Military Review

Four technologies of public peace

50

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.

Social justice


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.

Freedom level


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.

National exclusivity


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.

Material well-being


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.

Results


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.
Author:
Photos used:
e-school.pbn
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. Olezhek
      11 May 2020 16: 47 New
      +9
      National exclusivity is also available - the vast majority are everywhere Russian. According to statistics


      The vast majority of the population of Rome were slaves.
      According to statistics.
      1. Civil
        Civil 11 May 2020 17: 17 New
        0
        Quote: Olezhek
        National exclusivity is also available - the vast majority are everywhere Russian. According to statistics


        The vast majority of the population of Rome were slaves.
        According to statistics.

        That's it, everyone is sitting exactly on the fifth point)
      2. knn54
        knn54 11 May 2020 18: 20 New
        +5
        Slaves even "plowed", but the emigrants want good, but not work very much. Plus "tolerance"
        I. judging by history, to preserve "public peace" you have to apply
        to conflicts / wars.
        And the middle class is a relative concept, for there are several criteria for its definition.
        Well, in the Russian Federation, the middle class is not defined, but "appointed" at the top.
      3. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 12 May 2020 00: 16 New
        +1
        Quote: Civil
        National exclusivity also available - the vast majority are Russians everywhere. According to statistics,

        Quote: Olezhek
        The vast majority of the population of Rome were slaves.
        According to statistics.
        So Olezhek brought a new nationality, - slaves (!).... Observing such ...
      4. Altona
        Altona 12 May 2020 21: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Olezhek
        The vast majority of the population of Rome were slaves.
        According to statistics.

        -------------------
        Well, the middle class of the West described by you "paid extra" from the exploitation of the Third World and the printing of money into the "national debt". Because it is expensive to maintain, as you yourself wrote. And by projecting your problems with a worldwide printing press, you can "shift" funding to completely different persons from other countries who use "your" currency as the world one.
    2. depressant
      depressant 11 May 2020 18: 08 New
      +8
      Hmmm ...
      I thought that the highly paid workers of Ford are the so-called "labor aristocracy", as if creating the illusion of equal opportunities for all hard workers: study, develop, improve professional skills and become just as successful. The social tension was perfectly removed: if you cannot earn so much, start with yourself, otherwise your troubles are your fault. Since then, it has become the custom. How are you? Okay! Otherwise, they will think that you are social ballast.
      And the middle class, I thought, was the owners of small and medium-sized enterprises, and still create a significant% of the US gross domestic product.
      However, it turns out. All wrong. It turns out that workers are the middle class. As they say, live a century, learn a century.
      And then ... Then came the overproduction of things made by highly professional workers. Things, each of which has been designed to last for a century. I bought it once and you can not be steamed until the end of your life, because the thing is reliable and will serve your descendants. And here you are - the Great Depression as a consequence of overproduction. There are things, but no one is buying. It was necessary to introduce the concept of "shelf life", to hire inexpensive workers for production of products, Roosevelt - to adopt the "New Deal" to create millions of government jobs for the hungry with a budget deficit of 60%. That was an unheard-of phenomenon in those days. But by the beginning of the Second World War they got out. And then the war strengthened the United States as the leading economy.
      Only now workers in the USA are no longer in a hurry to have 5 children, and their wives are working, what a middle class!
      On the other hand, this American thing has taken root in our country - "start with yourself!" With a huge National Welfare Fund and a complete lack of public jobs.
  2. Pavel57
    Pavel57 11 May 2020 15: 42 New
    +1
    The middle class is the proletariat of the 21st century.
    1. Olezhek
      11 May 2020 16: 51 New
      +6
      The middle class is the proletariat of the 21st century.


      The middle class is by definition not a proletariat.
      in the 21st century its less and less ...
      "Outsourcers" are never middle class.
      1. Thunderbringer
        Thunderbringer 11 May 2020 19: 36 New
        +4
        It's right. The real proletariat should not have anything of its own. Only public.
        Otherwise, he becomes something to lose. So you look and independent thoughts arise. Say, I myself decide how I live.
  3. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 11 May 2020 15: 50 New
    -4
    that's right ...
    But the rain is falling on everyone and the sun is shining on everyone ... (but the Russian economic bloc may introduce a tax on the gifts of God) ...
    in the end, we will all be equal ... after death ... only the future fate will be different ...
    As for the collapse of the USSR, it is logical ....
    The EU will face the same fate ... for these are God-resisting entities ...
  4. IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 11 May 2020 16: 16 New
    0
    Ndaaaa. He piled all sorts of nonsense in an article by a certain Egorov. And he doesn’t have internationalism and social justice is not the same, and Henry Ford did well because he not only squeezed out surplus value but also did something like that (though it’s not clear what kind of joy this worker is). This is where the rejection of Marxism leads. The attempt to leave on a pseudoscientific approach was again naturally covered with a copper basin.
    1. Olezhek
      11 May 2020 16: 49 New
      +3
      not the same and Henry Ford well done because he not only squeezed out the surplus value but also did something like something (though what a joy it is not clear to that worker)


