class of exploiters - those who exploit pensioners and state employees or the subsoil?
          Is capital big money as a result of a pyramid scheme with a pension fund at the base or a complex of means of production, labor, energy and raw materials infrastructure?
          money - a function of the production of goods in the country or a function of Zol-val reserves?
          Is kleptocracy literally the power of thieves from the budget (I had in mind) or what kind of political power do business directors have? Yours faithfully hi
          1. +2
            3 October 2018 02: 46
            The class of exploiters - those who exploit pensioners and state employees or the subsoil?

            Only a person can be exploited (in our time - the class of employees).

            Is capital big money as a result of a pyramid scheme with a pension fund at the base or a complex of means of production, labor, energy and raw materials infrastructure?

            Capital can be money, and means of production, and labor, and infrastructure.

            money - a function of the production of goods in the country or a function of Zol-val reserves?

            Money is the universal equivalent of value (value is a property of an economic product produced for exchange / sale - a product or service).

            In other words, money is a monetary product.

            Kleptocracy is literally the power of thieves from the budget (I meant)

            The budget is a public piggy bank in which the society collects funds intended to solve the problems of society.

            Thus, theft (usually legalized) from the budget is essentially the same exploitation, and kleptocrats (stealing from the budget) are the same capitalists.

            What political power do business directors have?

            Power - the ability to impose your will.

            Politics - actions aimed at achieving a specific goal that meets the interests of a large social group (class).

            Accordingly, the "power" of an enterprise director is limited by the number of his subordinates - that is, The director of the enterprise does not have political power (but has the opportunity to use his powers to exert political influence).
            1. 0
              3 October 2018 20: 43
              YOU are an inveterate Marxist! I will try in your language. Capital is industrial or financial. Industrial material. Financial not really.
              Quote: Claymore
              In other words, money is a monetary product
              what you are talking about is price — monetary expressed value, value — labor embodied in the product, labor is the process of interaction between man and nature as a result of which goods are obtained, etc ....
              I explain in your system of concepts (studied!):
              Russia's problem is that in the Central Bank system the number of rubles circulating in the economy cannot be greater than the Gold and foreign exchange reserves in their stores, no matter how much goods you consume, the emergence of surplus value is sabotaged by the Central Bank, except if money is not paid for them from abroad, therefore , the country will no longer be. Such are the artificial rules of the game (capitalists will not allow Marx regulation laughing ) Therefore, the domestic market is doomed to die for a long time. Once they give currency for gas and oil, it blooms. A very crafty exchange rate. Whatever you do, you can buy cheaper at such courses abroad! This, again, is done specifically so that they would not develop.
              1. 0
                4 October 2018 01: 07
                Quote: aybolyt678
                Capital is industrial or financial

                "Capital is a combination of material, intellectual and financial resources used to obtain additional benefits."(ie income).

                This is a modern (non-Marxist) definition from the "investor encyclopedia".

                Industrial material. Financial not really.

                And financial in a philosophical sense is material.

                what you are talking about is price — monetary expressed value, value — labor embodied in the product, labor is the process of interaction between man and nature as a result of which goods are obtained, etc ....

                No, I'm talking about something else.

                100 rubles, in fact, is a product preserved in a bill that can be purchased for this amount.
                100 rubles is either a pack of cigarettes, or 2 packets of milk, or 4 loaves of bread, or 2 loaves of bread and a packet of milk, etc.

                Russia's problem is that in the Central Bank system the number of rubles circulating in the economy cannot be greater than the Gold and foreign exchange reserves in their stores, no matter how much goods you consume, the emergence of surplus value is sabotaged by the Central Bank, except if money is not paid for them from abroad, therefore , the country will no longer be. Such are the artificial rules of the game (capitalists will not allow Marx regulation

                This is not so - in this regard there are no legislative restrictions.

                The "problem" is different.

                Gold reserves - a means of ensuring foreign trade (payments on loans, payments for imports, etc.).

