Military Review

Is liberalism as bad as it is portrayed?

144

Recently, an article was published on the "VO" "Why won't I be a liberal"... Without entering into a discussion with its respected author, I will allow myself to express a couple of thoughts on the topic of liberalism and its perception in Russia.


Liberal is ...


To begin with, it would be nice to define what liberalism is and who a liberal is. Alas, this is almost impossible to do. The problem is that the definition of liberalism can be either too general and therefore does not explain anything, or ... erroneous. The thing is that liberalism has never been a single concept: there are many liberal theories that somewhere do not coincide, but somewhere directly contradict each other.

Take, for example, the representative of classical liberalism, read by A. Smith, I. Bentham and B. Konstan. In the field of economics and public administration, he will profess the principle of laissez-faire (non-intervention), that is, the idea of ​​a "minimal state". Its essence is that the state should not interfere in the economy and that the “invisible hand of the market” itself will arrange everything for the better. Accordingly, the supporter of classical liberalism denies the need for state social guarantees: freedom is our everything, taxes are an encroachment by the state on our rights, and the common good will develop by itself as a result of individuals achieving their personal goals. Not that classical liberalism completely denies the role of the state, it is not anarchism, after all, but sees its role as very limited, mainly within the framework of ensuring the safety of its citizens.

But the representative of the "new liberalism", based on the works of T.Kh. Green, L.T. Hobhouse, J. Dewey, J. Rawls, R. Dvorkin, and, in fact, D.M. Keynes, will argue with the "classic" to the point of blue in the face and prove the advantages of the concept of the "welfare state." In which it is the state that must assume the functions of protecting and developing the economic and social well-being of its citizens. That is, in the opinion of the “new liberal,” the same progressive income tax is not an encroachment on individual rights, but an unconditional benefit that will allow the redistribution of resources between very successful and less entrepreneurial citizens, and thus provide them with equal opportunities in the form of free medicine, education etc.

In other words, even today, liberalism is heterogeneous and its representatives do not agree with each other on a number of key issues. Personally, I am very impressed by the definition given by someone that liberalism is a set of numerous, often unrelated, or even directly contradictory ideas, from which everyone who calls himself a liberal chooses those that he likes best.

But still, a liberal is ...


So, I cannot give an acceptable definition of liberalism and liberals. But I can still describe a certain image, a portrait, to which the majority of those who call themselves liberals in the West gravitate (this is an important reservation). Of course, there will be other liberals who do not fully share the views I have described below, but "on average in a hospital" I probably won't be mistaken.

So the first principle of a liberal is individualism, which, again, is understood in different ways by different liberals. But, in any case, for the liberal, the rights and freedoms of the citizen are primary, and, in his opinion, the main task of society, the state is precisely to ensure the realization of these very individual rights and freedoms.

The next principle follows directly from the previous one - according to the liberal, everyone has the right to their own idea of ​​life and the right to realize it... And others should show tolerance for this until the thoughts and actions of a person begin to limit the freedom of other people.

And finally, the third principle of the liberal - rejection of revolutionary changes... In his opinion, any "sharp movements" in development lead to violence against the individual and from this are unacceptable, and should be developed progressively, expanding the possibilities for the realization of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Which, from the point of view of a liberal, is the main form of progress in public life.

In practice, the above principles, in the opinion of the "average" liberal, should be implemented like this:

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech - the right to express one's opinion on any occasion, the absence of reprisals for dissent.

Political freedom - democracy and the right to choose government leaders.

Equality of rights - all people are equal before the law.

Equality of opportunity - A person's achievements should depend on his work and abilities, and not be the prerogative of any isolated group (class) of society. In other words, a liberal for social elevators, the American dream and the right of any cook to learn how to learn, gain experience, and grow to the head of state.

The right to private property, including the means of production.

Commitment to a market economy... Liberals may argue about the role of the state in the economy, but they all believe that private initiative is the true engine of economic processes. Therefore, a market economy is a mandatory attribute of liberalism.

Is the author of this article a liberal?


No, not a liberal, although I quite share some liberal ideas. For example, I really like freedom of speech, equality of all citizens before the law, equality of opportunity, and democracy, by which I mean the election of power.

But with all this, in my opinion, the concept of the priority of personal rights and freedoms over public ones is just as vicious as the idea of ​​priority of public needs over personal ones. These are all non-optimal extremes, while one should look for a harmonious combination of interests of the individual and society. In other words, in some ways the interests of society should prevail over personal ones, and in others - on the contrary, personal interests should stand above public ones.

The absolutization of the rights and freedoms of the individual leads the liberal into the jungle of tolerance, from which there is no way out for him and will never be. As a simple example, consider ... yes, even a drug addict with many years of experience, who is completely safe for others, but has long brought himself to a state of complete unfitness for socially useful work.

From the point of view of a liberal, this addict does nothing wrong. He simply lives as he sees fit, realizes his natural rights. But he cannot provide for himself, which means, in liberal logic, society must help him survive, otherwise it will be a violation of the principle of priority of the interests of the individual over the public ... And here we get an insoluble contradiction. After all, it is possible to help this addict only at the expense of other people, taking away their honestly earned money (by levying taxes) and transferring it to the “needy”. The question is: why should a person who benefits himself and society by his labor have to contain a parasite? This is an infringement of the rights of the worker in its pure form.

Personally, I completely agree and am ready to demand that the taxes that I pay finance the maintenance of street children, old people, disabled people and other people who, due to objective reasons, cannot take care of themselves. I also agree that unemployment benefits should be paid from my taxes - not for life, of course, but for the period while a person who has lost his job is looking for a new one. Today I am helping, and tomorrow, perhaps, I myself will please in the same situation, and then others will help me. Also, I do not mind at all that my money finances hospitals for drug addicts, that is, for people who understand what they have gotten themselves into and are trying to return, to become full-fledged members of society again.

But why should I finance a parasite who does not want to work and will not? Should I respect his rights? Does he respect my rights? Does he respect the rights of my children, whom I will have to support worse than I could, because I have to give a part of the money I honestly earned to a parasite?

From my point of view, if a person does not want to be a part of society, this is his choice, which I am ready to respect, but which, however, relieves society of responsibilities towards this person.

In addition, in my opinion, liberal ideology leads to deformation of the personality at the stage of its upbringing. The younger generation is told a lot about their rights. But the fact that any member of society, in addition to rights, also has responsibilities, is not emphasized, which is why we end up with a society of consumers who are ready to take, but not ready to give something in return. As for me, human rights and responsibilities are inseparable from each other, and without realizing this simple fact, it is impossible to raise a healthy young generation that will come to replace us.


Or here, for example, freedom of speech. The liberal denies the need for state ideology, considering it to be violence against the individual. But in the 90s of the last century, we were already convinced from our own experience that a holy place is never empty: if the state abandons ideology, it will be replaced by a bunch of others, moreover, destructive for society. And it will not bring any benefit to society. Therefore, personally, I am for the state ideology, it should be. Another issue is that the presence of ideology should not suppress freedom of speech: a person has the right to civil initiatives, has the right to criticize certain decisions of the authorities and should not be repressed for this. Of course, except for cases when such calls pose a danger to society. It is clear that the dissemination of materials by terrorist organizations cannot have anything to do with freedom of speech and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Western liberals talk about individualism as the basis of all foundations ... And then everywhere they spend good money on the introduction of the so-called corporate culture, thereby recognizing that a person will work better, feeling part of a larger whole, a part of a team united by the common goals of the company and working for the common good. Don't believe me? Well, read the missions of European corporations. Facebook: "Empower people to communicate and make the world more open and united." Disneyland: "We are working to ensure that adults and children spend more time together." IKEA: "To make the everyday life of ordinary people for the better."

All this is my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone. But due to the above and a number of other reasons, I do not consider liberalism to be a suitable philosophy either for me personally or for my country.

Why do we dislike foreign liberalism


The answer is very simple: for duplicity and inability to follow your own principles. The fact is that at the end of the last - the beginning of this century, the Russian people received a very strong (but instructive) mental crack.

For a long time we lived in the conditions of the Cold War with the West, on different sides of the Iron Curtain. And we are pretty tired of it. When the "perestroika" and "glasnost" began, the citizens of the USSR for the most part believed that if we abandon the communist ideology, show adherence to Western (read: liberal) values, then the long-term confrontation between East and West would come to an end, “there would be peace on earth and goodwill in men ”and we will begin to live in love and harmony - now and forever and forever and ever.


Unfortunately, none of this happened. We destroyed the USSR and extended the hand of friendship to the West - and what did we get in return? Alas, the leadership of the United States and Europe was not smart enough to accept the proposal. Instead, they, taking advantage of our period of weakness, rushed to resolve their current geopolitical and economic issues at our expense. The liberal community, represented by its “best representatives” like Soros and the IMF, “taught” us to transfer the economy from the socialist to the capitalist method in the most unsuitable way possible. The struggle for human rights was embodied in support of terrorists in Chechnya, freedom of speech - in grants to "historians" and "writers" who poured slop over our Motherland. Political freedoms turned into NATO's expansion to the East and support for the anti-Russian regimes in our near abroad: later on, this turned into Orange Revolutions inspired by our Western “friends” near our borders.

In other words, they made it very clear to us that there is no place for us in the family of "enlightened European peoples" and they are ready to endure us only as long as we are weak, obediently follow European policy in the wake, and in the economic sense we are a cross between a gas station and the market sales of European products. A strong, rich, scientifically and technically developed and independent Russian Federation was completely unnecessary for the West.

Well, geopolitics is ruthless, the weak here is doomed. In all honesty, I can't even blame the West for such behavior. If the shepherd stopped looking after the flock and the flock was devoured by the wolves, then the shepherd is guilty of this, because the wolves just followed their nature. In the era of the "wild 90s" we stopped looking after our interests and got a natural result. But such actions of the United States and Europe, from the point of view of their momentary interests, are quite rational, came into the most severe contradiction with the liberal values ​​declared by them, and it was impossible not to notice this. It turns out that equal rights and so on. deserves to have only the "golden billion", we are not. Therefore, it is not surprising that many began to regard liberalism in our country as demagogy, the task of which is to hide the true and far from liberal intentions of the West towards our country.

It was about duplicity, and now a few words about the violation of the principles of liberalism in the West itself. Tolerance is to blame. Hypertrophied respect for individual rights and the desire to correct the cases when these rights were nevertheless violated, led to an extremely strange, but quite natural result for liberalism: the population of Western countries ceased to be equal in the face of the law. The fear of violating the rights of certain social groups of the population that had previously been subjected to oppression led to the fact that the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. And today a homosexual, a Negro, a refugee received, though not de jure, but de facto, much more rights than an ordinary white hard worker honestly working for the benefit of his classic (woman-wife and children) family. Which, of course, again runs counter to the ideology of liberalism, but only following liberal principles led to such a sad result. We see it. Do we need it?

I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, blacks and refugees, but I do not see any reason why sexual orientation, skin color or civil status would give any preferences in court.

Why do we despise the liberalism of the domestic spill


In order to understand this, one should consider such a phenomenon of world culture, which, without a doubt, is the Russian intelligentsia.

Without a doubt, "intellectual" is a loose concept. Personally, I would call an intelligent person, intelligent, well-read, accustomed to independence in thought and judgment, possessing a literary language and impeccable manners. In this understanding of the intellectual, there will be nothing shameful or offensive, but now we will talk about completely different people. About those about whom once, long ago, throwing away a stack of liberal newspapers, Tsar Alexander III said: "Rotten intelligentsia!" I will not repeat this extremely accurate, but still not quite literary name. I will confine myself only to the fact that, speaking about this stratum of our society, I will take the word "intelligentsia" in quotation marks.

So, the Russian "intelligentsia" is ... a truly unique phenomenon. For the most part, an individual who reckons himself with it considers himself to be a titan of mental labor, even if he does not invent anything worthy at all. The overwhelming majority of such "intellectuals" believe that those around them do not appreciate them as they deserve, and that in fact they deserve much more than they have. But the “intellectual” will never associate his inability to provide himself with material benefits or the respect of those around him with his lack of talent or diligence. Never! “This country” and the people around the “intellectual” are to blame for everything, too “insignificant and base” to understand the “greatness” of his “fine” mental organization - well, and pay him for it, of course ...

From here hatred for their Motherland and for everything Russian is born. It would seem, well, since you are an unrecognized genius here, so who is keeping you, go abroad and realize yourself there. But the "intellectual", of course, does nothing of the kind, for he is weak and subconsciously realizes his weakness. Blaming Russia and the Russian people for everything is precisely what he needs in order to absolve himself of responsibility for his own failures, real or imaginary. And if he leaves, then there will be no one to blame, and therefore the Russian "intellectual" will never leave the borders of the Fatherland. But he will never stop blaspheming him.

Hatred of everything Russian, mixed with one's own weakness, results in a blind admiration for any foreignism. The Russian "intellectual" is disgusting already because, imagining himself to be a "titan of thought and spirit," he professes a slavish, groveling psychology: despising those around him, he is ready to lick the soles of those whom he considers superior. He will look for a speck in the eyes of his fellow citizens, and if he does not find it, he will come up with it, blowing it up to the size of a pine forest. But he will never notice the "beam" in the eye of a foreigner - here the critical thinking of the "intellectual" refuses completely.

Again, with all of the above, I do not want to offend many people who consider themselves Westerners. Such people, seeing any advantages or dignity of Western culture, which are not in Russia, do not look for a reason for self-deprecation in this, but show a commendable desire to implement this in our country so that we can live no worse. And this is correct, because, of course, Russia should learn from other countries in something: just one should never forget that these countries also have something to learn from Russia. In other words, if someone lives better than us, you do not need to fall into hysteria about this and earn an inferiority complex: you should understand how to improve your being and do it. Please pay attention: I am talking about "improving life", and not about "blind copying Western practices" - these are completely different things.

The "intelligentsia", however, stands on something completely different:

“Our intelligentsia is struggling to show itself as less Russian as possible, believing that this is what Europeanism is all about. But the European intelligentsia does not think so. The European powers, on the contrary, only care about their own interests and do not think a lot about Europe. "

Very accurate description, don't you think? But here is what is interesting: it was given in 1878 by the famous publicist and publisher M.N. Katkov. And here is what the Russian poet F. Tyutchev wrote even earlier, in 1867:

“It would be possible to give an analysis of a modern phenomenon that is acquiring an increasingly pathological character. This is the Russophobia of some Russian people - by the way, very revered. Earlier (we are talking about the times of the reign of Nicholas I. - Approx. ed.) they told us ... that in Russia they hate lawlessness, lack of freedom of the press, etc. etc., because it is they who love Europe dearly, that it undoubtedly possesses what is not in Russia ... And what do we see now? As Russia, seeking greater freedom, more and more asserts itself, the dislike of these gentlemen only grows. "

But here the dear reader may ask the question: what is the author all about the "intelligentsia" if the article is about liberalism? Everything is simple: it is our "intelligentsia", beating with its sluggish fist on its frail chest, proclaims its adherence to liberalism and liberal values ​​in front of everyone!

We see that the principles of our "intelligentsia" already have a rich tradition - they are much more than a hundred years old. Three main distinctive features of the Russian "intellectual": hatred of the Russian, admiration for the West and declaration of their adherence to liberal values, have already been passed down from generation to generation - both under the tsar and under the Union, and even now, of course. For a long time, our "intelligentsia", for a number of reasons, could never take the lead in state power, but in the "wild 90s" they were allowed to show themselves, as they say, in all their glory.

But what did it turn into? "Intellectuals" who call themselves economists taught and are still teaching us about the advantages of the "invisible hand of the market", although the countries in which their textbooks were printed have long since changed their economic imperatives, and we have experienced the destructiveness of the wild market for ourselves.

"Intellectuals" who call themselves historians, rushed to prove to us that the Russian people are weak, stupid, good for nothing, but at the same time cruel and aggressive towards themselves and those around them. Well, at least they would advise something sensible, such that would allow us to overcome these negative qualities, allegedly inherent in the Russian people. Where there! All that the imagination of our "intelligentsia" was enough for: "repent, repent and repent again!"

The "intellectuals" who call themselves creative people and complained that under the Soviet Union they were prevented from doing by censorship, showed complete creative impotence, quickly slipping into low-grade crap. The "intelligentsia" promised to show us a lot in the cinema, theater, and literature, but in fact it turned out that there was nothing to show her except her own naked backside. "House 2" and the endless savoring of the chaotic connections of "stars", which with their "creativity" will not gather half of the audience - this is their ceiling. Instead of introducing us to the reasonable, kind, eternal through fascinating and large-scale film performances, pop shows, books that cannot be pulled away from, etc., the creative "intelligentsia" rushed to lower us to their level.