      I recommend that you study his stormy activities - you will be very surprised ...
      Man in many ways "made" America in the 20th century.
      Before him, paying the hard workers a lot had somehow never occurred to anyone.
      What for?
      Interesting personality and ambiguous.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 11 May 2020 17: 20 New
        +5
        Quote: Olezhek
        Interesting personality and ambiguous

        I am aware that Ford was an outstanding person. But all this rhetoric around him strongly reminds me of the conversations of our supporters of the right capitalism. Say, in the 19th century, capitalism worked, let's do it in the 19th century and it will work again. We will refuse all social guarantees and remove the state from the economy. At the same time, carefully forgetting what the capitalism of the 19th century led the whole world to the end. And besides, forgetting that the economy is now slightly more developed than in the 19th century and the level of education is also much higher. And so what you can do with modern weapons is even scary to think.
        1. Thunderbringer
          Thunderbringer 11 May 2020 19: 38 New
          -6
          And what did he lead to? They fly into space, science is developing. The quality of life compared with the former socialist countries is still higher. They’ve gathered on the moon, and they’ll fly.
          But what socialism led to can be observed in North Korea and Cuba.
          1. IS-80_RVGK2
            IS-80_RVGK2 11 May 2020 20: 13 New
            +5
            Millions of people killed in world and local wars, millions of people who died from epidemics. Revolutionary performances around the world. The collapse of empires. No, well, in principle, the revolution will suit me. But will it suit you adepts of the right capitalism? Or do you think that hundreds of millions thrown into the cold will patiently wait for death from hunger and cold?
            Quote: Thunderbringer
            The quality of life compared with the former socialist countries is still higher.

            So far, higher. By the way, tell about a good life to 20 million unemployed in the USA.
            Quote: Thunderbringer
            They’ve gathered on the moon, and they’ll fly.

            Well? A great achievement has not passed and 100 years will fly to the moon again. What a progress! Just fantastic. At the same time, people all over the world have not gotten rid of the problem of poverty, all the same people are dying of hunger and completely treatable diseases, with an increase in labor productivity, the difference in welfare does not decrease, they try to increase the working day instead of decreasing. Robotization and automation are proceeding at a very deadly pace. And how well the capitalists coped with the pandemic is generally a separate song.
        2. lucul
          lucul 11 May 2020 20: 38 New
          +5
          I am aware that Ford was an outstanding person. But all this rhetoric around him strongly reminds me of the conversations of our supporters of the right capitalism.

          All the extraordinary Ford - is directly proportional to his hatred of usurers. He introduced high salaries to spite usurers. Ford's activity is the only way out of capitalism out of the crisis, there are simply no other options ....
          He was the first to realize that in order for production to work, it was necessary that the manufactured goods were bought, and that goods were bought, the population needed money - for this he paid high salaries, which is why he bought his car.
          And do not rob the people, sucking out all the money, as the usurers did. As a result, as soon as banks suck out all the money from the pockets of the population with a loan interest, production in the country rises because the population stupidly does not have money to buy goods, and the economy shrinks. And hello to the new crisis - the classic round of the crisis of capitalism, which is already a century old. Previously, the crisis was extinguished by world wars, but now they are extinguished by the coronavirus ...
          And then again a new round of the spiral of the crisis of capitalism. It seems common truths - but how tight it comes to some .....
          1. samarin1969
            samarin1969 11 May 2020 22: 17 New
            -1
            Henry Ford is undoubtedly an outstanding person.
            But this
            And do not rob people, sucking out all the money, as the money-lenders did

            probably an exaggeration. wink
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 12 May 2020 00: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: Olezhek
        Before him, paying the hard workers a lot had somehow never occurred to anyone. What for?
        This is not before him ... And more precisely, it will be reminded to you that it was not only he who began to raise salaries to hard workers, it was at the beginning of the century. And not from the kindness of the soul, from the word does. This the trend just began to have a mass character in the West, after the revolution in tsarist Russia. And in first of all, it was the workers who became the "active proletariat", and only then slaughtered peasants (as in cities in industries and workshops had a denser /concentrated/ daily communication). Therefore, large entrepreneurs (such as Ford), darted this among the first !! So don’t invent anything, it’s not worth it.
        1. Olezhek
          12 May 2020 14: 09 New
          -1
          And more precisely, it will be reminded to you that it was not only he who began to raise salaries to the hard workers, it was at the beginning of the century. And not from the kindness of the soul, from the word at all. This trend just began to have a mass character in the West, after the revolution in tsarist Russia


          Specifically, Henry Ford saw tsarist Russia in a coffin
          White slippers
          He muddied all this long before the execution of the Russian autocrat
          At that time, his ideology did not intersect with the problems of Russia specifically.