                And in the Russian Federation, despite all the victories of import substitution, about 70-80 percent of GDP is made up of the cost of production on the territory of foreign countries (chicken is domestic, feed and production lines are imported; the brand of clothing is domestic and sewn in China; cars are produced in the Russian Federation, and components come from over the hill ...).

                Accordingly, in order for the Russian Federation (and, as a consequence, the ruling class) not to be covered with a copper basin, gold reserves must be able to cover these 70-80% of import dependence for at least six months - i.e. cover the amount of money corresponding to these 70-80%.

                Those. The "problem" (a problem for society, but not for the ruling class and its political representatives) is not that the Central Bank does not work that way, and not in some artificial rules and prohibitions.
                The problem lies in the import dependence of the Russian Federation, as well as in the fact that this state of affairs meets the interests of the ruling class — the interests of large owners.

                Whatever you do, you can buy cheaper at such courses abroad! This, again, is done specifically so that they would not develop.

                Cheaper where production is cheaper, and production is cheaper where the means of production are more perfect and the owner’s rate of return is lower.

                In the Russian Federation, the authorities managed to repeat the path of the authorities of the Republic of Ingushetia, having slept through the industrial revolution and putting the momentary interests and greed of the propertied classes above the interests of society.
  9. +1
    1 October 2018 19: 32
    Talking about resistance to external information influences, one should not forget that external information influence "there" is minimized. Can you imagine that a Russian citizen was allowed to buy 42 online publications in different states? Me neither. But HSM wanted to do this in 2015. BBC, CNN, Euronews are broadcast quietly here and no one touched them, but in the United States, as soon as RT began to gain popularity, they immediately tried to cut its wings. The same thing happened in France. Stability "there" exists exactly as long as truly alternative points of view are not allowed into the information space.

    The internal establishment "there" is also diligently clearing out what is worth McCarthyism, the cuts in the budgets of the Le Pen party, etc.

    "There" a core of power has long been formed, which has a monopoly on both domestic and foreign policy. And it is this that forms a certain national idea and ideology of the country.

    But this somehow didn’t work out for us - in 1917 he brought into power many outright enemies of the country, plus there was a significant distortion of power in the direction of the Union republics. In 1991, the situation repeated itself. And although work is ongoing, at the moment in Russia there is no sufficiently serious core that could impose its will on everyone else. And this completely deprives the soil of any kind of discourse about the ideology of the state - seriously, what kind of monolithic ideology can a country have when we have power like a patchwork quilt - someone on the side of Russia, someone on the side of the USA, someone ... In this situation, talking about some kind of ideology is the height of the absurd. Until a consolidated pro-Russian power is established in the country, talking about ideology is simply pointless.

    In this regard, it is very amusing that twenty and ten, and even a year ago, no one even thought about any ideology of the state, such a topic simply was not on the agenda. And only literally six months ago, everyone broke loose, demanding to immediately give them an ideology, and not pro-Russian experts and bloggers (as you might think) were actively fielding this topic, but liberals, preserves and Russophobes. They simply cannot eat — give them an ideology, and in general, living without ideology is very bad, society suffers.

    But an integral ideology is created by an integral power, which we have not yet observed, and in order to create one, it is necessary to remove all disloyal elements from power. From which follows a simple conclusion - forcing the adoption of a certain national idea will only lead to an exacerbation of hostility in the authorities. Do we need it, especially now? We don't need this. Therefore, all the talk about the national idea and its need for citizens at the moment can be safely multiplied by zero - it will not bring any benefit to Russia, but it can cause many problems. There will be an integral power - there will be an ideology, but for now all this talk is nothing more than an attempt to split society and power to the delight of our "partners".
    1. +5
      1 October 2018 19: 53
      Quote: Alexey Novikov
      than an attempt to split society and power to the delight of our "partners".