And these people consider themselves liberals ... But what kind of liberals are they? Take the same A. B. Chubais and his comrades, who, instead of a smooth and gradual transition to a market economy, gave the country an economic shock therapy. Their actions are a direct violation of the fundamental liberal principle of the inadmissibility of revolutionary changes. And how do one more key liberal principle, the priority of the interests of the individual over the public, correlate with the famous phrase of Chubais (which, however, he categorically refused): “Why are you worried about these people? Well, thirty million will die out. They didn't fit into the market. Don't think about it - new ones will grow. " It is possible, of course, that he didn’t say this phrase, it’s impossible to prove it in court today, but the whole activity of A. B. Chubais testifies to the fact that if he didn’t speak, he thought that way.

We see that people brought up in an "intellectual" environment and ideology, even being quite bright and relatively talented, do this ... Take, for example, "The Great Film about the Great War", as its creator, director N. S. Mikhalkov. In his creation, he very lucidly divided our people into "narodishko", which is dark, stupid and incapable, and comparatively few "masters" who alone can manage this very nation. And bring him to a more or less decent existence, because the "little people" themselves, of course, cannot do this, not because of their "mind". The "intellectual" crowd gave a standing ovation ...

In fact, the worldview of the Russian "intellectual" is extremely far from democracy and much closer, if not to serfdom, then to caste like the Indian one, provided, of course, that he personally will be given a higher place in this hierarchy. But what is liberalism here, may I ask?

The answer is very simple. The Russian "intelligentsia" is an extremely vile and unattractive sight, from which any mentally healthy person wants to stay away. But it has been dressing itself in liberal clothes for more than a century, and therefore many of our compatriots, not knowing what liberalism is, take for it the grips and customs (I just want to write: "grimaces and leaps") of our "intellectuals". But in fact, the feeling of disgust and contempt for liberalism in such people is caused not by liberalism as such, but by its domestic “carriers”.

Conclusion


Liberalism certainly was once fresh and progressive. In the era of feudalism, the division of people on the basis of class according to the right of birth, the indisputable dogmatism of the church, he played his positive historical role, instilling in people the concepts of freedom of speech, equality of rights, and so on. Without a doubt, many of the ideas of liberalism have not lost their relevance in our time.

But at the same time in liberalism there is a lot of error, such that at one time, perhaps, it was quite progressive, but then turned against itself. How did it happen with tolerance when people of a particular skin color, sexual orientation, etc. suddenly became "first among equals" in Western societies. And therefore, today we do not need to accept liberalism as a state ideology for the development of society: this does not suit us, we deserve the best.


At the same time, dissatisfaction with liberalism in our society is based not so much on an understanding of its really existing negative aspects, but on the rejection of those who consider themselves liberals, without having the slightest right to do so. This happened because both Western "liberal" politicians and the Russian "intelligentsia" to the extreme discredited the ideas of liberalism among our fellow citizens.
Author:
144 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 11 August 2020 05: 53 New
    -1
    Is liberalism as bad as it is portrayed?
    It is beautiful .... just let it grow away from Russia.
    1. military_cat
      military_cat 11 August 2020 06: 56 New
      +6
      But he cannot provide for himself, which means, in liberal logic, society must help him survive, otherwise it will be a violation of the principle of priority of the interests of the individual over the public ... And here we get an insoluble contradiction. After all, it is possible to help this addict only at the expense of other people, taking away their honestly earned money (by levying taxes) and transferring it to the “needy”.

      Liberalism claims that "the rights and freedoms of one end where the rights and freedoms of the other begin." Accordingly, this particular contradiction, if because of something, arises, then not because of liberalism itself, but from statist superstructures over it.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        11 August 2020 07: 18 New
        -3
        Quote: military_cat
        Liberalism claims that "the rights and freedoms of one end where the rights and freedoms of the other begin."

        This is not so - for example, the process of maintaining an orphanage with funds received from taxes is, strictly speaking, a violation of this principle. In this case, it will be interpreted as "money taken from society should be for the benefit of society." And since the parasite is recognized as part of society - (he has the right to behave like that!) - then a contradiction arises
        1. military_cat
          military_cat 11 August 2020 07: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          This is not so - for example, the process of maintaining an orphanage with funds received from taxes is, strictly speaking, a violation of this principle.
          And there is. And there is no need to interpret anything here, the maintenance of the orphanage by the state for taxes really contradicts the principles of liberalism. In this case, the liberal approach is private charity, charitable foundations.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            11 August 2020 07: 39 New
            +1
            Quote: military_cat
            And there is no need to interpret anything here, the maintenance of an orphanage for taxes really contradicts the principles of liberalism.

            New liberalism - no, they believe that they do not violate this principle of building the welfare state. Only the classic version :)))))
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 11 August 2020 07: 58 New
              0
              In my understanding, liberalism is based on relativism.
              Relativism is a method of thinking when, without a special scientifically sound substantiation by the authors of something new, it is proposed to simply voluntarily impose on the majority of the population a new view of the world - maybe even in a form INVERTED from the previously established worldview. Namely.

              Relativists are scientifically inconsistent, erroneously and demagogically believe society should provide them with all kinds of support for their relativistic ideas!
              Moreover, in addition to the all-round advancement of their ideas in the life of society, they also require special preferences in the field of increased material content and moral recognition in the form of support for themselves!

              Liberals are relativists who attach themselves to science, who, under the banner of supposedly scientific fabrications, DEMAGOGICALLY carry out all kinds of ideological, political and social reforms in the country in their personal favor to reorganize society and the world.
              1. Tatyana
                Tatyana 11 August 2020 08: 51 New
                +2
                Liberalism cannot stand aside from the social system and the people who lead it. and demagogically propagandize in society its alleged advantages in the form of profit and distribution of income in society.
                Let us compare, for example, in this case at least the concept REAL capitalism with all its shortcomings with the relativist doctrinaire idea of ​​the American Milton Friedman in the form of a kind of speculative social project, implemented in life, to build allegedly PERFECTLY JUST capitalism on Earth all over the world. By what means?
                Due to the alleged existence in the world of some anarchist absolutely "free" from each and every world market, which is supposedly absolutely "clean" of profanities and dishonesty both on the part of the market participants themselves capital, goods (services) and labor, and from pressure on them from the national state. And at the same time M. Friedman it is assumed that all market participants free from the state are initially at all times equal in their life start and can always become rich if they just want it. This is pure utopia and bluff!
                Behind this attempt to whitewash capitalism with Milton Friedman lies a very definite goal taken by Washington's apologists. Namely.
                The purpose of this American bluff is that sovereign countries that are "native" to the United States, uncontrollably and duty-free from their governments, mistakenly free and defenseless from competition, open up for US multinational companies access to their domestic markets to sell foreign goods and buy up "native" wealth by foreigners. , enterprises and natural resources.
                In this case, the reduction of native state property to the maximum - to "0" - is promoted by "market people" exclusively as a public good. For the state supposedly does not need to control anything, there is no need to punish anyone, and there is no need to regulate trade and production either. That at the same time all members of society will become such honest and law-abiding entrepreneurs that therefore it will no longer be necessary to protect the population from swindlers, thieves, robbers and murderers. And therefore, the alleged national state, as an anachronism, will disappear by itself as unnecessary, and there is no need to defend it at all. Instead, distribution of material goods "from above" will not be required, because everything will be regulated by this "ideal" capitalist market. But those who did not fit into the market are already their problems. Let, they say, they survive on their own, as they can. These include, in particular, all the so-called. "superfluous" people: pensioners, disabled people, children, etc. - all those who "did not fit into the market." But they should be “happy” from their freedom from the fattening abstract bureaucratic state that has been pressing over them for centuries, just as the anarchists have always dreamed of it for centuries.

                TOTAL This whole ideology of Milton Friedman about the alleged existence of the so-called The "free" and "clean" market is the anarchist propaganda of the American establishment to decompose the national security of sovereign states until they are completely eliminated and subordinated in favor of transnational US companies.
                Unfortunately, this ideology is unofficially adopted by the Russian ruling elite as a state ideology. It is implemented in practice by the Government of the Russian Federation, the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in the State Duma and the Federation Council. And HSE is the forge of bourgeois young cadres in this comprador economy and its apologists.
                REFERENCE
                Compradorism (Spanish comprador buyer) is a way of doing business in which profit is derived from activities that undermine its national economy and reduce its ability to grow and ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 August 2020 09: 50 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Tatiana
                  Liberalism cannot stand aside from the social system and the people who lead it. and demagogically propagandize in society

                  Nevertheless, one should distinguish liberalism as a theory and its implementation in practice. Agree, it's silly to reduce the socialist economy to butter coupons!
                  1. Tatyana
                    Tatyana 11 August 2020 09: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Agree, it's silly to reduce the socialist economy to butter coupons!

                    Well, if this happens during the war, then why not?
                    By the way, in European countries, food cards after WWII were canceled over the years much later than in the USSR.
                    And when Chkalov was on a flight across the ocean to the United States and decided to buy a gift for his wife from America, there were cards. And from the perfume, a saleswoman who could not read Russian, as the best "American" perfume available in the United States, offered him the Soviet perfume "Red Moscow", which impressed him, which he brought to his wife from the United States as a special occasion as a gift. Moreover, in the USSR, these perfumes were sold in Soviet stores completely free.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      11 August 2020 10: 02 New
                      0
                      Quote: Tatiana
                      Well, if this happens during the war, then why not?

                      I found them in the 80s. Which does not mean at all about the fundamental incapacity of the socialist economy, but only about the fact that we made a mistake in some way with the implementation ...
                      1. Tatyana
                        Tatyana 11 August 2020 10: 12 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        we made a mistake with the implementation ...
                        With the introduction of what? Explain your idea to the end, otherwise it is not entirely clear to you!
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        11 August 2020 10: 46 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Tatiana
                        With the introduction of what? Explain your idea to the end, otherwise it is not entirely clear to you!

                        With the introduction of a planned economy, of course. It was necessary to implement it, but somewhat differently from how it was done, but it cannot be explained in a few words. In short, in the 60s and 70s we too centralized the state plan and took the wrong indicators as a basis for planning. It was nevertheless necessary to gradually introduce cost accounting and a greater emphasis on planning "from below", while leaving state property and building a system of indicators in such a way that enterprises would be interested in introducing the latest achievements of science and technology at all enterprises, as well as diversifying the assortments of Group B enterprises. (consumer goods). We approached the matter dogmatically.
                    2. Tatyana
                      Tatyana 11 August 2020 10: 34 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                      Quote: Tatiana
                      Well, if this happens during the war, then why not?
                      I found them in the 80s.

                      Say thank you for this to the ideologist of "perestroika" A. Yakovlev, Gorbachev and other Soviet pro-Western liberals - Soviet liberal economists and lawyers who are deliberately destroying the country and the socialist system.

                      The real reason for the deficit in the USSR | Nevzorov 600 seconds
                      Exclusive personnel, the real reason for the shortage in the USSR. Video chronicle of Alexander Glebovich Nevzorov, filmed in 1991 in St. Petersburg.
          2. military_cat
            military_cat 11 August 2020 08: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            New liberalism - no, they believe that they do not violate this principle of building the welfare state. Only the classic version :)))))
            "They" violate this principle quite deliberately, because they believe that it is better that way. This ideology is actually called "social democracy" or "social liberalism", it tries to combine several different ideas, borrowing them in part. The contradiction with the drug addict arises there, but not from those principles that are borrowed from liberalism. When discussing, I think it is important to get rid of evaluativeness, when "liberalism" simply means "something good" (or bad), it is a set of principles that are essentially just tools.
      2. Liam
        Liam 11 August 2020 07: 37 New
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        for example, the process of maintaining an orphanage with funds received from taxes is, strictly speaking, a violation of this principle

        Samsonov's Lavras haunt you)
  2. For example
    For example 11 August 2020 07: 03 New
    -8
    Freedom of thought, freedom of speech - the right to express one's opinion on any occasion, absence ...

    Lack of knowledge. For knowledge of everything about everything is the main sign of mediocrity.

    The specialist knows everything about a little and nothing about everything else.

    It turns out a liberal is in Russian a balobol.
    A person is free from everything - free from conscience, free from education, from honor.
    A piece of shit and that is more needed in the household.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 07: 15 New
      +3
      All this interesting reasoning, alas, has nothing to do with liberalism.
      1. For example
        For example 11 August 2020 07: 37 New
        -7
        Конечно.
        Only what you wrote is relevant.
        Everything else does not matter.
        Liberal approach.

        The word is not Russian.
        Since in Russian, such a person's behavior always sounds on the verge of mate.
        Slacker, balabol, etc.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 August 2020 07: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: For example
          Everything else does not matter.

          If by "everything else" you mean your personal fantasies, not supported by knowledge, then yes.
          Quote: For example
          The word is not Russian.
          Since in Russian, such a person's behavior always sounds on the verge of mate.
          Slacker, balabol, etc.

          Generally speaking, liberalism - from the Latin liberalis - is free. If this sounds to you on the verge of mate ...
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 11 August 2020 08: 22 New
            +4
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk (Andrei)
            If by "everything else" you mean your personal fantasies, not supported by knowledge, then yes.
            You need to be more modest and maybe people will be drawn to you. Not everyone shares your views on life and still have the right to do so. So there is no need to pass off your point of view as the ultimate truth, you are not God in the end ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 August 2020 08: 33 New
              +3
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Not everyone shares your views on life and still have the right to do so.

              They can have this right as much as they want :)))
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              So there is no need to pass off your point of view as the ultimate truth, you are not God in the end ...

              And I don’t give it out. But I expect from my opponents at least minimal knowledge on the issue
              1. Varyag_0711
                Varyag_0711 11 August 2020 08: 39 New
                +6
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk (Andrei)
                And I don’t give it out. But I expect from my opponents at least minimal knowledge on the issue
                And who determines the availability of this knowledge? Again you ?!
                Do not take on yourself a lot ...
                They can have this right as much as they want :)))
                Not funny...
                1. For example
                  For example 11 August 2020 09: 14 New
                  -6
                  Quote: Varyag_0711
                  And who determines the availability of this knowledge? Again you ?!
                  Do not take on yourself a lot ...

                  You can't speak like that to a person who praises liberalism (they are probably afraid to speak in their native language laughing )
                  Only a person who believes in liberalism has the right to judge the opponent's knowledge. laughing
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 August 2020 10: 13 New
                  +5
                  Quote: Varyag_0711
                  And who determines the availability of this knowledge? Again you ?!

                  You define what problems :)) Take and give arguments, historical facts that confirm the correctness of my "opponent". Do not hesitate :))) Write at least something constructive, otherwise your "pikeynozhiletovskoe" "Who are you ?!" already pretty tired
              2. For example
                For example 11 August 2020 08: 51 New
                -8
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                If by "everything else" you mean your personal fantasies

                Nice man, but your opus is only your imagination no more.

                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Generally speaking, liberalism - from the Latin liberalis - is free.

                "Actually" about the Latin name is a no brainer.
                I wrote about "freedom" above.
                And I wrote above that the behavior of people described by you as liberal in Russian is called differently.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                fantasy unsupported by knowledge

                Darling, Andrey from Chelyabinsk, they back up with facts, but not knowledge.
                Can you realize the difference or your freedom extends here too? You are free from facts.
                However, like all liberals.

                You immediately put those who disagree with your point of view below yourself.
                fantasy unsupported by knowledge


                Are your fantasies confirmed by knowledge?
                Knowledge of previously fantasized?
                It is rather demagogy
                How do you write laughing "actually" (I say I know, but for the backward it is) demagoguery is - and Wikipedia went laughing
                a set of oratorical and polemical techniques and means to mislead the audience and win them over to their side using false theoretical reasoning based on logical errors (sophisms).
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 August 2020 09: 11 New
                  +5
                  Quote: For example
                  Darling, Andrey from Chelyabinsk, they back up with facts, but not knowledge.

                  Well what can I say?
                  Quote: For example
                  It is rather demagoguery

                  You are engaged in demagoguery. A simple example. You are quoting what I wrote
                  Quote: For example
                  Freedom of thought, freedom of speech - the right to express your opinion on any occasion

                  And turn it into
                  Quote: For example
                  Lack of knowledge. For knowledge of everything about everything is the main sign of mediocrity.

                  This is completely unequal. I wrote about the right to speak out on any occasion, from which it does not at all follow that every person should speak out on every occasion that is in the world. This is a RIGHT, not a DUTY :)))) Accordingly, under liberalism, a person has the right to speak out on any occasion, but if he suddenly starts talking about what he does not understand (as you are now), those around him will call him a balabol. And this will not violate the principles of liberalism :))))))))
                  1. For example
                    For example 11 August 2020 09: 40 New
                    -7
                    Eh, Andryusha from Chelyabinsk.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    but if he suddenly starts talking about something he doesn't understand (like you are now)


                    You certainly know everything.
                    And who does not agree is the fool himself. good

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You are engaged in demagoguery.

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    but if he suddenly starts talking about something he doesn't understand (like you are now)

                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You understand your personal fantasies, not supported by knowledge


                    What freedom do you miss? request
                    Are you tight on the criminal and civil codes?

