This text was obtained by comprehending the experience of various states during the XNUMXth century and does not claim to be historical or theoretical certainty. Sociologists know better.
Considering the situation in industrialized countries, we can come to approximately the following conclusions. There are four factors, four technologies that can be used to enhance social stability.
Let's start at random - with social justice, which one way or another fought in the XX century. You can say anything and whatever, but its presence increases stability in society, and the absence reduces it. All the talk that God loves the rich and that it is not good to count other people's money rests on extremely unstable societies where there is only a pole of wealth and a pole of poverty.
We like to say that social inequality stimulates the development of the economy. Maybe it is, but for us it is somehow imperceptible. Somewhere it is developing in the wrong place with us. Seriously, yes, the less inequality, the less cause for discontent, regardless of other factors. All talk about someone's extraordinary talent and advancement is valid until a certain point. For example, until the very moment when this "talent" begins to be inherited over and over again.
Here we are again rubbed about various Sony, Samsung and Steve Jobs ... However, we have experience of the 90s, when we didn’t form any Wozniakov and Mitsubishi, but a whole layer of very wealthy people appeared. For some reason, the rest as a result of their activities did not get rich much. And they categorically refused to explain where the firewood came from. That is, social justice, as it were, does not imply equalization, as many people think, it simply evaluates the activities of Henry Ford in a slightly different way than Sergei Mavrodi. The normal question is: what have you done for society that you have so much money?
And today, even in London, one may encounter a similar question: where did you get the money, dear sir? Can you justify the sources of income? That is, the fact that in '91 Russia dived headlong into wild capitalism does not mean anything. "Social justice" was, is and remains a burning topic. If the issue is resolved, stability in society grows; if not, it falls. Making people think the other way around is impossible no matter how much they agitate.
The next factor is the “level of freedom”. It can be understood, of course, in very different ways, it can be understood correctly or not very. Someone says that democracy allows people to influence power and society, someone says that it’s a kind of “fair booth”, maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, maybe not, but the fact is that such societies are much more stable : in 1917, no revolutions occurred in either the French Republic, the Italian Republic, or even less so in democratic Britain.
If people have legal means to express their dissatisfaction, then revolutions occur much less frequently than in countries with a minimum degree of freedom. Yes, often the steam goes into the whistle, the main thing is that it does not smash the steam boiler. Mass demonstrations of protest - this is the current reality for most Western countries for generations. And nothing. Why pick up a rifle if you can pick up a poster?
Whatever the “children” dabble in, even with ballots, is it not one hell? In principle, this very technology pulled Russia into the 90s. Yes, everything is filthy, but you yourself chose this power ... and you to disentangle. Themselves to blame! In general, the technology is openly mocking, but it works! It works, and how! No matter how many people “mocked” at that time over the guarantor with a firm handshake - there was nowhere to go, because there was “democracy”! In how. They themselves have chosen, be patient.
If anyone does not remember, then in the USA during the Great Depression there were massive protest marches. But this did not lead to the demolition of the system. And there, one party regularly replaces another, and the foreign policy remains direct, like a barrier. I do not know why. And unlike Bolivia itself, during the entire existence of the United States, not a single president was forced to resign due to mass protests of the population. So it goes. The Maidan will not pass where there is normal democracy.
And yes, democracy is not something radiant and beautiful, it is just technology.
Third factor: national exclusivity. Like it or not, that’s how it is, and people want to be sure that the state acts precisely in their interests, and not in the interests of strangers. Today in Europe this problem is rising to its full potential. We laugh at this, not understanding the fact that “national exclusivity” cannot be replaced by a kind of “internationalism”. That is, you can replace it, but it will not work.
And this factor is very widely used. everywhere in the post-Soviet space: in the Baltic States, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, and Ukraine - everywhere. It’s not just that “against the Russians”, it’s such a political technology. We are very good, and they are very bad. And yes, there, it seems, Stalin at the end of the war argued that the Hitlers came and went, but the German people remained, and so, German politicians never reasoned like that: neither during the war, nor before it, nor after.
Americans use this technology quite openly. And, the most interesting (!) In the world is does not cause rejection. And Europe imposed sanctions not against "exceptional" Americans, but against "international" Russians ... If your ideology (internationalism) is so wonderful, then why doesn't it work? Because she cannot work. You can’t change human nature, and this “Technology” will never work anywhere. We were confronted with this very painfully after the 91st: everywhere in the post-Soviet space nationalism triumphed. And even in the "fraternal" Belarus.