      Society and power are already very far from each other and there is no need to split up here ..
      Quote: Alexey Novikov
      In this regard, it is very amusing that twenty and ten, and even a year ago, no one even thought about any ideology of the state, such a topic simply was not on the agenda. And just literally six months ago, everyone broke loose, demanding to immediately give them an ideology, and not pro-Russian experts and bloggers (as you might think) were actively fielding this topic, but liberals, preserves and Russophobes

      So you took and insulted a lot of people who do not at all classify themselves as liberals, not yet someone .. especially Russophobes ..
      And everyone rushed to search for ideology, because this power could not give birth to anything worthwhile in two decades .. And many just feel that society is more and more divided, and power is more and more like aliens .. Most of this is tired of it and as an answer to the request society, remembered the ideology .. But besides the socialist, it does not exist ...
      1. +1
        1 October 2018 20: 34
        Society and power are already very far apart and there is no need to split
        The conversation was about crushing within.
        And everyone rushed to search for ideology, because this power could not give birth to anything worthwhile in two decades .. And many simply feel that society is more and more divided, and power is more and more like aliens.
        Yeah, yeah, putinslil, pzhiv, duck house. Familiar "patriotic" motives.

        “Everyone” is not looking for any ideology. How much I read blogs, how much I communicate - there is no demand for ideology in society. They want good roads, high wages, more kindergartens, ideology - somehow they don't want. They want it exclusively for people with bright faces, "truth-tellers", "guardians for the Russian", "tired of power" and other "patriots".

        At the same time, do not share examples of the right countries that, after the collapse under constant international pressure, could make candy in two decades, and the government became good, and the people became rich by leaps and bounds?
        1. +4
          1 October 2018 21: 27
          Quote: Alexey Novikov
          At the same time, do not share examples of the right countries that, after the collapse under constant international pressure, could make candy in two decades, and the government became good, and the people became rich by leaps and bounds?

          Yes, of course, the USSR was constantly under sanctions .. China was also under sanctions .. And you did not know? We are now one line ahead of Gabon data for 2017 in terms of per capita income; in 2018, Gabon will probably be ahead of us - this is Africa !. Doesn’t it bother you that Africans will soon be better off than us?
          Quote: Alexey Novikov
          “Everyone” is not looking for any ideology. How much I read blogs, how much I communicate - there is no demand for ideology in society. They want good roads, high wages, more kindergartens, ideology - somehow they don't want. They want it exclusively for people with bright faces, "truth-tellers", "guardians for the Russian", "tired of power" and other "patriots".

          Everyone is looking for justice .. But the ideology of socialism, offers, just justice ..
          Quote: Alexey Novikov
          Yeah, yeah, putinslil, pzhiv, duck house. Familiar "patriotic" motives.

          Let's take an objective look at what Putin has achieved in 20 years. You can begin to give positive examples.
          1. 0
            1 October 2018 22: 09
            Yes, of course, the USSR was constantly under sanctions .. China was also under sanctions .. And you did not know?
            I, like, in a Russian-like manner, inquired about "examples of the right countries that, after the collapse under constant international pressure, managed to make candy in two decades, and the government became good, and the people grew rich by leaps and bounds?"

            Where in the USSR was prosperity in the 37th year? It was not him. And in the 47th it was not, and only in the 60s it became somehow bearable, although not always, what the Novocherkassk execution was worth.
            We are now one line ahead of Gabon in 2017 in terms of per capita income; Gabon will probably be ahead of us in 2018 - this is Africa !. Doesn’t it bother you that Africans will soon be better off than us?
            Do you think blacks must be beggars and hungry hungry people? I can’t understand - is it racism or gabonophobia? Gabon has a small population, but large reserves of oil and manganese / uranium ore, so that they would not be rich, and why I should be ashamed of the fact that Africa also has minerals - it is not clear.

            Let's take an objective look at what Putin has achieved in 20 years. You can begin to give positive examples.
            It was you who were unhappy with something - you should reveal the cards.
            1. +5
              1 October 2018 22: 29
              Quote: Alexey Novikov
              I, like, in a Russian-like manner, inquired about "examples of the right countries that, after the collapse under constant international pressure, managed to make candy in two decades, and the government became good, and the people grew rich by leaps and bounds?"