                    Liberals in their world legalized homosexuals. Change gender.
                    Tomorrow they will want to turn into a butterfly, a bunny, a squirrel or a birch.
                    God has infringed upon your freedom by creating a man or a woman.
                    The state infringes upon its laws.

                    There are still mediocrities snap. wassat

                    Scary.

                    Andrei from Chelyabinsk, please contact the administrator.
                    Disable disagreeing bores who have no knowledge.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      11 August 2020 09: 47 New
                      +2
                      Quote: For example
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk, please contact the administrator.
                      Disable disagreeing bores who have no knowledge.

                      What for? According to a phrase attributed to Peter I
                      "I will instruct the boyars in the Duma to speak according to the unwritten, so that everyone's foolishness is visible!"
          2. My address
            My address 11 August 2020 08: 30 New
            +5
            Dear Andrew! hiGood article. For some, unusual, but true.
            I will also add that the slogans of the Great French Revolution were: freedom, equality, brotherhood. Another question is what happened. And the leaders of the revolution were the liberals, and they were not afraid to go to the scaffold for their own. And the present, who call themselves liberals, are capable of acting not for themselves, for an idea, for the people?
            You quite rightly wrote in your article about equality before the law, equality of opportunity, as one of the foundations of liberalism, and what do we see?
            And even about freedom and brotherhood even more ...
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 August 2020 09: 12 New
              +5
              Quote: My address
              I will also add that the slogans of the Great French Revolution were: freedom, equality, brotherhood. Another question is what happened. And the leaders of the revolution were the liberals, and they were not afraid to go to the scaffold for their own. And the present, who call themselves liberals, are capable of acting not for themselves, for an idea, for the people?

              Yeah, schazzzz :))))))))))) drinks
              "I'll take everything for guilt,
              Link, hard labor, prison,
              But!
              I would like in July
              And preferably in Crimea ... "
    2. zenion
      zenion 13 August 2020 17: 39 New
      0
      A liberal in Russian is the one who rules the country, and at the same time rolls the barrel on the word itself, makes container transportation, that is, the transfer. A beautiful word was invented as if a zealot of the people, in fact, replaces some of the concepts that leaders are appointed by God.
  3. zenion
    zenion 13 August 2020 17: 36 New
    0
    It's not about the sign, but who is behind this sign, who is behind the sign. Here houses of prostitution cover the massage parlor with a signboard. What and who massages is the third thing.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 11 August 2020 05: 54 New
    +8
    Everything is simpler here - you do not agree with the authorities, you are a liberal. And the liberal is the enemy of the people - because this is how we broadcast from the central channels constantly.
    The most anecdote, even if you do not agree on at least one agenda, for example, on retirement age, you are a liberal and an enemy of the people :)))
    1. yuliatreb
      yuliatreb 11 August 2020 06: 16 New
      +5
      Dear about what you, if you do not agree with the government in our country, then you are not a liberal, but a communist, democrat, socialist or nationalist, liberals are those who are now in power and the GDP itself has repeatedly stated that he is a liberal. Liberalism is developed capitalism with elements of democracy, and in our country what is written at the beginning of the article is happening, and it is difficult even for a specialist to define how all this can be called.
    2. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 11 August 2020 07: 07 New
      -5
      Quote: Bad
      Everything is simpler here - you do not agree with the authorities, you are a liberal.

      "- What is the name of a man who can, but does not want to? - Bastard!" (from an anecdote) The opposite is true with liberalism. He wants, but cannot.
      Understand, forgive and throw off? I will not, it hurts an animal grin.
    3. kpd
      kpd 11 August 2020 07: 07 New
      +1
      And Zhirinovsky and his party are also enemies of the people?
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 11 August 2020 07: 44 New
        -2
        Quote: kpd
        And Zhirinovsky and his party are also enemies of the people?

        Do you have doubts about this? So you, my friend, are a dense liberal. request
        1. kpd
          kpd 11 August 2020 11: 21 New
          -1
          No, you didn't guess, I'm a dense anarchist :)
          1. Mavrikiy
            Mavrikiy 11 August 2020 11: 25 New
            -2
            Quote: kpd
            No, you didn't guess, I'm a dense anarchist :)

            Well, I'm sorry, I forgot my glasses at home, I couldn't see them.
            On the other hand, what's the difference? There are many labels, the essence ...
    4. zenion
      zenion 13 August 2020 17: 47 New
      0
      So during the Nazi era, Hitler said that social-nationalism is against liberalism. From this it follows - whoever is against liberalism is a national fascist. Although for the people everything is one who rules against the people. There is such an ancient anecdote with intent. The sleigh argued, and it was easier for the horse to carry it. There was no consensus and they decided to ask the horse. We went into the stable and asked the horse whom it is easier for you to pull the cart, or the sleigh. The horse looked at both and said you are rubbish and you are rubbish. Ask the people when it was easier for the people, when much was required by the law, or when they are given alms.
  • Pessimist22
    Pessimist22 11 August 2020 06: 05 New
    0
    And what should be done?
    1. iConst
      iConst 11 August 2020 06: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Pessimist22
      And what should be done?

      Educate yourself. To study and teach philosophy, social science to kids. Study the laws and how to work with the bureaucracy.

      And not to look or go to Fedyunin's type "They fought for Katya" (I will not dare to pronounce the true name in connection with this lewdness), comedy clubs and other similar sucks.
      1. Basil50
        Basil50 11 August 2020 07: 20 New
        -5
        The author got too carried away with all sorts of different ideas spelled out in thick books with different terms.
        History shows that the ideas of liberalism are becoming the yeast to justify colonial occupation and racism. Nazism is the pinnacle of all ideological currents of liberalism.
        Europe has proven this brilliantly. Only in the last century in Europe TWICE came the collapse of ideas, states and as a result - poverty of the population. There, in Europe, economic recovery was not even considered a robbery. And what words are pronounced during a robbery .........
        There are many works on this topic that entire scientific communities are working on. And what passions are boiling there.
        Take a closer look at the history of England. Everything is very clearly presented there and the seething of ideas and the practice of this very formation called England.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 August 2020 07: 39 New
          +4
          Quote: Vasily50
          History shows that the ideas of liberalism are becoming the yeast to justify colonial occupation and racism. Nazism is the pinnacle of all ideological currents of liberalism.

          I understand that liberalism is responsible for everything (including the drowning of Atlantis), but I have to disappoint you - roughly speaking, the very concept of liberalism appeared already in the 19th century :))) Both colonies and racism were much earlier. Nazism is generally National Socialism, which has nothing to do with liberalism
          Quote: Vasily50
          Only in the last century in Europe TWICE came the collapse of ideas, states and as a result - poverty of the population. There, in Europe, economic recovery was not even considered a robbery

          tell it to Germany after WWI and the USA after the Great Depression
          Quote: Vasily50
          There are many works on this topic that entire scientific communities are working on.

          And which you, alas, have not read
          1. Varyag_0711
            Varyag_0711 11 August 2020 08: 27 New
            +3
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk (Andrei)
            And which you, alas, have not read
            You might think you've read everything. Your mentoring tone is incredibly annoying, you don't have to think that you are the smartest one here. I repeat, you have to be more modest!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 August 2020 08: 36 New
              +4
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              You might think you've read everything.

              No, not all. But I repeat, I expect from my opponents at least MINIMUM knowledge of the issue
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              Your mentor tone is incredibly annoying

              Even if he is not addressed to you, but to an opponent who is completely illiterate in the issue under discussion? Well, cry somewhere in the corner.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              do not think that you are the smartest one here.

              Don't attribute to me what I don't think.
              Quote: Varyag_0711
              you have to be more modest!
      2. depressant
        depressant 11 August 2020 07: 50 New
        +3
        Dear Andrey says:

        "But why should I finance a parasite who does not want to work and will not work? Should I respect his rights? Does he respect my rights? He respects the rights of my children, whom I will have to support worse than I could, because that part of the money I honestly earned should I give to the parasite?
        From my point of view, if a person does not want to be a part of society, this is his choice, which I am ready to respect, but which, however, relieves society of responsibilities towards this person. "

        Andrey ... There is no individual more adapted to life, who, based on our liberal capabilities, "does not want to work and will not work." And this is not a drug addict from the example you gave.
        Somehow it so happened that our "parasite" is a manager-official. And the higher such a "parasite" on the social ladder, the higher his demands for personal well-being and unwillingness to work. And the structure of our society is such that it, the device, not only tolerates those who have climbed and continue to climb the bureaucratic ladder, but also obediently provides their needs, only periodically roaring with discontent in response to their bursting: "Eat macaros, and feed us, yes more satisfying! "
        Over the past 20 years, the number of bureaucracy in the country has doubled. The quality of life has proportionally deteriorated, if we understand it as the growth in the number of wealthy people who have achieved prosperity not by climbing the bureaucratic ladder, but by opening their own business, even a small one, that is useful to the country.
        The actively proliferating parasite bureaucrat, sitting on the neck of the working population, drinking its blood, is one of the main products of our liberalism. And the more officials there are, the worse the governance of the country. Even Rosstat cannot calculate the exact number of officials, who in the aggregate are our power. And since they are power, in relation to themselves, in your words, they do not remove from society the need to satisfy their most fantastic needs.

        And you say "addict".
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 August 2020 07: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: depressant
          Andrey ... There is no individual more adapted to life, who, based on our liberal capabilities, "does not want to work and will not work." And this is not a drug addict from the example you gave.
          Somehow it so happened that our "parasite" is a manager-official.

          Lyudmila, we don't have liberalism in Russia. We have people who do God knows what, and call themselves liberals :)))) Who, at the same time, are not liberals. Which does not negate a number of the most critical shortcomings of liberalism, of course, but what we have with us is still different
          1. depressant
            depressant 11 August 2020 09: 49 New
            +2
            In the words of Alexei Mitrofanov, a disgraced deputy from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR again!), In 1992, officials took power in Russia. Isn't that so? They took and declared liberalism. To please the West. Like, we are not your enemies, we are not your enemies. Actually, liberal democracy. And we were told: there will be no more Soviet paternalism, spin as you like, we do not mind. But having already seized power! This means the right to establish their own rules of the game in spite of any liberal norms declared by them. Previously, even before 92, having destroyed all attempts on the part of the population to turn around in order to create the economy - albeit in a weak capitalist version, but to create! Remember the co-operatives that were born, but massively destroyed?
            And while until 2000 the class of officials, tossing their joints, was divided into oligarchs, actually officials and legislative servants within themselves, officials forgot about the population, which made it possible for that population to "spin" in the allegedly liberal conditions, just to survive. Survival instead of creation! And only a few managed to create some viable enterprises that are still operating. And in 2000, when Putin came to power, they told everyone: enough is enough, we have played enough with democracy and liberalism! And since then, towards their desires and towards each other, our officials have been reverently liberal and by no means liberal towards those who are not them.

            So we have developed something that did not exist and does not exist in human history - state-bureaucratic liberalism with elements of dictatorship that threatens to turn into a dictatorship. We look at this marvel and get confused in concepts. And here it is - alive and well. And unlike us, it reproduces successfully. And you, Andrei, say that we do not have an ideology and we should create it. Has already! Only the ruling class does not dare to name it aloud - the ears will cut everyone who hears.
          2. iConst
            iConst 11 August 2020 10: 23 New
            -1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            From my point of view, if a person does not want to be a part of society, this is his choice, which I am ready to respect, but which, however, relieves society of responsibilities towards this person.

            Don't you consider this approach to be an element of social Darwinism, which the Anglo-Saxon "religion" imposes on us - the strong devours the weak? If you are a loser for some reason, die and interfere with my picnic in the sun.

            You can comment on the opposite moment: the applicant entered the institute for free, became a student, studied at the state account (our account) in graduate school, joined the group financed again from the state treasury. A smart and big-headed student - made a discovery on this base. And then grandfather Soros took him in his hands - a green card, a cozy nest, etc. It is very convenient - not to spend millions on development, growing and sifting people out, but to spend quite a bit on a tadpole, the costs of which will almost immediately "be recouped".

            From the amerskoy institute you can't screw it up.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              11 August 2020 10: 55 New
              0
              Quote: iConst
              Don't you consider this approach to be an element of social Darwinism, which the Anglo-Saxon "religion" imposes on us - the strong devours the weak? If you are a loser for some reason, die and interfere with my picnic in the sun.

              Not so at all. In this case, the one whom you politely called a loser is a full-fledged, but unsuccessful member of society. But he is a part of society, simply because he makes efforts for some kind of socially useful activity.
              To put it quite simply and using an example from our life - the wife-housewife is supported by her husband, not by the state, right? At the same time, no one proposes to take away her medical policy or the right to get a higher education while studying on a budget. And I'm not suggesting.
              1. iConst
                iConst 11 August 2020 11: 31 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                You are politely named a loser

                First, not me, but Protestant ideology. I just voiced it as a whole.
                And secondly, you either did not understand what I mean (although the question is put directly), or deliberately left the topic. What does the housewife have to do with it? A housewife is a valuable member of society. Read again the idea I have highlighted.

                And I didn’t just throw a thread about the student.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 August 2020 12: 50 New
                  +1
                  Quote: iConst
                  And secondly, you either did not understand what I mean (although the question was put directly), or deliberately left the topic.

                  Perhaps I did not understand you. I will try to answer in a different way, if you think that the answer is off-topic - please reformulate the question so that it is clearer to me.
                  Quote: iConst
                  Don't you consider this approach to be an element of social Darwinism, which the Anglo-Saxon "religion" imposes on us - the strong devours the weak? If you are a loser for some reason, die and interfere with my picnic in the sun.

                  I don't think so. Because my approach is not about devouring the weak. In general, I have no dependence of rights and obligations on the gradation of strong / weak. Whether strong or weak is a member of society, it means equal rights. I have something else - "as it comes around, so it will respond" - that is, the responsibilities of society in relation to an individual are in direct connection with the participation of this individual in the life of society.
                  1. iConst
                    iConst 11 August 2020 12: 57 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I have something else - "as it comes around, it will respond"

                    It means all the same social Darwinism. Clear.

                    Thanks for the short discussion.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      11 August 2020 14: 44 New
                      -1
                      Quote: iConst
                      It means all the same social Darwinism. Clear.

                      Unclear. But okay
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  11 August 2020 12: 53 New
                  -1
                  Quote: iConst
                  And I didn’t just throw a thread about the student.

                  There it is generally not clear what was meant.
                  But if you want a comment
                  Quote: iConst
                  And then grandfather Soros took him in his hands - a green card, a cozy nest, etc. It is very convenient - not to spend millions on development, growing and sifting people out, but to spend quite a bit on a tadpole, the costs of which will almost immediately "be recouped".

                  in fact, it is VERY much spent because this "tadpole" is provided with a much more solid level of remuneration than we can offer. And there is only one way out - getting a free education if you have to work it out at home, and only then leave the country.
                  1. Liam
                    Liam 11 August 2020 13: 08 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    getting a free education, if you please, then work it out at home, and only then leave the country.

                    And how do you imagine it practically? To take away the passport? To keep the hostage in the country? To work from under the stick of the overseer?
                    PySy.His "free" education is paid for by taxes and his parents and grandfathers as be.To whom, how much and what does he owe?
                    Leave liberalism alone, your reasoning is a typical scoop in the worst sense of the word
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      11 August 2020 14: 42 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Liam
                      And how do you imagine it practically? To take away the passport? To keep the hostage in the country? To work from under the stick of the overseer?

                      No, conclude an agreement upon admission with the obligation to work in a company that is a resident of the Russian Federation for a certain time
                      Quote: Liam
                      PySy.His "free" education is paid for by taxes and his parents and grandfathers as be.

                      Exactly what is like BE. But in fact the following is happening - the state, collecting taxes from "parents and grandfathers" should dispose of them for the benefit of society. The good of society is the good of its members. Investments in a member of society who later ceases to be a member does not serve the good of society. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the return on investment.
                      Quote: Liam
                      Leave liberalism alone, your reasoning is a typical scoop in the worst sense of the word

                      Liam knowing your views - you just complimented me laughing
                      1. Liam
                        Liam 11 August 2020 15: 06 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        , conclude an agreement upon admission with the obligation to work in a company - a resident of the Russian Federation for a certain time

                        Well, a person sneezed at your contract and went abroad. Then what?)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        what actually happens is the following -

                        In fact, your fantasies on the topic in reality take the form of Stalinist sharashka and work for gruel. With the appropriate efficiency. Try to fix these brilliant ideas in the Constitution)


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        compliment

                        I am always generous with compliments when it comes to incompetent graphomania
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        11 August 2020 15: 59 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Liam
                        Well, a person sneezed at your contract and went abroad. Then what?)

                        It doesn't work that way, except maybe it is smuggled.
                        Quote: Liam
                        In fact, your fantasies on the topic in reality take the form of Stalin's sharashki and work for a grudge. With the appropriate efficiency.