I remember that we announced that all people are brothers, but for some strange reason it was Hitler, with his "hateful ideology" who declared the Germans the highest race, brought to Russia a whole bunch of armies and volunteer units from Europe, and we fought alone for Eastern Front. And even the Anders army fled to Iran in the 42nd. A paradox, isn't it? Countries from Finland to Spain and from Bulgaria to Norway supported the Nazis (Germans “are better than others”), but not the Communists (“all people are brothers”). Paradox. The Anglo-Saxons there solved their tasks, if that.
It turned out ridiculously: Nazi Berlin in the last days of the war was defended by the Dutch and Norwegians different there, the Balts and the French, the Hungarians and the Spaniards! If anything, then the French SS men were the last to leave the Fuhrer’s bunker (when all the Germans had already surrendered!). And Marshal Baghramyan refused to accept replenishment if there were less than 70% of Russians. There you have it, grandmother, and friendship between nations, here you have internationalism. In theory, it was Moscow in the 41st that the international from all countries of the world should defend ... but somehow it did not grow together. "Warriors-internationalists" really came, but from Siberia. That is, Moscow in the 41st was saved by the Russians, but Berlin in the spring of the 45th was defended by the real international (no kidding). The grimaces of history.
Well, the latest technology: the material well-being of citizens. What did you think? Well, how can you, without her, my dear ... For some reason, the United States is immediately remembered with its working class equipped with the psychology of the middle class ... But the whole point is a very high (by world standards) wage level in the United States. Therefore, they do not “buzz”. The American working class made very good money already at the beginning of the twentieth century. I remember the "Automotive King" by Upton Sinclair. There, even before the WWI, the main character, working on the assembly of cars at Ford, has a house and a car. This is not a joke or a mockery. A hundred years ago. A simple worker on the assembly. Home and car. Because the Trotskyist-Leninists there was nothing to catch from the beginning.
If anything, then Upton Sinclair (journalist of socialist views) set himself the task of showing the filthy mug of the sleek Henry Ford, exposing him ... Re-exposed! It remains to be understood when at last the AvtoVAZ worker from the assembly line will be able to afford a house, a car and a wife with five children. And all for one salary. You say: fiction, but Sinclair quite convincingly argued that Henry Ford is an exploiter and a bloodsucker. And the book begins with the fact that the father of the protagonist, also a worker (!), Is forced to “dig in” at the car-building plant to exhaustion in order to support a large family (wives do not work for either father or son). They pay well (according to the writer-socialist), but the work is very hard (in the yard - the end of the XIX century).
That is, in fact, we have a working dynasty (!) merciless exploitation by big capital (V. I. Lenin in 1915, considering Sinclair’s anti-militarist pamphlet “Socialism and War”, described his author’s political position: “Sinclair is a socialist of feelings, without a theoretical education ...”). Here I am sitting now and trying to understand which of us is the most beautiful ... The fact that we are the smartest is understandable without unnecessary words.
Henry Ford literally killed American socialism, starting to pay "indecent" high salaries. But he just wanted a worker from a Ford plant to be able to buy a Ford car. But this extremely hasty, thoughtless step of his had very serious political consequences. Oddly enough, but politically, Henry Ford did no less than Vladimir Ulyanov. The funny thing is that one and the other at the same time thought primarily about the working class. But one of them decided to turn it into an “avant-garde,” and the other to transform it into a middle class.
Two very different decisions that largely determined the history of the XNUMXth century.
That is, in general, the technology is very, very interesting, in demand and depoliticized, and very many have actively used it in the presence of material capabilities. That's just the devil is in the details, in this case - in the presence of those same opportunities. Its implementation requires very large resources.
And as a rule, even in the most prosperous Western countries, far from all were “fed”, namely the “middle class”. Precisely because it is expensive. But not all were in the middle class. Suddenly, huh? That is, the USSR is great just this - he tried to work with the whole population. And consider all people. No one else conducted such experiments outside the Soviet bloc. And even in Switzerland. You see, this is a very big difference, trying to equip even 50 percent of the population and trying to feed all. All teach, treat and provide work.
A few different things. And if memory serves me right, this middle class was fed right in the era of the presence of the USSR on the planet. As if in contrast. With the collapse of the USSR, this expensive experiment was curtailed. Once again: the very vaunted middle class did not emerge in the West by itself, but in response to the presence of the USSR on the planet, and it never included, for example, two-thirds of the population. Somewhere around 40 percent. In a prosperous USA. Because it's expensive. Here exactly and specifically on them and that same well-being spread. This very “middle class” more and more resembles an artificial social construction.