              So I wrote the USSR and China to you in Russian in white or do you not consider them countries? laughing
              Quote: Alexey Novikov
              Where in the USSR was prosperity in the 37th year? It was not him. And in the 47th it was not, and only in the 60s it became somehow bearable, although not always, what the Novocherkassk execution was worth.

              Do not forget that there was 17 years, the Second World War, when the country was all in ruins .. and after the end of the Second World War 18 years later we flew into space .. Thus, from a country that had nothing, we turned into the largest industrial power with the strongest science and education, the fruits of which we use to this day ..
              Quote: Alexey Novikov
              Let's take an objective look at what Putin has achieved in 20 years. You can begin to give positive examples.
              It was you who were unhappy with something - you should reveal the cards.

              Do not want to act as Putin’s lawyer, your right .. hi
              1. -2
                1 October 2018 23: 44
                Do not forget that there was 17 years, the Second World War, when the country was all in ruins .. and after the end of the Second World War 18 years later we flew into space .. Thus, from a country that had nothing, we turned into the largest industrial power with the strongest science and education, the fruits of which we use to this day ..
                And what, what is the 17th? We also had the 91st, that's it. But for some reason, in the first case, the mechanism "Well, you understand, this is the case" is triggered, and in the second - well, not at all. Double standards are so double. At the same time, it would be interesting to see how you would speculate about Gabon in 37 and "the authorities have done nothing for all this time", and in 41 - about the fact that "I will not go to war for Beria and Molotov."

                With regards to "nothing happened." As of 1913, RI ranked third in the world in terms of GDP and second in Europe, behind only the United States and Great Britain. In terms of the export of agricultural products, RI was in the top five leaders in the main areas - grain, milk, butter, etc. Industrial production grew at an average annual rate of 5%. In terms of electricity production, RI was in fourth place in the world. In terms of the length of the railway, RI was second only to the USA. So there was everything in RI, but save the tales about "took with a plow and left with an atomic bomb" for Echo of Moscow.

                Do not want to act as Putin’s lawyer, your right
                So it was you who dressed as a prosecutor, but somehow quickly faded away.
                1. +1
                  2 October 2018 08: 37
                  In exporting agricultural products, RI was in the top five in the main areas - grain, milk, butter, etc.

                  About 40 percent almost the first time recruits ate meat after conscription. Of the three recruits, it was difficult to choose one healthy. Agricultural products were exported even in the famine.
                  1. -1
                    2 October 2018 14: 43
                    And Stalin drank the blood of infants, Dada. At the beginning of the last century, the average meat consumption per capita was about 19 kg per year, and this, taking into account the large underestimation of livestock numbers. After they began to put things in order, this figure was already 30 kg / year. It is noteworthy that in the blessed USSR in the 1940th, this figure was about 17 kg / year, and only by the 60s they managed to achieve tsarist indicators.

                    In general, of course, it is amazing how the same people in the same situation, but with regard to different years, behave diametrically opposite - in one case they carefully expose lies, and in the other they crack the misinformation on both cheeks.
                    1. 0
                      2 October 2018 21: 54
                      Alexey Novikov
                      At the beginning of the last century, the average meat consumption per capita was about 19 kg per year

                      1 - 60, 2nd - 20, 3-4 - 0 50%
                      After they began to put things in order, this figure was already 30 kg / year.

                      1 - 80, 2nd -40, 3,4 - 0 50%
                      Have you proved anything wink Agricultural products were exported from Russia even when they were starving in whole provinces sad
                2. +3
                  2 October 2018 21: 15
                  Quote: Alexey Novikov
                  In exporting agricultural products, RI was in the top five in the main areas - grain,

                  Russia exported grain ... But! imported a huge amount of flour. Almost every year crop failure occurred in some provinces. 70 percent of Russia's population were peasants burdened with overwhelming rents. And you know there were no tractors. The average productivity in the same 1913 was 9 centners per ha. In comparison with Germany where there were 20 centners per ha. There were problems with selection. Varieties were bought that degenerated in Siberia. Mowed too manually. Do you have a summer house? plow it by hand, fight with weeds manually, without chemistry! And threshed by hand, flails! The revolution is the logical outcome of the reign of the largest landowner - the Romanov family.
                  Quote: Alexey Novikov
                  RI ranks third in the world in terms of GDP and second in Europe, second only to the United States and Great Britain.