                        Let's start with the fact that you simply cannot imagine the efficiency of "sharashek", otherwise you would not have written what you wrote.
                        Quote: Liam
                        I am always generous with compliments when it comes to incompetent graphomania

                        Thanks again! It would be unpleasant to hear your praise :)))))))))))))
                      3. Liam
                        Liam 11 August 2020 16: 37 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        It doesn’t work out

                        Here you go ... Hello Constitution

                        BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
                        BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
                        I GROUP

                        Personal rights and freedoms are enshrined in Articles 20-28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

                        2. The right to liberty and security of person

                        3. Right to privacy

                        6. The right to freedom of movement and choice of place of stay and residence



                        III GROUP

                        Social, economic and cultural rights and freedoms are enshrined in Articles 34-44 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

                        1. The right to entrepreneurship

                        4. The right to free labor

                        11. The right to education

                        12. Freedom of creativity

                        You are fond of serfdom, my friend)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Efficiency of "sharashek"

                        Well, of course) the efficiency of sharashkas and concentration camps is the crown of creation. Offer the slave system more. Welcome to the 21st century
                      4. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 11 August 2020 18: 59 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        Suggest another slave system, welcome to the 21st century

                        In the modern world, slavery is called a mortgage. laughing Welcome to the Xnumx Century.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        12 August 2020 07: 59 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        Here you go ... Hello Constitution

                        Liam, you made me a day! laughing
                        Let it be known to you that, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, travel abroad can be prohibited for the presence of any debt in the amount established by law (over 10 thousand rubles and with the decision of the bailiff): for debts on alimony, credit, utility bills, taxes, traffic police fines, and etc.
                        In general, do not pretend to be a lawyer - you are extremely bad at it :)))))
                        Quote: Liam
                        You are fond of serfdom, my friend)

                        No, I just insist on fulfilling the contract.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Well, of course) the efficiency of sharashki and concentration camps is the crown of creation

                        Not. But the fact is that then, in those conditions, sharashka worked much more efficiently than free design bureaus, for a number of reasons. It's a shame not to know.
                      6. Liam
                        Liam 12 August 2020 08: 22 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        day

                        Laughing for no reason is not a good sign)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        according to the legislation of the Russian Federation

                        Are you trying to convince me that in the Russian Federation everyone is mocking the Constitution, starting from the guarantor and the chairman of the constitutional court and on any issues, from the presidential election to the payment of alimony? No, I’m well aware of this. Talk is about the legality and effectiveness of such measures. The number of unscrupulous alimony workers has greatly decreased because of this?)
                        By turning the country back into a zone, Perelman cannot be forced to solve Poincaré's theorem. He will simply wipe his pants in a sharashka until the end of his "term"
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        in those conditions

                        Here are your "liberal" ideas and there is another step towards creating Of those conditions. I say the same scoop)
                        Let me just remind you that real breakthroughs in the technologies and achievements of Soviet science - from space to the military-industrial complex - happened after the closure of these sharashki and when people began to work free and for salaries, bonuses and orders, and not for gruel.
                      7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        12 August 2020 08: 58 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        .The conversation is about the legality and effectiveness of such measures.

                        They are completely legal and effective. But they do not coincide with your concept of legality.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Has the number of unscrupulous alimony holders been greatly reduced because of this?)

                        If even one alimony paid alimony faster because of this law than without it, this is already enough.
                        Quote: Liam
                        By turning the country back into a zone, Perelman cannot be forced to solve Poincaré's theorem. He will simply wipe his pants in a sharashka until the end of his "term"

                        And again, you are wrong. First, a contract is an absolutely normal phenomenon, and it is impossible to equate it with a zone. Secondly, a creative person will not wipe any trousers - he will work for himself, gain experience, try to make a name for himself - and then he will go abroad, but for a little different amounts, not those that could be offered to him after graduation.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Here are your "liberal" ideas and there is another step towards the creation of Those Conditions. I say, a scoop)

                        Who told you that my ideas are liberal? They are not liberal at all. But they are correct.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Let me just remind you that real breakthroughs in technologies and achievements of Soviet science - from space to the military-industrial complex - happened after the closure of these sharashka and when people began to work in freedom.

                        You are simply not familiar with the history and do not know either the volume of these very sharashki in relation to the then scientific personnel, or the situation before the sharashki. You have the usual "Stalin put everyone in sharashki" :)))))
                        In fact, everything was much more complicated there. Very, very many design bureaus simply got loose, spent state money, not counting, and gave nonsense in return, if they gave anything at all. Sharashki arose precisely as a way to use convicts for exceeding their powers, for negligence, etc. scientists and designers. The number of people who ended up there is relatively small, and very many (not all, of course) got there on business. The educational effect turned out to be enormous, but for the most part no one closed the USSR science in prison :))))) And in sharashkas they really began to work more efficiently than before.
                      8. Liam
                        Liam 12 August 2020 09: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        They are completely legal and effective. But do not coincide with your concept of legality

                        Well, naturally. They still do not coincide with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of any more or less free country in the world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thousands and thousands of other laws.

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        If even one alimony paid alimony faster because of this law than without it, this is already enough

                        ))) Bad of you and a demagogue, too. The problem of demagogues is that their freaks are broken at the first check with reality.

                        Every year, the Federal Bailiff Service manages to collect billions of rubles in favor of children. The press service of the department reported that the total amount of collected alimony in 2019 amounted to 17,4 billion rubles, in 2018 - 15,2 billion rubles.

                        The effectiveness of the bailiffs' work can be assessed by paying attention to the context. The total amount of alimony debts at the end of 2019 exceeded 200 billion rubles
                        .
                        As a coercive measure, the bailiffs have the right to prohibit the debtor from traveling abroad, but these restrictions are easy to circumvent.

                        “For example, we go to Belarus and fly where we want, from Minsk,” says Larisa Vdovina, a lawyer in the field of family law.

                        - There is no control on the border with Russia, and on departure from Belarus the border service does not have a Russian base of bailiffs. That's all"

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        a contract is absolutely normal

                        The contract for the sale and purchase of slaves is also a contract. But it has not been absolutely normal.
                        In which countries are there agreements similar to what you are proposing?
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        They are not liberal at all. But correct

                        And they are not new.
                        Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of June 26, 1940 "On the transition to an eight-hour working day, to a seven-day working week and on the prohibition of unauthorized departure of workers and employees from enterprises and institutions"

                        Decree of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of December 27, 1932 "On the establishment of a unified passport system for the USSR and the compulsory registration of passports


                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        much harder

                        Yes Yes..Not so simple.

                        Py Sy.And you have not been visited by a simple thought that than inventing all this garbage with contracts, barbed wire, departments to combat ... and so on, it is easier to pay a person a decent salary and create conditions for him to live and freedom, so that he would not want to leave ?
                      9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        12 August 2020 10: 34 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        Well, naturally. They still do not coincide with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of any more or less free country in the world, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and thousands and thousands of other laws.

                        In your vision, tormented by liberalism, this is a problem. And in mine there is no problem - first pay off your debts, and then go for a drive wherever you want. You have personal freedom in the first place, but with me - justice, that's all.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Bad of you and demagogue too. The problem of demagogues is that their freaks are broken at the very first check with reality.

                        And where did mine break? I must confess that I do not see at all what relation your quotes have to the subject of the dispute. Did you collect more money in 2019 than in 2018? Where does it refute me? Are the defaulters in debt? It depends on the mass of things and has little to do with travel bans. The ability to get around the law? How does this affect his intelligence? What have you not thought of regarding control? I agree, but what does this have to do with the reasonableness of the measure itself?
                        Quote: Liam
                        The contract for the purchase and sale of slaves is also a contract. But this has not been an absolutely normal phenomenon for a long time.
                        In which countries are there agreements similar to what you are proposing?

                        Most European and USA. The only difference is that they do not offer work, but require payment of education before receiving the service: pay and study. No money? Take a loan and study, then you will give back. Well, in our conditions, it is more correct, more loyal, not a loan, but working off.
                        Do you want to learn and go abroad? Pay your tuition and leave. Do you want to learn for free? Study, but cover the cost of your training with community service during the period specified in the contract. I learned it for free, but I really want to go abroad? Look for money, negotiate with the employer to pay the costs of your training with the corresponding penalty under the contract. A perfectly normal and sane approach.
                        Quote: Liam
                        And they are not new.

                        And I do not pretend to open the century
                        Quote: Liam
                        Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR

                        Comparing the passport system and the contract is strong :)))) You don’t understand passports, or legal contracts?
                        Quote: Liam
                        Yes, yes .. Not everything is so simple.

                        Just the opposite. Everything there is ABSOLUTELY unambiguous, but not at all the way it seems to you.
                        Quote: Liam
                        Py Sy.And you have not been visited by a simple thought that than inventing all this garbage with contracts, barbed wire, departments to combat ... and so on, it is easier to pay a person a decent salary and create conditions for him to live and freedom, so that he would not want to leave ?

                        I only came up with a contract - barbed wire and so on - it's your imagination. But in order to create conditions of life and freedom, that is, to improve our well-being, such contracts are needed (among many other things)
                      10. Liam
                        Liam 12 August 2020 12: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        justice, that's all

                        You have an amateurish intuitive-provincial approach to topics. In the works of wise men, whom you naturally have never read, it is quite popularly written that the replacement of laws with concepts and justice by ephemeral fairness -There are signs of Zon's psychology and the state engaged in this is provided with a fairly rapid degradation
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        where did mine break?

                        It’s sad that you don’t understand that even in such a simple thing as the collection of alimony, the ban on traveling abroad did not give any really tangible practical effect. Moreover, it will not work in the case of your ingenious the contract.
                        Not very difficult to understand like ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Most European and USA

                        Do not write unscientific bullshit. In the USA and especially in Europe, there is a mass of free (budgetary) higher education, and it never even occurs to anyone to put any restrictions after this. Young people "migrate" by hundreds of thousands from one country to another in search of better working conditions. And governments (and companies) are trying to make them more lucrative job offers, rather than restricting travel.
                        You are all over the place.
                        By the way, why did you have such a brilliant idea only in relation to higher education? Why not include both primary and secondary education? There is also a lot of money in there. And without them no specialist will work either ... I give an idea for free ... to walk like this

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And I do not pretend

                        And thank God, this kind of graphomania should not pretend to anything)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Comparing the passport system and the contract is strong :)))) You don’t understand passports, or legal contracts?

                        I understand reality. Collective farmers were not given passports to "tie" to the collective farm, so that they could not leave. You offer the same thing. And you cannot do without selecting a passport. Otherwise, a young specialist will leave supposedly on vacation in Turkey, and yours cried denyuzhki)

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I figured it out

                        I appreciated your talents)
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        barbed wire and so on

                        So you are only a thinker. As a realist, I think how to accomplish in reality. Otherwise, all your brilliant ideas are intellectual masturbation.
                        Without "barbed wire" your idea is unrealizable
      3. iConst
        iConst 11 August 2020 16: 03 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        in fact, VERY much is spent, because this "tadpole" is provided with a much more solid level of remuneration
        In fact - TEARS, compared to the "exhaust" from the introduction of innovations and patents.

        The office rents a house for a piece of dollars a month for a brow, gives him a car (a penny) and pays two or three pieces of green.
        Laboratories have already been created for such a mechanism - it is only necessary to fill the infrastructure with the best brains.
        At most a hundred greens a year.

        Now multiply the donor country’s expenditures on training and laboratory research and the experiments of students by tens or two thousand and several more years, since tadpoles do not appear every year - one in a thousand and a thousand.

        Well, how? Are the costs impressive?

        Plus, that the donor country WILL NEVER HAVE THESE TECHNOLOGIES. A synergistic anti-effect (so to speak) multiplying the gap in technology.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        No, conclude an agreement upon admission with the obligation to work in a company that is a resident of the Russian Federation for a certain time
        Isn't it funny yourself? Well, he will not fulfill the contract. And he will leave. So what? Fine? Which one? Million? Billion? Trillion?

        In primitive trade, lost profits cannot be proven, but here about innovation!
        The maximum that anyone, especially a Western court, will accept is the amount spent on training. I repeat - these are tears. Well, they will pay for it this ten green, the meaning will not change. Losses are orders of magnitude greater.

        You are clearly not in the subject.

        PS: There was a lot of pressure on Orban as soon as he drove the soros out of education. Just like that, with nothing to do, the guy was having fun.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        12 August 2020 07: 52 New
        0
        Quote: iConst
        In fact - TEARS, compared to the "exhaust" from the introduction of innovations and patents.
        The office rents a house for a piece of dollars a month for a brow, gives him a car (a penny) and pays two or three pieces of green.

        You are considering the costs for this particular person, while greatly underestimating them (they will pay a dozen greens without stinking, there were precedents). And all this is possible only against the background of the total costs of the salary of the scientific community. That is, in order to be able to take people to your place, you have to maintain a significantly higher salary level for the industry as a whole, and this is a completely different order of numbers.
        Quote: iConst
        Now, multiply the donor country’s expenditures on training and laboratory research and students' experiments by tens or two thousand and several more years, since tadpoles do not appear every year - one in a thousand and a thousand

        And again - a mistake. You just don't understand the essence of scientific research. These "thousands and thousands" will find a place in science, they will more than offset the costs of education. Do you seriously think that we are wasting a lot of funds for training for the sake of "a few tadpoles" which are "not every year"? :)))) You have absolutely no idea of ​​the work of scientific communities, forgive me.
        Quote: iConst
        Plus, that the donor country WILL NEVER HAVE THESE TECHNOLOGIES.

        Well, now I'm just bursting into tears :))))) Yes, they will, of course, will not go anywhere. They will just be later. Roughly speaking, if we have a group of scientists with a lower IQ, because the best were taken abroad and with less funding, they will still achieve a result, but later.
        Quote: iConst
        Isn't it funny yourself? Well, he will not fulfill the contract. And he will leave.

        Will not leave, perhaps smuggled :)))) Until he fulfills the contract. This is quite realizable.
        Quote: iConst
        You are clearly not in the subject.

        Oh well:))))
      5. Liam
        Liam 12 August 2020 08: 54 New
        0
        Quote: iConst
        The maximum that anyone will accept, especially the Western court

        The Western court will not return a penny, it will not even take such a claim for consideration. This kind of contract is serfdom and violation of all conceivable human rights. From the right to freedom of movement to the right to free labor and place of residence. The author is so far from reality. and the laws that the methods in the labor legislation of the famous liberal comrade Stalin offer us here are to take away the passports of the peasants so that they could not leave the collective farm, put the workers at the machine and write out terms for being late or unauthorized leaving. The famous laws of 40 years.
        True, as an exhausted liberal, he offers serfdom not for the whole life, but only for a few years)
  • Shuttle
    Shuttle 11 August 2020 06: 29 New
    0
    Real freedom of the individual comes when and only when the individual works completely freely. And this is possible only in the absence of a class of exploiters and exploited generated, reproduced over and over again by private ownership of the means of production.
    So the nature of ownership of the means of production should change, as a result, the principle of distribution of the results of social labor will change from private to public. Then the exploitation of man by man will disappear without a doubt. And this will be the most free personal freedom.
    True, this requires enlightened individuals. Hence learn, learn and learn ...
    1. Deniska999
      Deniska999 11 August 2020 06: 32 New
      +3
      Full automation of production and unconditional basic income. As much freedom as you like.
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 11 August 2020 15: 59 New
        -1
        Quote: Deniska999
        Full automation of production and unconditional basic income. As much freedom as you like.

        Matrix according to Wachowski. Yeah.
        Unconditional basic income is like a fence from the Indians.
    2. vavilon
      vavilon 11 August 2020 09: 28 New
      +1
      I completely agree with your conclusions
      We had real freedom in the Soviet Union and liberals of all kinds with their "freedoms" are far from it
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 11 August 2020 16: 01 New
        -2
        Quote: vavilon
        I completely agree with your conclusions
        We had real freedom in the Soviet Union and liberals of all kinds with their "freedoms" are far from it

        That is what I meant.
        drinks
  • Comrade
    Comrade 11 August 2020 06: 29 New
    -8
    I cannot give an acceptable definition of liberalism and liberals.

    A liberal is one who denies Christianity, the nation state, and the family.
    Liberalism is anti-humanity, because if we bring to the logical end everything that liberalism imposes, then first, under the muddy waves of "refugees" from Africa and Asia, civilization will collapse, and then the human race will disappear under the drumming of gay pride parades.
    1. Squelcher
      Squelcher 11 August 2020 06: 53 New
      0
      So communism also denies Christianity, the nation state and the family.?
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        11 August 2020 07: 06 New
        -1
        Quote: Squelcher
        So communism also denies Christianity, the nation state and the family.?