Therefore, when it was in Russia that active discussions began about creating a middle class, the author felt a little funny. Domestic epigones of this very “idea” literally did not enter the topic and were clearly at odds with the economy. Russia is a poor country, and such a “sudden” creation of a whole prosperous middle class, among other things, meant that a significant part of the population would have to live in outright poverty. There are no miracles, and six hats cannot be sewn from one lamb skin, no matter how hard you try.
That is, in the West, the middle class arose long enough, and its creation (not in all countries, by the way, it happened) was worth just monstrous money. Well, he supported the current government in conditions of ideological confrontation. Once again: our citizens argue a little incorrectly, they (spoiled by the USSR) proceed from a set of basic needs and believe that this should somehow be covered by a salary, and so, this was not so even for prosperous Western countries in the best of times. For a very large part of the population. The economy did not allow.
But in Russia, not a middle class arose, but a kind of “layer”. Not too significant (especially if you do not take Moscow, St. Petersburg and million-plus cities), but very loud. Which last 30 years taught everyone that you can earn, the main thing is to want, and that only fools and idlers live poorly. And then 2019 came and it suddenly became clear that even for such a small layer of the population in Russia there is no money.
Damn it, what did you mean by promoting this technology? To distribute to pensioners 500 rubles in addition to their pension? At the movies and ice cream for good behavior? I understand that this "technology" is just very attractive for its "non-political" in comparison with the other three, but it is incredibly expensive. That's something like this, by the method of exclusion, we have chosen it and are actively “using it”.
And, the funny thing is, they began to actively use it just in the hungry 90s, which, along with other factors, led Russian society of the late 90s to the brink of civil war. That is, when a person has nothing to eat, and it’s also popularly explained to him on TV that he himself is to blame, because “a loser and a scoop”, and precisely because of people like him, our economy cannot rise from the mud. His thinking is wrong, and so long as he does not change his thinking, nothing will change in real life ... Even with some suspicious goals, a certain percentage of such “Soviet losers” was calculated.
That is, we resolutely refused “social justice” in the late 80s, the “national” topic is generally prohibited, “free elections” were decided to “cut” to zero. You see, these are technologies, you can not use them, but you cannot replace them (import substitution). The masses cannot be convinced that social injustice, disregard for national interests and the absence of free elections are good.
There remains “material well-being” (approved technology) ... for which there is simply no money. If you think that this model is incorrect, try to drive through one or another country through it.
For example, the US has traditionally used three technologies: everything except “social justice” (in the 20th century). That is, freedom, and material well-being, and national exclusivity. Kaiser Germany - there, in principle, there was a normal parliament (already at the end of the XNUMXth century), but the three most likely included social justice rather than freedom (Bismarck was the first to actively introduce social legislation). National exceptionalism, of course, went through the roof (we Germans are not afraid of anyone except God, we wrote German first-graders in our notebooks).
After Hitler (60s - 70s), Germany actively used everything, and even, oddly enough, a national theme: the Turks were imported for dirty work unworthy of a true German. Salary is one of the highest in the world. The welfare state - in all fields! Elections? Yes, how much will fit! But in Sweden there was real socialism already. For the Swedes, I see. And in those years it was already even too good there (oh horror - all four technologies at once!). All Asian tigers and Japan used mainly the factor of economic growth plus ardent nationalism (with the exception of Singapore). There seemed to be democracy in Japan, but in South Korea it was not even close, and there were massive student demonstrations.
Nationalism is somehow used by all governments because it is the cheapest and most understandable. And Lukashenko is not an exception, but the rule. Well, and for an example still: Russia of the beginning of the twentieth century. Social justice is only in bold fantasies (80 percent of the population are peasants - “half-staff”, as they were called). Economic well-being? Well, yes, percent for the 15-20 population (in the very best case). Free picks? Of course. Well, even nationalism did not particularly smell. It smelled of anti-Semitism, and these are two different things.
And then the regime “suddenly” collapsed.
The USSR held on to "social justice" and yet a good standard of living. Today this level uniquely lower than in the 80s. And no chance to radically change the situation in the coming years is not expected. But the technology of “prosperity” is “used”, “used” and, apparently, will be “used” because it is “apolitical”. That is what she likes. But, sorry, we are not here Benelux 80s and not even modern Switzerland.
Somehow (apparently due to lack of money) we use the standard of living not physically, but, so to speak, in a propaganda spirit: they tell us in detail how good it is to earn a lot. Funny, really funny. But so it does not work.