          Now THEN many have followed in its wake after the revolutionary events in Russia and Europe ...
          But that was BECAUSE ...

          Nikki’s shadow didn’t show up at night to Henry Ford
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 12 May 2020 15: 22 New
            -1
            To the theses in the spirit of:
            Quote: Olezhek
            It was Henry Ford who saw tsarist Russia in a coffin. White slippers
            or
            Quote: Olezhek
            At that time, his ideology did not intersect with the problems of Russia specifically.
            On belay fellow or
            Quote: Olezhek
            Now THEN many followed in its wake after the revolutionary events in Russia and Europe ... But this was THEN ...
            belay as much as I would not like to upset you, but the correct answer in essence will be phrase / quote from the book of Bram Stoker - "The Tribulation of Satan" .... - "Let the madman sleep in his madness ..." yes , since it is she who is right (in this case) both in form and content !!
            This is because in this case - she is sincere, and not because I would like to offend you. repeat If this happens, then immediately accept my apologies, but I hope that you will understand correctly. hi
  5. Leo_59
    Leo_59 11 May 2020 16: 59 New
    +1
    Read, read, read .... And not a word about China ...
    The author, apparently, is hardly visible from here :)
    1. Mastrer
      Mastrer 11 May 2020 18: 18 New
      +1
      And what is wrong with China, it completely falls under 3 of 4 laughing
      1. Leo_59
        Leo_59 11 May 2020 18: 25 New
        +3
        With China, everything is so far good :) Only the author for some reason did not notice him. "Small and insignificant" state;)) Hehe.
    2. populist
      populist 12 May 2020 08: 25 New
      0
      China does not fit into this scheme.
      1 Social justice is not there.
      2 There is absolutely no freedom.
      3 Nationalism is always in the first place for the Chinese.
      4 Material well-being is the only coincidence.
      The result is 25% matches. Either China is special or the scheme is wrong.
      1. Leo_59
        Leo_59 12 May 2020 10: 35 New
        +1
        Narodnik, your answer is not quite at the address, it would be better to answer Mastrer.
        In the text of the author somewhere flashed: "you cannot change human nature"
        With that I 'almost' agree.
        Schemes will work if they come from a single person. nature (the class approach can already be left alone ...) and taking into account personal identities.
        I am thinking about the philosophical and technocratic "scheme" at the moment :)))
    3. Olezhek
      12 May 2020 14: 10 New
      -1
      Read, read, read .... And not a word about China


      And it will be your homework personally.
      For nefig! On someone else’s hump to paradise ...
      1. Leo_59
        Leo_59 12 May 2020 14: 17 New
        0
        You have already formed a hump;)
        Sorry...
  6. Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 11 May 2020 17: 08 New
    +1
    I know for sure that you can only rely on yourself and not wait for someone to help you, I am not a religious person, but I read the Bible and it says "All things in labor"
  7. Antokha
    Antokha 11 May 2020 17: 25 New
    +3
    Test analysis, an interesting approach. There is a desire to understand the topic, not at the level of clichés and dogmas, but on the merits. It would be nice to now have an article on how to taxi - what can be done from today.
  8. Dzungar
    Dzungar 11 May 2020 17: 49 New
    0
    over the entire period of the 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.
    Eeee, it was some kind of joke ....? This is exactly about the US ....?
  9. Dzungar
    Dzungar 11 May 2020 17: 58 New
    -1
    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.
    Monarchists claim that in tsarist Russia a skilled worker also made good money. But the revolution took place all the same ... So maybe it’s not a matter of earning a worker, but a concentrated desire of a strong state. To solve the situation in another state ...?
    1. depressant
      depressant 11 May 2020 19: 33 New
      0
      Yes, that was the case in tsarist Russia. For example, at the enterprises of Nobel. Brick houses for workers, kindergartens, dispensaries, excellent dining rooms, good salaries. Yes, only the ruling class was not in the spirit of the times, not rebuilt. The king was the main landowner, but not the capitalist.
  10. samarin1969
    samarin1969 11 May 2020 17: 59 New
    +5
    I read it with pleasure. For VO, a fairly balanced analysis, without ideological exaggeration. All four pillars of stability are of course relative. There has never been social justice, it is not now and cannot be by nature of man. About national exclusivity - a wonderful sketch!
    But, on the whole, "Yegorov's Four Whales" is a quite good political program.