        Communism did not deny Christianity, which fully existed under it. Communism did not deny nat. the state is neither in domestic policy (see legislation on our republics), nor in foreign (support of the same Israel). And communism certainly didn't deny the family. Yes, there was a delusional post-revolutionary moment when this happened, but it ended instantly, and in the future the family was proclaimed the most important and essential unit of society
        1. Squelcher
          Squelcher 11 August 2020 12: 57 New
          +1
          But was there communism in the USSR, and when did they come to it? what year? ? Or state socialism, or maybe state capitalism, or non-market socialism? Will you decide to start?
          And the temples who probably blew up the liberals and the White Guards? And the Cominter is our slogan - the World Soviet Union? Where are the national states?
          The communists too often lied and betrayed their ideals, they completely lied that now they do not believe and will not go
          people.
          And for those who do not know their teachings elementary, who will go?
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            11 August 2020 14: 36 New
            +2
            Quote: Squelcher
            But was there communism in the USSR, and when did they come to it? what year?

            do not mix in a pile of communism as a theory and the movement towards it of the USSR. Better tell us in all chilling details, for example, at what stage of the movement towards communism did the USSR plan to abandon the family? :))))
            Quote: Squelcher
            And the temples who probably blew up the liberals and the White Guards?

            Well, they were not only blown up, they were often used for ancillary needs as well. In my city, for example, they turned it into a museum.
            The bottom line is that, despite the considerable infringement on the church, the communists did not ban Orthodoxy and it continued to exist quite officially.
            Quote: Squelcher
            And the Cominter is our slogan - the World Soviet Union? Where are the national states?

            It's touching. Let it be known to you that on May 15, 1943, the Communist International was disbanded by a decree of the Presidium of the ECCI, justified by the fact that the new goals of Soviet power require a sovereign study and do not imply assistance from an international organization.
            1. Squelcher
              Squelcher 11 August 2020 15: 28 New
              +1
              The most important question was modestly silent. In the spirit of the communists, how did the USSR achieve communism or not? and what kind of system did you build in the end? How many times did the CPSU change shoes when changing leaders, how they praised and supported Stalin and Beria in unison, how they unanimously condemned the cult of personality, how they then together overthrew Khrushchev? How quickly did the members of the CPSU disguise themselves as capitalists and liberals?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                11 August 2020 15: 57 New
                0
                Quote: Squelcher
                The most important question was modestly silent.

                Maxim, I do not have a myelophon and I cannot know what "most important questions" are roaming in your head.
                Quote: Squelcher
                In the spirit of the communists, how did the USSR achieve communism or not?

                let's be honest, you will first answer my question
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                It is better to tell in all chilling details, for example, at what stage of the movement towards communism did the USSR plan to abandon the family? :))))

                And then I will answer yours. Otherwise, you get the impression that you want to blurt out an uncomfortable topic for you.
                1. Squelcher
                  Squelcher 12 August 2020 00: 07 New
                  +1
                  But was there communism in the USSR, and when did they come to it? This is the main question.
                  To your question, you will find an advice in the basis of communism, as they say:
                  Communist Manifesto
                  Karl Marx - F. Engels (1848), the basis of communism, as they say.
                  About the destruction of the family, and about nationality, everything is detailed here: about the ghost of communism too :)
                  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                    12 August 2020 07: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: Squelcher
                    To your question, you will find an advice in the basis of communism, as they say:
                    Communist Manifesto
                    Karl Marx - F. Engels (1848), the basis of communism, as they say.

                    What are we talking about. You take the vision of the future world order in the document of the eight hundred shaggy year, and do not notice that in the USSR this thesis (the destruction of the family, the social education of children, etc.) did not take root and was rejected at the very first stages of the formation of the state, and no longer returned. Communism was built in the USSR without planning to destroy families.
                    Now I answer your question
                    Quote: Squelcher
                    But was there communism in the USSR, and when did they come to it?

                    No, they did not reach communism in the USSR. Although Khrushchev believed that we should come to communism in 1980, in fact we have not reached the established values ​​(such as, for example, the world's best labor productivity). So communism did not take place in the USSR
      2. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 11 August 2020 19: 04 New
        0
        What does denies mean? Communism says that the transformation and disappearance of these institutions is inevitable for objective reasons. But he does not say that by tomorrow by lunchtime everything should be smashed to the ground. laughing
  • rocket757
    rocket757 11 August 2020 06: 37 New
    +2
    Liberal is ...
    To begin with, it would be nice to define what liberalism is and who a liberal is.

    TO THE AUTHOR, no matter what it could be, it must be / will be!
    What is trying to fuck us now is an ugly and dangerous thing, for everyone, for the country, for society as a whole! Therefore, get away from this place .... when / may become something digestible, then we'll see ... from a distance and draw the appropriate conclusions.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 11 August 2020 06: 48 New
    +1
    A strange kind of dispute. The country is following the liberal path of development, but the forces that lead along this path are not liberals, but the liberals are to blame. A sore example, the pension reform, the law was not adopted by the liberals, but the majority are sure that the liberals are to blame for not the liberals did so .. Or another example, in Khabarovsk, residents spoke out in defense of the liberal governor, against the new liberal governor, and both of the same party, it turned out, again the liberals are to blame .. The so-called fifth column, again made up of liberals. .. No, in the article everything is laid out on the shelves, according to the concepts .... "So who are these birds?" (C)
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 07: 03 New
      11
      Quote: parusnik
      The country follows a liberal development path

      No, it doesn't come close. We have practically no democracy, "elections without elections", when there is only one candidate, the rest are clearly useless. The system, in fact, if not entirely one-party, is very close to this. The equality of citizens before the law - well, remember the story of Serdyukov with his girl. Freedom of speech is perhaps only on the Internet. And the amendments to the constitution regarding homosexuals are definitely not liberal :)))))
      So no, we are not following the liberal path.
      Quote: parusnik
      An example that set the teeth on edge, the pension reform, the law was not adopted by the liberals, but the majority are sure that the liberals are to blame that it was not the liberals who did this ...

      The law has specific authors, and they should be blamed, including the GDP, of course. All this has little to do with liberalism.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 11 August 2020 09: 57 New
        0
        I agree with your comment ... Some parties are dependent on the state, other parties are not allowed in ... Elections without elections, etc. is more like totalitarianism, its extreme stage ... with its own national specifics ... Amendments, Russia by God's grace is a secular state ... I am interested in another question, we write a lot about liberals who prevent us from living .. Who is it specifically, what political movements, leaders ..
        Who is it, sweeping away everything in its path,
        Who is wearing a colored shirt and red socks?
        Who has a bag with the inscription "AC / DC" on his shoulder,
        Who has black boots on their feet in black rubber?
        They are liberals!
        They are liberals!
        These are liberal girls!
        They prevent us from living!
        Who listens to heavy metal, Arabesque and Ottawa,
        Who beats each other's faces when drunk?
        Who has tough friends for whom you will not give a ruble?
        Who can’t connect two words without tying a “la” note between them?
        They are liberals!
        They are liberals!
        These are liberal girls!
        They prevent us from living!
        Who whips port wine in the heat, who does not warm beer in the winter,
        Who spits like a camel, who laughs like a goat?
        Who urinates in our front doors, who pukes in subway cars,
        Who is always ready to hit our eyes and put a feather in your side?
        They are liberals!
        They are liberals!
        These are liberal girls!
        They prevent us from living!
        They prevent me from living!
        They are called "liberals".
        They are called "goons".
        They are called "urla"
        and also "suckers",
        sometimes - "punks".
        They are also called "boors".
        But their name is liberal women.
        Their name is legion,
        because they are liberals!
        They are liberals!
        They are liberal!
        They prevent us from living!
        They prevent us from living!
        They hinder us ...
        They hinder us ...
        They prevent us from living!
        Like that ? smile
    2. Shuttle
      Shuttle 11 August 2020 18: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: parusnik
      A strange kind of dispute. The country is following the liberal path of development, but the forces that lead along this path are not liberals, but the liberals are to blame. A sore example, the pension reform, the law was not adopted by the liberals, but the majority are sure that the liberals are to blame for not the liberals did so .. Or another example, in Khabarovsk, residents spoke out in defense of the liberal governor, against the new liberal governor, and both of the same party, it turned out, again the liberals are to blame .. The so-called fifth column, again made up of liberals. .. No, in the article everything is laid out on the shelves, according to the concepts .... "So who are these birds?" (C)

      We recall VIL's quote about the fact that as long as people do not learn to see the activities of classes behind every action, event, they will remain naive fools.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 11 August 2020 06: 59 New
    +3
    Yeltsin and his clique urgently needed to create a stratum that would support them in case of unrest of the people. The rich were needed, and they did not care how it would happen. ... Various societies, cooperatives, groupings, all sorts of lakes, swamps, mmm, LSD and so on were created. The thief grabbed his mouth and ..., from the budget, from the pockets of ordinary citizens. And then they legalized themselves and became businessmen. And even very influential people. About Soros, hardly 90 of them have heard. As I can’t imagine the situation, Soros comes up to some kind of grouper, and begins to teach liberalism, it seems a grateful listener will rather put a feather in his side. It is now customary to blame the damned liberals, homosexuals, and lesbians for all troubles. Oil has dropped in price, who is to blame? Lesbians with homosexuals, stopped buying oil!, Wow, they are not good liberals. Oil fell to the level of 2000, oh woe, and the dollar should fall to the level of 2000, logically. ... No, it shouldn't, they broadcast to us from the LCD board, homosexuals with lesbians are to blame, they are with each other ........., wow, they are damned liberals, do not allow us to live in a good way.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 11 August 2020 10: 00 New
      +1
      And who are they liberals and what they look like no one knows ... laughing
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 11 August 2020 11: 03 New
        -3
        I don't know what they look like, but they are probably cleverly disguised. But judging by many comments, I roughly know how to bring the bastards to clean water. the first test, you need to start in front of them the US flags, rainbow candy wrappers and throw them at the suspects, they will probably start to writhe, Knock on the forehead with a fist with a wedding ring, they will not be high, they are against traditional families, Well, sprinkle the saint water on them, from the liberals should go smoke, they are against Orthodoxy. Well, you can throw it into the river from a cliff, Swam out means liberal-execute, drowned means ...... well, to hell with him. wassat
  • bandabas
    bandabas 11 August 2020 07: 55 New
    -1
    Firstly, there are "intellectuals" and there are intellectuals. These are completely different concepts. Liberals are "intellectuals". Secondly, the classic "Homo homini lupus est". Nothing changes over the centuries.
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 13 August 2020 09: 15 New
      0
      Of course, a little sorry ... But "VO" becomes a site for "liberals". Sadness, however.
  • Pravodel
    Pravodel 11 August 2020 07: 56 New
    0
    Strong article. And the issue of the essence of liberalism, especially for Russia, should really be resolved both philosophical and historical and economic.
    Philosophical question: what is liberalism in relation to the individual-personality and society. If society is an organization that ensures the existence and development of the individual, then the freedom of the individual-personality cannot be higher than the freedom of society. But if society is individuals-personalities, then freedom is what every individual-personality understands by it. Therefore, the extreme form of freedom is anarchy.
    Historically for Russia: the history of Russia demonstrates that Russia exists and can exist as a single, whole state only under a strong central government. As soon as power is weakened, Russia collapses. So it was in the period of ancient before Mongolian Russia with its appanage principalities that fought with each other, so it was during the time of troubles, so it was in 1917 and the 90s of the last century. The collapse of Russia was prevented each time only through the creation of a strong centralized government. During the time of troubles - the choice of a new tsar and the coming to power in Russia of the Romanov dynasty, in 1917 - the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, who suppressed centrifugal forces with an iron fist and united Russia into a new state of the USSR, after the 90s - the coming to power of Putin, which consolidated the elite of Russia and prevented the spread of Russia into specific principalities fighting each other. Putin did not solve all the questions about power, but what he did right was to build a single vertical of power in Russia, which is the only one capable of preventing the disintegration of Russia. Hence, historically Russia exists and can as a single state only with a strong centralized government.
    Economically: natural conditions in Russia are such that economic and economic activity in Russia is more risky than in Europe and America. Therefore, in Russia, throughout the entire historical development, a system of paternalism took shape, in which during a period of extremely low production: drought, pestilence, crop failure, etc. etc. the power in one way or another supported the producer, which was the peasant. For example, during a poor harvest during the reign of Boris Godunov, the tsar opened the tsar's barns and distributed bread to the people for free. This was always the case in Russia. Moreover, in the villages there was a special system of feeding, "mutual responsibility", when the family, due to poor harvests or lack of a breadwinner, went home and received food in every house. There was no refusal to such a family. Refusal to feed was a grave sin. With this in mind, normal economic activity in Russia was possible only if there was some concentrated stock that supported economic activity in a critical situation. But since such a stock could be formed in sufficient quantities only at the state level, therefore, economic, economic activity in Russia, in contrast to Europe, America, has always developed based on the state. And this is the strength of the Russian economy. Hence, any completely liberal model of economic activity inherent in Europe, America in Russia has a limited character and cannot exist as a basic model. In Russia, with its natural conditions, any economic activity must be accompanied by state support. If this is not the case, then the Russian economy is disintegrating and fragmented into several economically successful farms, while the main part of the economy degrades and disappears. As it was observed in the dashing 90s, when the extreme liberals ... you completely refused state support to production, agriculture, industry in the hope that the market will bring it out. What did Russia get as a result? - Absolute decline of everything and everyone, absolute poverty of the population, degradation of economic, economic and political life in the country, riots, war along the borders and within Russia. Hence the answer: can a fully liberal economy exist in Russia? No and no again. In Russia, the economy, economic activity can exist, develop normally only with the support of the state. Another thing is that this support should be selective, purposeful and not turn into feeding and maintaining what is better to eliminate. But there must be a very fine line here, because in Russia, even unprofitable production can be of fundamental importance for the economic activity of the state, society, and absolute nationalization of "everything and everyone" should not be allowed, as happened under Khrushchev. Therefore, it is so important that Russia has its own economists, who are able to understand the historical, economic, and political specifics of production in Russia and promote it, who understand that Russia is a whole specific world with its own characteristics, to which the recipes of the West are not applicable. Moreover, they understand that blind copying of economic and political recipes destroys, destroys, undermines the foundations of Russia from within.
    SummaryWith that said, in Russia liberalism is an evil that destroys Russia from the inside. In this regard, the government in Russia should burn out the liberals, liberals ... with an iron hand, with a hot iron, expel liberals, liberals ... from power, and prevent them from reaching power in Russia. Unfortunately, this process is not proceeding as fast as the economic and political situation and the people of Russia require. Although, the changes are obvious. And the more there are, the stronger Russia will be, the better the people of Russia will live.

    With that said, the main slogan and principle of every patriot of Russia:
    "People-State-Fatherland" - a strong state, a close-knit people, a prosperous Fatherland for centuries, which cannot be broken by either internal or external enemies.
    1. parusnik
      parusnik 11 August 2020 10: 06 New
      -1
      "People-State-Fatherland"
      -social partnership st 23 tk rf
    2. parma
      parma 11 August 2020 14: 20 New
      +1
      As I understand it, the whole bunch of beeches was written only for the sake of "after the 90s - the coming to power of Putin, who consolidated the elite of Russia and prevented the spread of Russia into specific principalities, fighting with each other. Putin did not solve all the questions about power, but what he did right - built a single vertical of power in Russia, only capable of preventing the disintegration of Russia. Hence, historically Russia exists and can as a single state only with a strong centralized power. "...
      For your "summary" is just words ... "Russian liberalism" has only crumbs in common with practically any trend of liberalism, however, just like "Russian capitalism" has only a tiny relation to capitalism, and has changed only outwardly in 30 years ... "liberalism" (state, mk, Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich himself ranked himself among the liberals) just implies the division into a higher caste / class / group (top officials, billionaires, top managers in state companies, etc., in general, those same princelings) and the lower (actually the rest). Both groups are even allowed everything that does not infringe upon the rights of the upper caste / class / group, only this is "all" different ... If for the bottom rung of society EVERYTHING is to sit with your mouth shut, pay any inflated taxes and taxes, express approvals, etc. , then the other group only needs to share the results of the work of their "sawmills" and not wash dirty linen in public ... If someone does not agree, they punish them cruelly and with the whole flock (Berezovsky, the YUKOS case, Furgal and many others) ... countries of "normal" liberalism, everything is a little different - if the strong, eat the weak OUTSIDE your country, if the weak - help the strong eat the weak in a foreign country, and on your territory, regardless of your position, be kind, abide by the law! First of all, in economic terms - look at the penalties for money laundering, tax evasion, and so on in the countries of the "golden" billion ...
      But it is not worth taking offense at the countries of the West (as the author does quite a bit in his article) for their actions at the moment of our weakness (well, like a minute, the last 40 years) ... This is them, Western liberalism is to eat a weak stranger, such is the nature of people ... And liberalism only directs this nature outward, from the society itself and the state, giving freedom of action outside of it ...
  • nikvic46
    nikvic46 11 August 2020 08: 40 New
    +5
    Thanks to the author. We are already being accustomed to unemployment, to lodging houses, to the truth, which should be not only with fists, but with a massacre. And whoever opposes this, in the opinion of influential people, is not just a liberal, but a liberal. And charity from the same opera. And this is all done not in defense of statehood, but in defense of the oligarchs. We are told that we have no such class. But if they are protected by the state, you cannot name them otherwise.
  • vavilon
    vavilon 11 August 2020 09: 21 New
    -2
    I would like to ask the author, in which country do all the liberal values ​​that are listed in the article exist?
    The answer is unequivocal that it is not in any, although in the same old Europe, it is not, this is a utopia, like communism,
    And only socialism can guarantee a person freedom and his equality, but not liberalism.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 09: 44 New
      +2
      Quote: vavilon
      I would like to ask the author, in which country do all the liberal values ​​that are listed in the article exist?