                  The Russian economy in 1913 became dependent on foreign investment. When politics was led by foreign industrialists. You should read "boring" books and independently compare the production of some goods, such as guns and shells. Shells in Russia were made for British cannons. And for its guns, Russia bought shells in England
            2. 0
              2 October 2018 09: 06
              Quote: Alexey Novikov
              Where in the USSR was prosperity in the 37th year? It was not him. And in the 47th it wasn’t, and only in the 60s it became somehow bearable,

              The best years of the USSR are 1965 -70. Golden Five Year Plan. abundance in stores, money on hand. Strange as it is for these same years, there is a rejection of the Gold Security of the Dollar. That is, in fact, we almost won. The trouble was that the budgets of many countries provided some stability to the dollar and the US Military Power and ill-conceived international politics - for example, we supported Ethiopia and Somalia, and they fought with each other.
          2. 0
            2 October 2018 08: 39
            Vladimir. China, for your information, was under sanctions after the West was built by him-
            satellites. And at that time, Bush Sr. was No. 1 person in China.
  10. -1
    1 October 2018 20: 14
    Remember especially in the 90s, an advertisement for the American way of life, chewing gum, eating booze, cigarettes, films, music, fashion? In the 90s I walked in jeans, American boots, smoked American cigarettes, stood in line at Mac Donalds, chewed American chewing gums, looked American films. Today I drink American alcohol and watch American films. What does Russia that betrayed communism offer? TV series about cops for the poor, talk shows and entertainment programs for idiots, difference, pah gaps in the salaries of superiors and subordinates, wretched medicine, constant price increases on everything? Raising the retirement age and rising dollar millionaires? What can Russia oppose US propaganda? request
    1. +5
      1 October 2018 20: 27
      Quote: Yak28
      Remember especially in the 90s, an advertisement for the American way of life, chewing gum, eating booze, cigarettes, films, music, fashion? In the 90s I walked in jeans, American boots, smoked American cigarettes, stood in line at Mac Donalds, chewed American chewing gums, looked American films. Today I drink American alcohol and watch American films. What does Russia that betrayed communism offer? TV series about cops for the poor, talk shows and entertainment programs for idiots, difference, pah gaps in the salaries of superiors and subordinates, wretched medicine, constant price increases on everything? Raising the retirement age and rising dollar millionaires? What can Russia oppose US propaganda? request

      Of course, nothing can .. because we are a miserable semblance .. of their lifestyle .. Instead of developing the idea of ​​socialism, the elite sold themselves for chewing gum ..
      1. -2
        1 October 2018 20: 56
        Quote: Svarog
        the elite sold for gum

        Exactly. It was the elite who in 1991 jumped around the streets with the appropriate slogans, such as "Down with the KPSS", or ...

        Quote: Svarog
        develop the idea of ​​socialism

        Well, so the flag is in your hands - develop ... something I do not see any special "development" so far, the chatter is basically some kind of incoherent ...
        1. +3
          1 October 2018 21: 28
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Exactly. It was the elite who in 1991 jumped around the streets with the appropriate slogans, such as "Down with the KPSS", or ...

          Yes, it is she and they are in power now
          Quote: Golovan Jack
          Well, so the flag is in your hands - develop ... something I do not see any special "development" so far, the chatter is basically some kind of incoherent ...

          Here they share their opinions .. well, in a different way chatter ..
          1. -1
            1 October 2018 21: 48
            Quote: Svarog
            Yes, it is she and they are in power now

            U-u-uuuu ... ek will flatten you ... The people then shied through the streets, and not any "elita". "Elita" skimmed the cream off this, and then, and still continues.

            Quote: Svarog
            Here they share their opinions ..