    ps Nowadays it is rarely possible to meet people who reasonably offer something or simply adequately evaluate reality.
    1. depressant
      depressant 11 May 2020 19: 39 New
      +1
      Yes, colleague, the article is really well written, I read it with pleasure. Egorov should continue. Like, who is to blame and what to do wassat
    2. AUL
      AUL 11 May 2020 20: 54 New
      +4
      In some places it was possible to argue with the author, but in general - a competent and interesting article!
    3. Dzungar
      Dzungar 12 May 2020 17: 33 New
      0
      Especially "wonderful" in this little piece about American democracy as an example of normal democracy .....
  11. Mihail2019
    Mihail2019 11 May 2020 20: 46 New
    +1
    Hmm, interesting article!
  12. Shadow
    Shadow 11 May 2020 21: 18 New
    +7
    Do we need the peace of this society? Do we need the welfare of the one who erected him on the grave of his neighbor? Do we need a guarantee of impunity for someone who spits at each of us with a mockery and says: "Yes, I can do this, but nobody needs you here!" Do we need leeway for robbers, murderers, prostitutes and fraudsters who are putting on a crooked mask of good behavior? Do we need this newly emerged "culture" that glorifies and promotes all the most base and disgusting to any morally full-fledged person?
    Each agreement with the global collective parasite only makes him stronger, and until a righteous loop is tightened around his neck, there will be no peace, no freedom, no happiness for us.
  13. itis
    itis 11 May 2020 21: 24 New
    +2
    the bourgeoisie is the middle class. small, medium and higher. no one, of course, spent a dime on its formation (according to the author, a lot of money). cooperated and fought with it (in the last place) the aristocracy on her and relying on. this class arose even under feudalism (socialist society - classless society) in a natural (technological) way and at this historical moment is the basis of the democratic (elective) process of governing what is happening. the "thicker" this class in society, the more guarantees of changeability (and hence competition) of those who control the system, which ensures that this class grows its "thickness" ... in post-perestroika Russia, which had an over-over of state ownership (in contrast to the historically (with an increase in influence) of development in European countries) the new bourgeoisie, necessary simply for democratic processes, was formed from the oligarchs (who privatized half of the "people's" welfare in a year!) and the bureaucratic class, which is now the "welfare" middle class in Russia but performing the opposite function of "democracy" ... damn it! after Rassiyanin's report for the new year about fatigue, the revision of the results of THAT privatization seemed inevitable ...
  14. Normal ok
    Normal ok 11 May 2020 21: 34 New
    +3
    He studied history several times, from different points of view. Starting from the history of the CPSU and the MLF and ending with the history of religion (Western Europe, the era of the Reformation). My personal conclusion: only the presence of the struggle of systems provides us (mere mortals) with some kind of social / economic bonus. As soon as one of the systems becomes monopoly, all former gingerbread cookies disappear. And this is not a moral assessment. Only real struggle gives rise to growth!
  15. for
    for 11 May 2020 21: 58 New
    +1
    And there, one party regularly replaces another, and the foreign policy remains direct, like a barrier. I do not know why.

    Because the presidents there have a ban on changes to the constitution, he is placed within the scope of his authority.
    Elysia of power shift.
  16. Hypatius
    Hypatius 11 May 2020 23: 29 New
    +2
    The best technology for public peace is Soviet power! Unlike democracy (the power of demos-owners of funds), the Soviet government endows each person with an equal share in the state (a common boiler), from which he receives income and nishtyaki. Every Soviet person can participate in the government without qualifications, parties, filters. "All power belongs to the people" from the current Constitution of 1977. De jure, every person is an equal shareholder of the state enterprise. Justice is the main feature of the Russian mentality; it will provide "public peace" here. The opportunity to participate in management, through direct and open elections (meetings), is much more effective than any OS in demonocracies or by waving a placard at a rally. It still does not hurt, the restriction on private ownership of large means of production.
  17. WayKheThuo
    WayKheThuo 12 May 2020 01: 13 New
    0
    Dear Author, please clarify what you meant by the following phrase:

    The USSR held on to "social justice" and yet a good standard of living. Today, this level is clearly lower than in the 80s.