      Not in any. The anecdote is that liberalism is not embodied in a complete form in any country. Some of his ideas - yes, it's all too often, but completely some version - nowhere.
  • Galleon
    Galleon 11 August 2020 09: 55 New
    +1
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    We have practically no democracy, "elections without elections", when there is only one candidate, the rest are clearly useless. The system, in fact, if not entirely one-party, is very close to this. The equality of citizens before the law - well, remember the story of Serdyukov with his girl.

    Andrei, well, this is the vertical of power - you can't shake it. It was built and built for 20 years, it is all in braces. Thanks for the article, we have returned words and concepts to their true meaning. Unhappy are those who do not want to part with brightly individually formed concepts, but in reality this resistance is not to you, but to a scientific and thoughtful approach in any business.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 09: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Galleon
      Unhappy are those who do not want to part with brightly individually formed concepts, but in reality this resistance is not to you, but to a scientific and thoughtful approach in any business.

      I couldn't have phrased it better. Thank! hi
  • imobile2008
    imobile2008 11 August 2020 09: 57 New
    +3
    There are two types of those who despise liberalism: 1. Illiterate people who do not understand what liberalism really is.
    2. Those who despise him in the form that we have developed, and we have developed anti-liberalism, which is passed off as liberalism (black for white).
    In order not to get confused, it is necessary to divide it into components: An honest trial, a high standard of living ... but this is not beneficial to current officials, These forces from demagoguery will be spent on real demands that will have to be fulfilled.
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze 11 August 2020 09: 58 New
    +2
    The author has taken on a very difficult topic. And extensive - liberalism includes many topics and people agree with some, but not with others ...

    For myself, I coined the term "neoliberalism" to reflect the Reaganomics period (80s to this day) and the rise of neoliberal ideas around the world.

    Catastrophe is like a stage of capitalism, neoliberalism is a catastrophe - the gradual destruction of the middle class in the Western world, wars, corporate greed and destruction of nature, etc., etc.

    Plus - as a concept of freedom, I am a liberal. I keep on my ability to change the government, to drive it into the slammer when it gets through and stops serving the people. The people are sovereign and should be able to change their employees (power) at every moment, without revolutions and bloodshed.
    Even the most attractive (economically) Singaporean meritocracy I perceive badly as a violation of my rights.

    Somehow - all people are liberals in one, conservatives in another, communists in the third, and in some things even fascists. Man is a diverse and colorful creature, so it is difficult to define him in one categorical color or style.
  • Cop
    Cop 11 August 2020 10: 38 New
    -2
    Well, Andrei is from Chelyabinsk, I certainly understand that ... tough guys live in Chelyabinsk. Only now I did not think that to such an extent. Actually, you and Staver played out the classic scheme of good and evil ..... a writer.
    Personally, I am very impressed by the definition given by someone that liberalism is a multitude of numerous, often unrelated, or even directly contradictory ideas, from which everyone who calls himself a liberal chooses those that he likes best.
    As I understand you, what a field for ..... creativity. laughing
    ..... who call themselves liberals in the West (this is an important caveat)
    How interesting ... it turns out liberalism is different .... They have their own, and we have ours. And then I was stupid always thought that liberalism is like pregnancy, or it is, or it is not. But it turns out not, of course there is pregnancy, only an African-American woman has her own, a true American woman has her own, and a Russian woman generally runs especially ...
    No, not a liberal, although I quite share some liberal ideas.
    The impression is that you have .... a split personality. You will somehow decide whether you share these or not.
    In other words, in some ways the interests of society should prevail over personal ones, and in others - on the contrary, the personal ones should stand above the public.
    What about the classes? Or do you deny the class approach?
    The absolutization of the rights and freedoms of the individual leads the liberal into the jungle of tolerance, from which there is no way out for him and will not be
    Tolerance is cultivated in the West. This is done in order to reduce conflicts within society, primarily interethnic, interracial, etc. It is strange that you do not understand this.
    And here we get an insoluble contradiction. After all, this addict can be helped only at the expense of other people, taking their honestly earned money
    There is no contradiction here, because people are all different. And if you do not want to finance this addict, he can come to your house ..... Who will be to blame in this case?
    The younger generation is told a lot about their rights. But the fact that any member of society, in addition to rights, also has obligations, is not emphasized,
    Controversial statement. He is usually told about the rule of law. Many, many years ago I was on a field trip in Finland. On the bus, the mother was saying something to her child, at the end she repeated several times: "Laki on laki". I asked my acquaintances what this means, it turned out that “law is law”.
    Therefore, I personally am for the state ideology
    And I am for the national, I hope you understand the difference ...
    ... they talk about individualism as the basis of all the foundations ... And then everywhere they spend good money on the implementation of the so-called corporate culture ...
    And again, what contradiction did you see here? A person wants to become the head of a corporation. Is this individualism? Certainly. How can this be achieved? Only with the command. How to unite it? One way is through this culture.
    ... to the Orange Revolutions inspired by our Western "friends" near our borders.
    And what prevented us from doing the same?
    The answer is very simple: for duplicity
    Yes, this is competition. Liberalism is not possible without its forms.
    ... skin color or civil status would give some kind of preference in court.
    It is not true. Usually they are judged for homophobia or racism.
    Without a doubt, "intellectual" is a loose concept.
    Here you are right, some authors in VO call themselves, for example, "locksmiths-intellectuals".
    But the “intellectual” will never associate his inability to provide himself with material benefits or the respect of those around him with his lack of talent or diligence.
    Listen, what then are so many people watching, for example the same "Dom-2"?
    A. B. Chubais and his comrades, who, instead of a smooth and gradual transition to a market economy, gave the country an economic shock therapy.
    And that Chubais arranged the Emergency Committee and destroyed the USSR? He just took advantage of the situation. Well, remember Dreiser. How did Cowperwood make his million?
    .... has the consequence of a blind admiration for any foreignism.
    Finns, for example, praise Sweden, they say there is a higher salary and a higher standard of living too. And the Estonians, Finland ...
    At the same time, dissatisfaction with liberalism in our society is based not so much on an understanding of its really existing negative aspects, as on the rejection of those who consider themselves to be liberals
    There will not be these so-called. "Liberals and intellectuals", who will tell us about the "vineyards" of the "man-iPhone"? Maybe you? So you said yourself that you are not a liberal. And then, to whom does the people have more rejection, to those who tell or is it all the same to those who own?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 11: 08 New
      -1
      Quote: Cop
      The impression is that you have .... a split personality. You will somehow decide whether you share these or not.

      Logical error. You agree that liberalism contradicts itself, but you suggest that I either support it unconditionally or refuse unconditionally. As I said, I share a number of ideas of liberalism, and a split personality can only be seen here by a person with a black-and-white maxim "either-or"
      Quote: Cop
      Controversial statement.

      Argue :)))
      Quote: Cop
      On the bus, the mother was saying something to her child, at the end she repeated several times: "Laki on laki". I asked my acquaintances what this means, it turned out that “law is law”.

      The law is not an obligation :)))) The law does not require you to necessarily work for the good of society, does not require you to respect your elders (not to offend - it does, but that's all), it does not oblige you to clean up your room, etc. etc.
      Quote: Cop
      And again, what contradiction did you see here? A person wants to become the head of a corporation. Is this individualism? Certainly. How can this be achieved? Only with the command. How to unite it? One way is through this culture.

      The contradiction is that if individualism prevailed over collectivism, the team would rally on completely different principles - then the personal enrichment of each employee should have been at the forefront, something like “join us and earn more than without us.”
      Quote: Cop
      And what prevented us from doing the same?

      You will see the answer to this question in the article
      Quote: Cop
      Yes, this is competition. Liberalism is not possible without its forms.

      Wrong. Liberalism is for the competition of people with equal rights. Here we are talking about deprivation of rights to achieve a competitive advantage
      Quote: Cop
      It is not true. Usually they are judged for homophobia or racism.

      This is true because, for example, it will be almost impossible to win a case against a gay black man. People who live abroad on a permanent basis tell me this.
      Quote: Cop
      Listen, what then are so many people watching, for example the same "Dom-2"?

      One of human instincts is voyeurism. But this is not a reason to develop it in this way.
      Quote: Cop
      And that Chubais arranged the Emergency Committee and destroyed the USSR?

      And I don't blame him for that.
      Quote: Cop
      He just took advantage of the situation.

      By using completely illiberal methods.
      Quote: Cop
      Well, remember Dreiser. How did Cowperwood make his million?

      Was Cowperwood a liberal? :))))
      1. Cop
        Cop 12 August 2020 11: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        As I said, I share a number of ideas of liberalism, and a split personality can only be seen here by a person with a black-and-white maxim "either-or"
        As I said, liberalism is either in a person or it is not. And what you are promoting is called somewhat differently ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Argue :)))
        What did I do? It is strange that you did not notice this.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The law does not require you to necessarily work for the good of society
        , does not require respect for elders (do not offend - requires, but that's all), does not oblige to clean up your room, etc. etc.
        Well, firstly, the law cannot regulate every "sneeze" person. And secondly, is it possible that a person fulfills other laws of the Criminal Code, KOPN, TC, Civil Code, etc. etc. is not work for the good of society?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The contradiction is that if individualism prevailed over collectivism, the team would rally on completely different principles.
        Well, you don’t like those, here are the others .... Imagine this picture ...., late autumn 41, somewhere near Moscow, a trench at the bottom of which soldiers are sitting. Suddenly the political instructor, let's say Klochkov pulls out his service TT, jumps up on the breastwork of the trench and shouts, let's say: "To attack, for the Motherland, for St. ...." And on the other side of the trench there is a special officer with a PCA in his hands. The soldiers gloomily climb out of the trench and start running after the political instructor, the PPSh is a strong argument ... An infantry chain is an organized group, and a political instructor is an individualist. He got up himself, even though he was probably scared. But the principles of organizing the group were different, right? :).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        You will see the answer to this question in the article
        Unfortunately I didn’t see it.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Wrong. Liberalism is for the competition of people with equal rights. Here we are talking about deprivation of rights to achieve a competitive advantage
        Something I do not understand you. Was the deprivation of rights legal? After all, even the loans-for-shares auctions were held legally.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        This is true because, for example, it will be almost impossible to win a case against a gay black man. People who live abroad on a permanent basis tell me this.
        In America, for example ..... blacks 12,65%, and whites 73%. Therefore, to meet a person in a judicial robe, who is of the same skin color and looks with the defendant is much less than vice versa. Hence the conclusion: your acquaintances are misleading you. I will repeat for you once again, they are being tried for homophobia and racism.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        One of human instincts is voyeurism. But this is not a reason to develop it in this way.
        What is the reason? By watching a movie like Red Devils?
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And I don't blame him for that.
        Well, of course. Chubais is only a consequence ..... :))).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        By using completely illiberal methods.
        Why not liberal? He gave everyone a voucher to the teeth, thus providing so dear to your heart, equal opportunities for everyone ..... :))).
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Was Cowperwood a liberal? :))))
        So after all, you are not a liberal, but you share something of liberalism. So why can't Cowperwood, just like you, use liberal principles, for example, competition for their own enrichment ....? :))).
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 11 August 2020 10: 40 New
    0
    IMHO. In fact, everything is complicated.
    Gentlemen from the Kremlin who call themselves the mass Liberals and Democrats, are they? Probably yes. Freely crush all competitors, all new faces. Freedom is it?

    And in America, gangs were once freely hired to blow up competitors' oil rigs. Personal predominance.

    All sorts of echoes - they fell sharply in quality. Rather, stupid clowns, for example Kasparov, (despite the fact that he blabbed about the laws for gigantic terms, do not touch).

    So we have strange liberals in our country ...

    PS. There was such a famous science fiction writer. Cruz. He lived with us and in the west.
    His books describe the reaction to the zombie apocalypse of different countries.
    Illiberal Russia: everyone was waiting in an organized manner for help from the authorities and the army, and as it disappeared, they began to scatter, every man for himself.
    Democratic America: everyone immediately took out stocks of firearms and began to organize according to any principle: residence in the town, membership in a society of gunsmiths, going to church on Sunday and gangs of bikers, of course ...
  • Engineer
    Engineer 11 August 2020 10: 57 New
    -1
    Did not like.
    The case when the author did not understand the question. The worst thing is that the author is good and popular. Not Haraluzhny. But the article is a set of cliches and ritual lamentations.
    There is no literature list. And in the text with quotes not a lot. Therefore, without a base, the author discusses not liberalism, but his everyday ideas about it. It's just too lazy to parse the entire article. Therefore, briefly
    1. There is no spherical liberal in a vacuum, and there cannot be. There are simply different aspects of liberalism: cultural, economic, social. A person adhering to the views of economic liberalism may well be a hard-core nationalist in the social aspect. Therefore, the wording "and yet a liberal is ..." cannot be. This is akin to the phrase "and yet women are ..."
    2. How can you talk about liberalism without saying a word about conservatism ???
    And finally, the third principle of the liberal is the rejection of revolutionary changes.

    Robespierre and Jefferson are somewhat confused.
    The liberal denies the need for state ideology, considering it to be violence against the individual. But in the 90s of the last century, we were already convinced from our own experience that a holy place is never empty: if the state abandons ideology, it will be replaced by a bunch of others, moreover, destructive for society. And it will not bring any benefit to society. Therefore, personally, I am for the state ideology, it should be.

    It's funny, that was the ideology in the USSR. Collectivism, friendship of peoples, solidarity of workers. Where did it all go when it was really needed in the early 90s?
    By the way, we have state ideology. Like?



    In addition, in my opinion, liberal ideology leads to deformation of the personality at the stage of its upbringing. The younger generation is told a lot about their rights. But the fact that any member of society, in addition to rights, also has obligations, is not emphasized,

    Well, they don't tell burghers in the West about their duties. Therefore, they thump, beat their wives, do not pay taxes and throw garbage on the street. Where does the author get information about how to bring up children "with them"?
    which didn't happen. We destroyed the USSR and extended the hand of friendship to the West - and what did we get in return? Alas, the leadership of the United States and Europe was not smart enough to accept the proposal. Instead, they, taking advantage of our period of weakness, rushed to solve their current geopolitical and economic issues at our expense.

    What a twist. Is the economic crisis, the war in Chechnya, the destruction of industry the work of the West ?? Or is it we ourselves?
    Take, for example, "The Great Film about the Great War," as its creator, director N. Mikhalkov, modestly and self-critically called it. In his creation, he very lucidly divided our people into "narodishko", which is dark, stupid and incapable, and relatively few "masters" who alone can manage this very nation

    Mr. Mikhalkov may be an "intellectual", but he is a "conservative", not a liberal.
    And therefore, today we do not need to accept liberalism as a state ideology for the development of society: this does not suit us, we deserve the best.

    Not worthy. The guarantor raspedalit everything to us once again quite recently.
    I ask you to treat with understanding (s)

    Undoubtedly, liberal models are now in crisis. But does this mean that they have become unusable? And most importantly, where is the alternative?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 11: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      There is no literature list.

      well, something is given in the text of the article
      Quote: Engineer
      There is no spherical liberal in a vacuum and cannot be.

      And how does it contradict mine
      liberalism is a multitude of numerous, often unrelated, or even directly contradictory ideas, from which everyone who calls himself a liberal chooses those that he likes best.

      Quote: Engineer
      A person adhering to the views of economic liberalism may well be a hard-core nationalist in the social aspect.

      And he is not a liberal, but a man who (like me, by the way) shares SOME ideas of liberalism.
      Quote: Engineer
      How can you talk about liberalism without saying a word about conservatism ???

      Calm down. If you think you can't - explain why
      Quote: Engineer
      Robespierre and Jefferson are somewhat confused.

      Firstly, the article says
      Of course, there will be other liberals who do not fully share the views I have described below, but "on average in a hospital" I, perhaps, will not be mistaken.

      You first declare that liberals may have very different views, and immediately reproach me for not being able to comb all liberals with one comb.
      Secondly, the same Robespierre is in no way a liberal, although he professed some liberal ideas. As a matter of fact, he died a little earlier than the appearance of liberalism, but the point is different - his actions were very far from liberal theories.
      Quote: Engineer
      It's funny, that was the ideology in the USSR. Collectivism, friendship of peoples, solidarity of workers. Where did it all go when it was really needed in the early 90s?