            ... and they are also engaged in propaganda and agitation. Regardless of the topic of the article, who is talking about what, and you are talking about how bad everything is right now ... Svarog, well, don’t pretend you are a rug in the corner - all the same laughing
            1. +4
              1 October 2018 22: 31
              Quote: Golovan Jack
              . as well as engaged in propaganda and agitation. Regardless of the topic of the article, who is talking about what, and you are talking about how bad everything is right now ... Svarog, well, don’t pretend you are a rug in the corner - all the same

              I express what I believe in and what I think about, if you think this is agitation and propaganda, well, maybe this is so ..
              1. -1
                1 October 2018 22: 34
                Quote: Svarog
                I express what I believe and think about ...

                All. I can’t laugh anymore, I’ll go to rags ... to work tomorrow again hezh again, early rise laughing
    2. +1
      1 October 2018 20: 49
      Well that is for the love of the country, are you enough to produce your own chewing gum, jeans, boots, cigarettes, sandwiches and films? Some "patriots" are inexpensive, now I seem to understand where the legs grow from about 11.50 per comment.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. -1
          2 October 2018 00: 10
          Who prevents someone from living with dignity? Again the power of pretzels in your bloomers imposed?

          Do you think that we have a lot of oil and gas revenues? Well, yes, 9 trillion. rubles. Divide by 140 million, divide by 12 months - and we get the figure of 5357 rubles per month per person. Bezdydite, Russian, Alex allowed! True, already without any social programs, benefits, subsidies, free medical education and other things, because all this is financed from the federal budget, which half consists of the same oil and gas revenues.

          Well, since such a booze has begun, tell us what the USA did for the people that it was worth, what Russia did not. I hope for a constructive answer.
    3. 0
      2 October 2018 09: 08
      Quote: Yak28
      What can Russia oppose to US propaganda?