    I just ask without demagoguery, but with numbers on hands and links.
    Thank you in advance.
    1. Normal ok
      Normal ok 12 May 2020 06: 00 New
      +3
      In general, the message of the article is clear. And, somewhere (in places) even coincides with reality. The author forgot that there is a dialectic (read "founders). Nothing stands still, everything moves and (under certain conditions) passes from one form to another. He described the ways, but the masses are driven by ideas (Ulyanov-Lenin). a favorable environment, the idea sprouts into action .. And this (the idea of ​​self-realization / actualization) in Maslow's pyramid (for example) is much higher than the need for food.Conclusion: at some stage, you can use a simplified scheme of 4 technologies, such as Pavlov's dog , but human society time after time demonstrates a departure to a more complex system, from where the legs grow in hybrid wars.
  18. Radikal
    Radikal 12 May 2020 10: 39 New
    +3
    Quote: Shadow
    Do we need the peace of this society? Do we need the welfare of the one who erected him on the grave of his neighbor? Do we need a guarantee of impunity for someone who spits at each of us with a mockery and says: "Yes, I can do this, but nobody needs you here!" Do we need leeway for robbers, murderers, prostitutes and fraudsters who are putting on a crooked mask of good behavior? Do we need this newly emerged "culture" that glorifies and promotes all the most base and disgusting to any morally full-fledged person?
    Each agreement with the global collective parasite only makes him stronger, and until a righteous loop is tightened around his neck, there will be no peace, no freedom, no happiness for us.

    good good good Respect. hi
    1. Selevc
      Selevc 15 May 2020 21: 45 New
      0
      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.

      To set the wages of workers at Ford factories 100 years ago as an example is the same as citing a Microsoft worker today as an example of a middle class !!! This is just stupid !!!
      Automobile factories 100 years ago it was the forefront of world engineering and technology. progress - of course there they paid excellent salaries to everyone !!! You better take an interest in salaries in Russo-Balt - I assure you the workers there were also not poor people at all ...

      A car 100 years ago (especially a personal one) was still a curiosity and very few had it ...
      The proletariat is what is Soviet, what is German, what is American in those days, moved more and more on horseback or a pawn ...

      And the same simple American worker during the Great Depression worked for $ 3 a day - two of which he gave to his family ... And so millions of Americans lived ...
      1. Olezhek
        16 May 2020 08: 55 New
        0
        A car 100 years ago (especially a personal one) was still a curiosity and very few had it ...
        The proletariat is what is Soviet, what is German, what is American in those days it moved more and more on horseback or a pawn


        Ask when mass motorization began in the United States and when problems began with traffic jams and parking in major cities.
        You will be shocked ...
        Take an interest when in Europe began to lay asphalt ...

        And yes, where, in fact, did the remarks "three chambers" work in the 20s in defeated Germany?
        Oddly enough, far from the stable.

        that the American in those days was moving more and more on horseback or a pawn


        At the end of the 19th century, the United States created a very good mechanical / city system of urban / suburban public transport ... somehow ...
        Then it was forcibly dismantled in favor of personal cars ...

        but this is if you dig very far.
      2. Olezhek
        16 May 2020 09: 03 New
        0
        A car 100 years ago (especially a personal one) was still a curiosity and very few had it.





        The Tin Lizzie is a car manufactured by the Ford Motor Company from 1908 to 1927.
        When the Model T appeared, most cars in the United States in the years 1908-10 cost from 1100 to 1700 dollars. The initial price for the Ford T was $ 825-850 — almost a third less than the cheapest car of other companies — with an average annual income in the US for 1910 of $ 574 [2], or about $ 48 per month. In 1916-17, 785 cars were already sold, and the price was constantly decreasing and by this time reached 350 dollars.

        The T model was also the first "worldwide" car, that is, produced in many countries of the world. In particular, Ford subsidiaries were located in Germany, Great Britain, France, and Australia.

        In total, just over 15 million Ford T models were produced.
  19. Procyon lotor
    Procyon lotor 16 May 2020 14: 12 New
    -1
    But how does IT work?
  20. nikvic46
    nikvic46 17 May 2020 21: 12 New
    0
    Only the presence of property determines belonging to a particular class. Abroad, large industrialists do not have a clue about wages. But they are not beggars. Much in society determines the relationship between citizens. We require a loyal attitude to rich people. But we do not see this relations to oneself. National relations should be fertilized from above. Otherwise, there will be no normal relations below. I don’t know how it was everywhere, but where I lived, there were never any insults on national soil.