      Do you know? Then why do you reproach me for not knowing the topic?
      The point is that the USSR lost the ideological war, but then a period came when state ideology as such was absent
      Quote: Engineer
      By the way, we have state ideology. Like?

      Now she does not "is", but slowly appears. Slowly and not the one I would like. But why do you interfere with the need to have an ideology and the quality of the current ideology? Don't you understand that these are two big differences?
      Quote: Engineer
      Where does the author get information about how to bring up children "with them"?

      From the people who live there
      Quote: Engineer
      What a twist. Is the economic crisis, the war in Chechnya, the destruction of industry the work of the West ?? Or is it we ourselves?

      Please read the article and stop juggling the thoughts it contains. I wrote, for example,
      Fight for human rights embodied in support of terrorists in Chechnya

      Are you deliberately juggling, or don't you see the difference between SUPPORTING a process and starting it?
      Quote: Engineer
      Mr. Mikhalkov may be an "intellectual", but he is a "conservative", not a liberal.

      He is a weather vane, in fact, where the political wind blows, he turns there. But I did not accuse Mikhalkov of liberalism. Only a pseudo-liberal crowd applauding him.
      Quote: Engineer
      Not worthy.

      Speak for yourself :))))
      Quote: Engineer
      But the article is a set of cliches and ritual lamentations.

      As follows from the above - you could not figure it out
      1. Engineer
        Engineer 11 August 2020 13: 13 New
        +1
        You first declare that liberals may have very different views, and immediately reproach me for not being able to comb all liberals with one comb.

        No, I wrote it clearly enough
        Therefore, the wording "and yet a liberal is ..." cannot be.

        That is, "liberal" is a non-existent construct. There are liberal ideas, or if you want values. There are several coordinate scales that determine the worldview of a particular individual and how much he divides them. The balance of liberalism is different for each individual.
        Therefore, it is often necessary to introduce the concept of "conservatism" as an ideology polarizing liberalism in several aspects. Need to understand specific aspect of liberalism
        For example, for the national aspect it looks like this:
        national-conservative at one pole; national-liberal a little to the left; ultraliberal (and socialist) at the very left
        Conclusion 1. It is impossible to comb liberalism. But this did not bother the author. He introduces the concept of "liberal" as a label, "straw scarecrow" as an IDEOLOGY, and then debunks it, without trying to understand a specific aspect.

        Do you know? Then why do you reproach me for not knowing the topic?

        Thrown into the trash when it became unnecessary laughing
        Are you getting in the way of the need to have the ideology and quality of the current ideology? Don't you understand that these are two big differences?

        The ideology is already there. Only the blind cannot see. It is indirect, but nevertheless implemented both broadly and deeply
        Conclusion 2. History clearly shows that what ideology you don't cultivate is crap. Any talk about the need for ideology in the modern world, at best, stupidity at worst is a crime.

        Where does the author get information about how to bring up children "with them"?

        From the people who live there

        Here I am too. And why, then, "they have" the result of education is better than "ours"? Why are conventional Europeans more law-abiding and better able to cooperate?

        Are you deliberately juggling, or don't you see the difference between SUPPORTING a process and starting it?

        I see that all Russia's problems are primarily in Russia. The cries about the hand of the West and Trump and Obama in the doorways are already fed up.

        He is a weather vane, in fact, where the political wind blows, he turns there. But I did not accuse Mikhalkov of liberalism. Only a pseudo-liberal crowd applauding him.

        No pseudo-liberal or liberal crowd applauds him. This is a project from conservative clowns to conservative clowns. And at the same time everyone who simply does not like the West. They both eat and ask for supplements. Ears grow from the "Orthodox oligarch" Malofeev
        https://tsargrad.tv/news/travlja-mihalkova-prodolzhilas-v-novom-kljuche-gref-nanosit-otvetnyj-udar_263238
        Is this an applause from the liberal Gref?

        Speak for yourself :))))


        Andrey breathed in and announced:
        "Russia deserves the best!"
        Russia is silent, there is no strength.
        Sneak and Andrey in silent powerlessness
        tongue
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          11 August 2020 14: 30 New
          +1
          Quote: Engineer
          That is, "liberal" is a non-existent construct.

          And, nevertheless, they exist :)))))
          Quote: Engineer
          There are liberal ideas, or values, if you like. There are several coordinate scales that determine the worldview of a particular individual and how much he divides them. The balance of liberalism is different for each individual.

          And I gave a certain average balance. Where do you see the problem?
          Quote: Engineer
          He introduces the concept of "liberal" as a label, "straw scarecrow" as an IDEOLOGY, and then debunks it, without trying to understand a specific aspect.

          It is strange that the criticism was not at all embarrassed by the fact that the author did not debunk liberalism as a whole, but individual ideas that are shared by most liberals
          Quote: Engineer
          The ideology is already there. Only the blind cannot see.

          Nothing that I am writing not about now, but about the period after the collapse of the USSR?
          Quote: Engineer
          Conclusion 2. History clearly shows that what ideology you don't cultivate is crap.

          Sorry, but this is, to put it mildly, a very erroneous and historically unconfirmed statement.
          Quote: Engineer
          Here I am too. And why, then, "they" have better education results than "us"?

          And who said they were better?
          Quote: Engineer
          Why are conventional Europeans more law-abiding and better able to cooperate?

          Go crazy :))) Do you see the consequences of upbringing in this? :))) I reveal the secret: "Being determines consciousness" :)))) That is why, when the experiment was set up and the group of foreign psychology students was divided into (conditionally) prisoners and warders, with the condition that the prisoners must obey any requirements of the latter, very quickly there was a slide into sadism of warders and group bail and so on among the prisoners.
          In addition, all sociology is based on the principle that the behavior of a crowd of Einsteins and homeless people is the same, because it is a crowd :))))
          Quote: Engineer
          I see that all Russia's problems are primarily in Russia. The cries about the hand of the West and Trump and Obama in the doorways are already fed up.

          If you are tired of something, then these are your problems, but not mine, as the author of the article. If only because I have never declared anywhere that our problems in Chechnya are inspired by the West. You habitually react to the cliches you are used to, but you don’t see that I don’t have them - so, a couple of familiar words came across and off we go.
          Not the West staged military operations in Chechnya. But there is a FACT - for a long time terrorism in Chechnya was viewed by the West as a struggle of the Chechen people for liberation and was supported at the political level.
          Quote: Engineer
          Andrey breathed in and announced:
          "Russia deserves the best!"
          Russia is silent, there is no strength.
          Sneak and Andrey in silent powerlessness

          Osspa, well, at least do not engage in poetry, this is definitely not yours :)))) "proclaimed-forces", "Russia-impotence" ... Horror :))))
          However ... - Here Bobrinsky smiled warningly, - however, I say everywhere and everywhere that we have nothing against the German and Austrian eagles and that after the war we will generously return the empire to both ...
          - How? - Yuri did not understand.
          Bobrinsky sat back in delight.
          - They have feathers! he explained, choking with pleasure. - We will refund them
          feathers, and we'll take the rest ... Isn't that bad?
          The pun that was painstakingly hammered together with an ax, obviously, belonged to
          graph. Livitin smiled politely.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 11 August 2020 11: 19 New
    -2
    The point is that liberalism has never been a single concept: there are many liberal theories that somewhere do not coincide, but somewhere directly contradict each other.
    Quite right! Like any dastardly deception (as opposed to other types of deception, for example, involuntary), liberalism carefully avoids clear definitions. Since a clear definition allows you to determine the rights and obligations of the person who falls under it. Find out how much such a person can be tolerated in society. This is definitely not for a liberal of any kind!
    The essence of liberalism is not to SERVE society. The liberal is ready to fulfill only his desires. And he demands from society not to be disturbed. Of course, the best expression of free liberalism is the criminal. A bandit, a murderer, a pedophile, there are the most exemplary liberals. They are free of the obsessive influence of society!
    Of course, a liberal is too mean and cowardly to admit it. Therefore, he adds everywhere "as long as my desires do not affect the interests of other people." False! Almost all human actions, even those that are performed secretly, behind closed doors, affect common interests. Just a liberal, in order to dodge the damned public good, he tries to do everything secretly.
    Alas. Liberalism is a cancer of humanity's social organisms. A cancer cell differs from a healthy one in that it lives exclusively for itself. Not performing any social functions there, but at the same time trying to "not offend the interests of other" cells. Well, is that so? And the body is dying for some reason ...
  • Jarilo
    Jarilo 11 August 2020 11: 38 New
    +1
    The problem is that we have an obligation to pay taxes, but we do not have to participate in the distribution of the funds collected in this way. And we don't even have the ability to control what and how this money is spent. On the basis of what taxes and tariffs are formed with reference to specific target costs - there is no information. You just need to collect as much as possible and divide (cut) on different megaprojects that do not give anything in terms of budget revenues, i.e. not into production and development.
  • malyvalv
    malyvalv 11 August 2020 12: 44 New
    +1
    Liberalism is one of the three main ideologies. There is also nationalism and socialism. They first clearly appeared during the Great French Revolution, which rejected the monarchy and religion and proclaimed freedom, equality, brotherhood. True, it later turned out that all three slogans in one society do not get along well. People were divided into liberals defending freedom, defending the equality of socialists and defending the brotherhood of nationalists.
    In a radical version, all ideologies are disgusting and deadly. History has marked the radical Bolsheviks in Russia, the radical Nazis in Germany, and the radical liberals in the United States.
    The radical currents of religion are no better. An example of this is ISIS.
    In a moderate version, all people to one degree or another profess this or that ideology, often without even noticing it, but simply following their economic interests.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 11 August 2020 12: 48 New
    +2
    You know, it seems to me that this very idea is akin to "Communism" - a kind of eternally unattainable source in the direction of which the search is carried out. Accordingly, those people who are extremely eager to get closer to him as soon as possible - make the same mistakes and breakdowns, which were committed by the apologists of communism. Also, violence is committed against the inner world of a person through the same propaganda, suggestion and education.
    In the same way, people who do not share the implanted dogmas are exposed to sharpness. Only the toolkit is more flexible, Jesuit - instead of "imprisoning" "shooting" - public, as it is fashionable to say now, "shaming" and near-radical self-advocates of interested groups of low social status, an overly dramatized judicial system and journalism are used. As the quintessence of this, they can plant. I remember the "golden days" of McCarthyism - all this worked like a clock, and now it works in the same spirit - when they use all this scum from the rights of women, blacks, and gays - for demonstrative beatings of individuals.

    However, I cannot say that the liberal idea is an unequivocal utopian monster. The example you gave about a drug addict around the neck of society - if a person has a tendency to self-destruction, he generally has two ways. Either he self-destructs in spite of everything - performing the mechanism of evolutionary cleansing of the population from less adapted individuals, or he goes through a certain crisis stage and acquires meaning and will - he begins to sing different songs, write smart books, starts a rehabilitation circle, etc. In general, he either dies or starts generating a product. In the first case, most of the benefits that went to the drug addict remain in society and recycle, the lesser is insignificant if we are talking about a developing / developed society and not some kind of colony on Mars. In the second case, we get a fruitful member of society performing one or another (relatively) useful function - making a profit, paying taxes, buying goods, etc. To unequivocally judge the viciousness of such a practice, you need to have in your hands statistics showing the number of such people per ten thousand working, the number of ways out of such dead ends per 100 drug addicts, etc. Perhaps the economic damage from such a society is destroyed and does not have a pronounced tendency to expand in a healthy and economically developed liberal society.

    On the question "a person for the state" or "a state for a person" - I have an unambiguous position - "the state for a person." We now have the opportunity to observe the opposite of this concept on the example of our country, both in its current state and from the point of view of its historical path. For generations, the state took the best pieces from people for some kind of external projects - the growth of the well-being of these people increased less pronounced, relative to states with a liberal model. There were revolutions - the regulating rights and rules, as well as the construction of some development plans, which for years fed the robbed. Over time, such a system logically came to the conclusion that a certain positive option is not at all important - based on historical examples. As a result, more and more incompetent people began to deal with planning issues from time to time, the habit of uncontrolled use of public resources progressed, the specificity of the attitude towards private property of the state hindered the stable accumulation of citizens within the country. It is customary for us to blame certain personalities and "upheavals" in this system - in fact, everything is very logically lined up in the line of evolution without revolutions. This is exactly the evolution of the state for the state :-)

    Sorry for the longread!)
    1. depressant
      depressant 11 August 2020 21: 31 New
      +1
      Do not apologize, colleague, for a longread - such a normal longread, here many have sinned them))) In fact, you are the closest to the truth. In general, I consider the problem in the aspect of a double breaking of the mettle of our people. As it seems to me, not a single people, except ours, had a go and return. Well, except for those who have joined the process for a shorter period. But such victims are only with us. With the parallel coexistence of two mentalities between breaks, one of which decreases and the other increases. The main thing is that there is no third withdrawal. Therapy instead of surgery. Otherwise we will not stand it.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 11 August 2020 22: 09 New
        +2
        Our history is misinterpreted in some places, the political coloring of events often forces us to adhere to perverted double standards, dangerous and contradictory thoughts and a lot of forbidden things are walking in society - all this is just magic soil for breakdowns to happen regularly, and wherever it can be bloodshed and epic violence against personality and human mentality - it happened over and over ... and over again.
        People in our country have long forgotten how to reason with the criteria of "expediency" or "benefit", we have seduced the evolutionary rules for the sake of sadomasochistic abstract megalomania.
        Thus, our state over and over again slides into existence for itself and in itself, absolutely breaking away from the reality and interests of the flesh. Well, this is how I see it. All the troubles come from this - this is a defect in mentality, which is not accepted to be split up in the context of a "superpower" and "people of the winner" and so on and so forth ..
  • andrew42
    andrew42 11 August 2020 13: 41 New
    +1
    "We destroyed the USSR ..." - this is the author's diagnosis. And if on the subject, then behind the Liberal there is always a usurer, and on the content of Rostovshik - a silovik-mercenary. The main task of this warm company is to make Money out of People.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 13: 51 New
    0
    Liberalism is one of the types of culture of public self-government, which is possible only in a crowd- "elite" society.
    The organizational and political essence of liberalism as such is in the active support of the crowd of "little people" - according to their ideological conviction or lack of ideas on the basis of animal-instinctive behavior - a system of abuse of power by the "elite" oligarchy, which:
    ------------------------
    • presents unrighteousness as supposedly true “righteousness”, and on this basis, distorting the world outlook of people, with all its power, cultivates unrighteousness in society, preventing people from taking place as a person;
    • under various pretexts, with all her power, she suppresses everyone and everyone who doubts the righteousness of her herself and the policy she is implementing, and also suppresses those whom she suspects of this.
    ------
    The difference between liberalism and fascism of the oligarchic-dictatorial type is only that:
    • liberalism, due to its vagueness of the norms of personal and social development, impedes the formation of a civilization of humanity by opening the gates of mass personal degradation, which entails the degradation of society;
    -------------------------
    • and the fact that liberalism calls fascism (that is, fascism in a naked oligarchic-dictatorial form) hinders the formation of the civilization of humanity by the fact that although it blocks some of the degradation processes that they have identified, it nevertheless impedes personal development, imposing limiting dogmas.
    -----------------------
    On the whole, liberalism and naked oligarchic-dictatorial fascism complement each other and help each other in the endless “struggle of the Nanai boys”, hindering the development of humanity and the building of a civilization of humanity.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 13: 52 New
    0
    The fact that the historically established culture of the Russian multinational regional civilization does not embody the ideal it has carried since ancient times - the civilization of humanity - and is full of a wide variety of vices that have become the norm of life - does not mean that this ideal is illusory or unrealizable:
    -----------------------------
    • he is the goal of the cultural development of all mankind;
    • its certainty and irrefutability make it possible to unambiguously distinguish and differentiate between personal degradation and personal development, which entail the degradation and development of society as a whole, respectively;
    • its certainty and incontrovertibility make it possible to develop and implement a policy of sustainable and safe development of all societies without exception, regardless of their current state and accumulated vices and problems.
    ----------------------------------------------
    But this is anti-liberalism and anti-fascism at the same time, therefore there are many dissatisfied in the world with Russia-USSR-Russia, and they will all accuse Russia: liberals - of fascism, fascists (adherents of oligarchic dictatorships and leaderism) - of biological and sociocultural inferiority, pointing to real or fictional vices and problems inherent in Russia.
    ------------------------------
    But for fascism and in its covertly oligarchic-dictatorial form (usually referred to as liberalism), and in the nakedly oligarchic-dictatorial form in Russia there is no social base.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, Russia will have to continue its original development - in the sense of embodying the ideal of humanity - and involve the peoples of other regional civilizations in this process, since they have a social base for this. The biblical project of globalization has reached a dead end, and the Russian project of globalization - building a civilization of multinational humanity - will be implemented.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 13: 54 New
    -1
    The answer to the question "What about Russia?" simple: And Russia has an alternative concept of globalization and the noospheric processes that implement it - matrix-egregorial. - This is the "black swan", the release of which Western analysts fear in recent years. But he has been free for a long time, although he is not black, but white, and whom they overlooked or did not identify ...
    ------------------------------------
    The bearer and implementer of the essential and characteristic ideals of any regional civilization is not one or another politician, not a historically established statehood, but, ultimately, the social psychodynamics of the totality of peoples that make up this regional civilization. These or those politicians and historically established statehood can be both in conflict with these ideals, and more or less fully and successfully act in accordance with them. Both politics and statehood are always a consequence of psychodynamics in one of two options for its implementation:
    -------------------------------------
    - non-resistance to the action of psychodynamics and political actors external to it (in this version, the statehood of post-Soviet Russia arose, alien to its ideals);
    - the implementation of their own definitely appropriate algorithms aimed at the embodiment of their own ideals.
    ---------------------------------------
    It is in the combination of civilizational ideals and their carrier and implementer that the problem lies in the principle of the ineradicable illiberalism of Russia.
    ----------------------------------------
    Since in reality there is only one single subject of global politics - the Almighty, who is not indifferent to what is happening on Earth; and as a result of His non-indifference to what is happening, those who act in the mainstream of His Providence, and not those who have achieved a certain monopoly dominant position within the limits of God's allowance, are involved in eternity (i.e. not bound by time).
  • Alex2
    Alex2 11 August 2020 14: 09 New
    +3
    The direct antipode of liberalism is fascism. There is nothing else in the world. These two antipodes can be called whatever you like, their essence will not change from this. England is liberalism, China is fascism. And it doesn't matter what they call themselves.
  • Trilobite Master
    Trilobite Master 11 August 2020 14: 14 New
    +2
    Yes, Andrey, you raised the topic ... smile
    Honestly - I did not expect it from you, although, if you think about it, then, perhaps, except for you, no one, perhaps, could even theoretically master this most difficult topic from the authors of VO. However, this is impossible within the framework of one article.
    I liked the article as a whole, although I'm not sure I understood it completely. And what I really did not understand is that it was written "for a fig". The only thing that comes to mind is that the article is your own attempt to understand such a complex phenomenon as liberalism.
    At one time, one very intelligent person, Professor Ivan Filippovich Krylov, who tried to beat the foundations of a scientific approach to anything in my stupid student head, literally told me the following: "Any scientific work should be based on three pillars - history, theory and practice." ...
    Probably, it would be correct in the article to devote several paragraphs to the history of the emergence of liberalism in its pristine, virgin form, its development, the main directions-offshoots, as well as its role in shaping our world as it is now. In such a context, it would be easier to explain to the readers (those of them who can explain something at all) what it is in general - maybe I would understand something for myself. smile
    And so it turned out something like "reflections on the topic." Reflections of a person, of course, smart, competent and therefore interesting, but still somewhat chaotic and haphazard. Well, if so, then I, using the right to express my opinion on any issue, will express a couple of thoughts on this matter. smile
    First. Liberalism, in my opinion, is a too broad concept. It includes a system of views, often so contradictory and mutually exclusive that I personally cannot consider it (liberalism) as something unified, integral.
    Second. Like any phenomenon in nature, liberalism arose when such an objective necessity came, and at that time it was a set of the most advanced and progressive views on social structure. However, since then the world has changed very much and objectively, in my opinion, the supporters of this very liberalism, whatever this term is understood (see paragraph one smile ) are largely retrogrades. Attempts to modernize liberalism by adapting it to modern reality seem to me completely unsuccessful. Globalization, whether we like it or not, does not leave this ideology, the cornerstone of which is the individual, the slightest chance of existence, and the sooner we understand this, the better.
    And the last thing. In our Russian realities, now the very word - "liberalism" and all its derivatives are in fact practically obscene, akin to homosexuality. Is it worth it to convince people that liberalism is not always bad, or rather, not everything is bad? I think not worth it. Liberal ideas have already sufficiently taken root in our world, have taken deep roots, have penetrated into our collective consciousness and it is no longer possible to uproot them from there without a lot of blood, which is undoubtedly wonderful (without irony). And even those who now curse this "liberalism" are in fact taking advantage of the fruits of his ideas in the most active way - you should not break their comfortable, formed world, otherwise they will rise in anger and, under a hot hand, will deprive themselves of all freedoms and opportunities under the pretext that this is damned "liberalism". And at the same time they will deprive their own, and therefore ours, children and grandchildren of this for many years.
    Leave it as it is. Let "liberalism" remain a dirty word, but when they go to eradicate it, the liberal values ​​necessary for society can remain intact. Unless, of course, you point your finger at them, they say "they are also liberalism." smile
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 15: 49 New
      +3
      Greetings, Michael!
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      However, this is impossible within the framework of one article.