      We can provide survival experience with limited resources.
  11. +3
    1 October 2018 20: 47
    The author pleasantly surprised me! good
    The article is sensible, written intelligibly, sometimes even with humor))), on a very relevant topic, since ideology and propaganda is the Weapon of Total Defeat, in terms of its total impact it is worse than any WMD!
    I look forward to continuing the article. smile Success to the Author in such an uncharacteristic (IMHO) field for him!
  12. +1
    1 October 2018 21: 02
    You contradict yourself, passing off the lack of written tablets of the Russian idea as a lack thereof, although you immediately write about the silence by the Americans of the foundations of the American national idea that you listed. It is, and not talked about, for the same reason as in other countries, because like any other, it is based on faith, moreover, stupid. - Belief in justice. You can go through everything (sacrifice), because the world is unfair and constantly annoys everyone, but in the name of justice we will give to anyone's forehead, because only this is a worthy deed (dignity), and so it will always be with every bite (greatness). All this truth is included in unapproachable graters with what the country was offered in the 90s, moreover, in an impudent and extremely repulsive manner. Maybe that's why the above formally does not exist.
  13. +3
    1 October 2018 21: 28
    The author is well done - he thinks clearly and soberly and does not confuse a causal relationship.
    Regarding concepts and ideologies - Surkov has already indicated - the western path of Russia is over.
    About this and, most importantly, about the collapse of the USSR, it is very interesting, highlighted in this article (especially pleased:
    Twenty years ago I was told that bees collect honey, but they should not eat it. Therefore, the West encouraged the export of capital from here by our oligarchs. But they should not eat it. And now they want to return the two trillion dollars that are in the Western accounts of the Russian elite. It is these bees that should not eat honey. )
    https://m.aftershock.news/?q=node/637689&full
  14. +1
    1 October 2018 22: 13
    While NTV, with the participation of Putin, did not break the horns, so did the perlations from Dudayev
  15. +5
    1 October 2018 22: 15
    Interesting article. The author is right in everything.
    Ideological situations in the USA and in the Russian Federation are described correctly. Propaganda situations are ideological. What is the reason for this unsatisfactory situation for us. In the United States, ideology has evolved over the centuries since the first settlers - three to four centuries.
    In Russia over the past 150 years, 4 ideologies have been broken. This is the ideology of Orthodoxy, bourgeois, communist, success. The ideological field of Russia is filled with fragments of these ideologies. It is extremely difficult to do anything new and full-fledged in the ideological field of Russia, and given the imperious opposition it is almost impossible. It is interesting what the author will offer in the second part of the article.
  16. +2
    1 October 2018 22: 22
    The article is interesting. But how big is the demand for a national idea in society? There are no sociological studies. And even if it turns out that this idea, suppose social justice, is what to do with the fact that the concepts of justice are different between those in power and ordinary citizens. Namely, the authorities with the help of the media and other methods have the opportunity to promote their own.
  17. 0
    2 October 2018 00: 45
    I don’t think that we are so far behind, because if Russia is blocked abroad, then we are bringing the truth to the brains of the whole world
  18. +2
    2 October 2018 08: 58
    "We have been taught for so long to love your forbidden gardens .." And they teach. Often without thinking what they are saying. The American way of life is often offered to us on trifles. When they write about a meager mortgage, they forget to say
    that the average American grabbed credits like a flea dog. And many do not cope with such a burden. Our
    For some reason, political scientists are very diligent in talking about the facade of America. As for our "upbringing", we must
    remember that it was attended by the CIA in the person of the notorious "Peace Corps." We got rid of it only in 2005. And who works according to the instructions of this organization, only God knows.
  19. +4
    2 October 2018 11: 23
    Until we turn our eyes to industry, talking about ideology will remain an empty phrase.
    people working in the real sector understand where we are going. Take the middle class in Russia. In this row
    the majority are bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, the social sciences, are who define our essence.
    Exact sciences are not welcome right now. We often look down on the working class.
    He took the brunt of it. In many industries, the technology is simply outdated. Often the workers themselves
    they take upon themselves the development of technologies and programs. They look at the worker as a boring member of society: without
    it is impossible, but how to increase labor-mind productivity is not enough.
    1. +2
      2 October 2018 12: 06
      Quote: nikvic46
      They look at the worker as a bored member of society: without
      it is impossible, but how to increase labor-mind productivity is not enough.

      you did not pay attention to the following fact: - whatever you produce, but on the world market you can always buy it cheaper and more profitable, is it the same? maybe it’s not a matter of respect for the worker, but of the state policy of “supporting” the world market? the policy of a "strong" ruble on the stock exchange? I explain: the stronger the ruble, the cheaper the imports, respectively, the more expensive domestic goods.
    2. 0
      2 October 2018 21: 20
      Quote: nikvic46
      Until we face industry

      and in which direction is our industry? I do not see any prospects other than how to close myself from the external market with customs duties, etc.?
  20. +2
    2 October 2018 12: 24
    Put a plus, although from my point of view everything is somewhat simplified. IMHO: Andrey from Chelyabinsk, although he does not give the right answers, poses the right questions.
    PS Is it possible, plz, to somehow finish (conclusions, look into the future, etc.) the series of articles "The Russian Navy. A Sad Look into the Future"? I really want to ...
    1. +3
      2 October 2018 14: 19
      Quote: Wildcat
      Is it possible, plz, to somehow finish (conclusions, look into the future, etc.) a series of articles "The Russian Navy. A Sad Look into the Future"?

      Mandatory. It’s just that I’ve spread a lot on a tree with aircraft carriers and naval aviation, but now the overview is, in general, complete, and it will be possible to bring everything together and draw conclusions.
      1. +2
        2 October 2018 23: 53
        If possible, one more question: will there be a separate article on the Coastal Forces of the Russian Navy? On the one hand, the topic is very specific and there are few sources on it, but on the other hand, it would be interesting to get a detailed answer to the question "why do we need ships and planes, we will sink any ship from the shore with a rocket everywhere." And in such a good series of articles, it is probably impossible to pass over in silence the marines, which have not come out of combat for 20 years ...
        hi

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"