      I agree:)))
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      And what I really did not understand is that it was written "for a fig".

      After reading other articles on liberalism and comments on them, I realized that people often do not understand at all what liberalism is, that is, absolutely. Therefore, the idea was this - to briefly explain what kind of beast it is, to express your attitude towards him and show what he is usually confused with. That's, in general, that's all :)))
      It made no sense to write for a long time - those who know what liberalism are does not need these articles, and very many of those who do not know will fall asleep in the middle of the cycle, simply because if they were interested in this question, they would have figured it out long ago ... Hence the brevity, which is the sister of talent, but never mother-in-law to a fee :)))))
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      First. Liberalism, in my opinion, is a too broad concept. It includes a system of views, often so contradictory and mutually exclusive that I personally cannot consider it (liberalism) as something unified, integral.

      For me, too, and so I wrote :)
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      Like any phenomenon in nature, liberalism arose when such an objective necessity came, and at that time it was a collection of the most advanced and progressive views on social structure. However, since then the world has changed very much and objectively, in my opinion, the supporters of this very liberalism, whatever this term is understood (see paragraph one smile), are largely retrogrades.

      Almost word for word my findings hi
      Quote: Trilobite Master
      Attempts to modernize liberalism by adapting it to modern reality seem to me completely unsuccessful.

      As if yes - I would suggest using some of the reasonable ideas that liberalism has, but nothing more.
      I also largely agree with the rest of your arguments. Actually, I'm not starting a crusade in defense of liberalism - what I wanted about this I said, and I'm not going to continue :))))
      1. Trilobite Master
        Trilobite Master 11 August 2020 19: 10 New
        +1
        Yes, Andrey, welcome. hi
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        the idea was this - to briefly explain what kind of animal this is

        And what are your impressions? smile
        I, I must say, amazed on good, expected more curses against the author. smile
        Sometimes it occurred to myself to write something of a general enlightenment plan, but I successfully fought with them, especially since most of the users present here, for various reasons, do not need enlightenment.
        I hope you are satisfied. smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          12 August 2020 07: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          And what are your impressions?
          I, I must say, amazed on good, expected more curses against the author.

          Yes, no way :)))) Someone liked it, some didn't, someone, after reading 2 familiar words, rushed to the attack ... Everything is as usual :)
          Quote: Trilobite Master
          I hope you are satisfied.

          Yes, I, in general, did not challenge anyone to a duel :)
  • itis
    itis 11 August 2020 14: 21 New
    0
    suitable, Taoist article. Both A.P. Chekhov and V.I. Lenin would agree with the analysis of the Russian "intelligentsia"
  • iouris
    iouris 11 August 2020 14: 23 New
    +1
    First of all, you should start with concepts. Classical liberalism and what is understood by liberalism here and now are two big differences. The same can be said about the concepts: conservatism, capitalism, communism, "left", "right", dad and mom. Moreover, our society historically develops quite specifically. Scientific concepts in Latin in Russian often mean something else.
  • set of sets
    set of sets 11 August 2020 15: 03 New
    0
    All philosophies, ideologies are wrong. Morality is the main and only correct ideology.
    1. iouris
      iouris 11 August 2020 20: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: set of sets
      Morality is the main and only correct ideology.

      Everything that helps me enrich myself is moral.
      1. set of sets
        set of sets 12 August 2020 07: 41 New
        -2
        Such as you are the majority. This is the whole point. No ideologies and society structures,
        and state structures will not help, because people do not stop killing, stealing and doing any nasty and abominable things.

        And morality is unchangeable.

        But alas, it is quite difficult to understand this, and it is almost impossible to perform it at all. Therefore, we will always live in what we deserve and what we are.

        And all these philosophies and ideologies are no more than ordinary demagoguery, which is nothing of itself.
  • Wizzzard
    Wizzzard 11 August 2020 15: 11 New
    +2
    Nice, thoughtful article. There is only one small regret: speaking about libralism (and its subspecies), as well as about the "Russian intelligentsia" (whose banners are embroidered with liberal slogans), the author did not consider and did not even mention the movement (both intellectual and political), which is known as "libertarianism". But this topic would be worth talking about. Moreover, there are many libertarians in the same States (for all its heterogeneity and variegation), and in the ranks of our native "educated people", consider that there are none at all, with the exception of a couple of Ann Rand admirers ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      11 August 2020 15: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Wizzzard
      the author did not consider or even mention the movement (both intellectual and political) that is known as "libertarianism"

      Alas, this question is outside the scope of the article. hi She is already quite large in size.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 15: 12 New
    -1
    History knows no other liberalisms about bourgeois liberalism.
    ------------------------
    Liberalism is not immoral, as many people now think in Russia, but it has a specific morality, although it is unrighteous and cruel in most of its manifestations, which liberals perceive as the norm of life.
    -----------------
    This means that policies pursued since the early 1920s. in all bourgeois-liberal societies of Europe, in the USA and around the world, the essence of which is the introduction as a norm of life of sexual perversions, drugs, various immoralities, virtual impunity for crimes up to the abolition of the death penalty even for the most serious crimes, and other “tolerance” - in reality does not express the ideals of liberalism.
    -----------------------
    It is aimed at transforming liberalism into permissiveness by bringing liberalism to the point of absurdity with the goal of self-liquidating the kind of capitalism that has developed on the basis of bourgeois-liberal ideology.
    --------------
    From the middle of the XNUMXth century, the world behind the scenes attempted to solve the task of eliminating bourgeois-liberal capitalism with the help of Marxism, but could not and now it is being solved by other means. At first, in the first three decades of the existence of the USSR, this policy of the spread of immorality in the countries of bourgeois democracy was an auxiliary means complementing the Marxist project. Its purpose was to ensure the attractiveness of the Soviet way of life on the basis of Marxism-Leninism against the backdrop of degradation and the moral and ethical decomposition of capitalist societies.
    ---------------
    But after I.V. Stalin pronounced a death sentence on Marxism (see the works of the USSR VP "A Short Course ..." and "Judas Sin of the XX Congress") and, in particular, after the collapse of the USSR as a result of the surrender of the country to the party-KGB nomenclature of the liberal bourgeois of the United States, this means became the main tool for the elimination of bourgeois liberalism and the culture generated by it is at this stage of history: liberalism, brought to the point of absurdity, turns into permissiveness and condemns the committed societies to self-destruction under the influence of biological and socio-cultural laws of life, which these societies and their ruling "elite" ignore, or about the existence who are not suspected.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 15: 14 New
    +2
    After the collapse of the USSR, Russia also began to be drawn into this process of self-destruction in debauchery. So the “world backstage” is clearing the area for the implementation of a new global civilization project based on biomass, which should replace the indigenous European peoples and the historically formed nations of Australia and post-Columbian America.
    ------------------------
    At the same time, objective laws - biological and sociocultural - that societies ignore or do not suspect of their existence, are used as weapons in the ANONYMOUS war to destroy them.
    --------------------
    And although liberalism used this kind of means in the Cold War to destroy the post-Stalin party-nomenclature USSR (SNB Directive 20/1 of 18.08.1948/XNUMX/XNUMX and the notorious Dulles Plan), but he himself is defenseless against them.
    To defend oneself, one must go beyond the limits of liberal views, recognizing their limitations and the correctness of I.V. Stalin, G. Ford, J. K. Galbraith in assessing the vital consistency of the principles and ideology of bourgeois liberalism and the need to abandon them and transition to a truly human culture in which everyone is free in personal development and good creativity.
    -----------------------
    Many today in all countries of the world are perplexed why in countries - adherents of democracy and liberalism - in fact there is a process of self-destruction of their peoples and original cultures.
    ------------------------
    But this bewilderment stems from a misunderstanding of how the full management function is implemented in a global civilization, as a result of which they think that the "world behind the scenes" and its policy in relation to states and regions of the planet do not really exist, and in states everything happens "by itself" ...
    --------------------
    This is a consequence of the inadequacy of culture in the aspect of developing the capacity of the population (and, above all, politicians) at the level of the 1st (cognitive methodology), 2nd (matrix-algorithmic), 3rd (factology, scientific theories, including those , which underlie the provision of public administration) the priorities of generalized controls / weapons.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 15: 16 New
    -1
    If we start considering the process of personal formation from the prehistory of conception, then all crowd- "elite" cultures are such that throughout this process, from the prehistory of conception to entering adulthood, the individual is under the influence of various damaging factors, which:
    -----------------
    - reduce the biological potential of an adult's capabilities - both as a result of genetics disorders in the prehistory of conception and conception itself, and as a result of suppression and perversion of the genetic program of the body's development during pregnancy and growing up;
    --------------
    - suppress and distort the process of the formation of the personality psyche as an informational-algorithmic system, as a result of which the overwhelming majority do not reach, not only by the beginning of adolescence, but also by the end of life (sometimes in extreme old age) that specific structure of the algorithmic psyche that distinguishes a person who has taken place from held in such a capacity as more or less humanoid members of society - enslaved by the instincts of herd-school "Banderlog" and "cattle", "wolves" or "sharks" lonely; “zombies” programmed with one or another prejudice, unable to get out of their power on their own; demons, tenacious according to the principle "I turn what I want, and if someone does not agree, show that you are cooler."
    ----------------------
    When all this worked and the individual, to whom the opportunity was opened from Above to become a Human, became an adult, it turns out that:
    - in the bottom "tail" of the statistical distribution are concentrated those whose results will determine the fate of spheres of activity, peoples and humanity as a whole for decades and centuries to come;

    - in the other “tail” of the statistical distribution there are concentrated those who are only capable of “sitting on drugs”, producing their own kind of biological and moral monsters, blaming anyone for their troubles, but not themselves, and demanding that others and the state serve him “ great person ”and those degenerates whom he managed to produce.
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 15: 19 New
    -1
    The essence of fascism is not dictatorship, and not terror, but in preventing a person from becoming a person.
    -------------
    Liberalism is the replacement of freedom as a dictatorship of conscience with malicious permissiveness. Bourgeois liberalism, both as an ideology and as a political and economic practice, is a kind of fascism. Unscrupulous liberalism is a doctrine of global racial mafia-organized slavery, propagated and carried out through usury.
    -----------
    Due to its lack of conscience, "liberalism" itself is a generator of problems, dangers and direct threats, since society under its rule lives in a meaningless struggle of self-interest and a race for consumption, in which technical and technological progress is ahead of the moral and ethical development of people and society as a whole. This is the main global problem.
    -------------
    Ignorance, whether explicit or in the form of the highest education on the basis of false and inadequate pseudo-knowledge, is one of the foundations of crowd- "elitism".
  • LCA
    LCA 11 August 2020 15: 45 New
    0
    Bourgeois liberalism, with its insatiable consumerism, was sentenced to liquidation by the curators of the biblical concept at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.
    The implementation of the Marxist project of crowd-"elite" pseudo-socialism after the October coup in Russia in 1917 began with attempts to destroy the institution of the family and to free them from criminal prosecution against sexual perverts - fagots.
    I.V. Stalin, blocked the implementation of the Marxist project in Russia, destroying the leadership of the Trotskyists and L.D. Trotsky, and restored the article on the criminal prosecution of fagots in the USSR. The liberal bourgeois, having come to power in 1991, again removed this article from the USSR Criminal Code.
    -------------
    After the Second World War, the bosses of the global biblical project changed the tactics of eliminating bourgeois liberalism on the planet: at first, they gave the developed countries of Europe and America an opportunity to go a little to the left, i.e. to build something like Soviet pseudo-socialism, but the quality (in terms of social security) is higher than in the USSR, after which they began to actively impose global fagot on the entire planet, i.e. to destroy the institution of the family - the foundation of any (including bourgeois) society. How much they do it, everyone can judge from media reports and from life.
  • abba-nmn
    abba-nmn 11 August 2020 17: 28 New
    +1
    Just as the devil cannot hide his true essence near the shrine, so liberalism shows in Russia its true face, which he successfully manages to hide in the conditions of the hypocritical West. The source of "liberalism" is in Lucifer's movement towards freedom from God, which turned him into Satan and Eve's desire to teach her husband something new, sweet, forbidden.
  • noct
    noct 11 August 2020 21: 10 New
    +3
    Good article. I read it with great pleasure. I agree in almost everything. I have no particular objections at all
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Campanella
    Campanella 13 August 2020 02: 56 New
    0
    Liberalism, communism, capitalism, feudalism are all good!
    The trouble is, the person himself is bad!