The world will never be the same. And in the coming new world, Russia faces a choice: either the collapse of the state, or the adoption of its own imperative - in accordance with its values, on the basis of its goal-setting.
And from the wind from the East, stacks bent down, squeezing against the rocks of the flock.
Earth axis we moved without a lever,
changing the direction of impact.
End of an era
"The world is changing. It is felt in the air. It is felt in the water. This is felt on the ground, ”the phrase that sounds at the very beginning of The Lord of the Rings sets the tone for the entire film, colors it with certain emotional colors: the world changes, and it changes no matter which side of the opposition, which subject wins, the world already never be the same. This phrase best describes the current situation in the world and in Russia, both by itself and as part of the world system. The era that started in 1970 and ends with the turn of 1980 – 1990-s ends, and the central event is the collapse of systemic anti-capitalism (Soviet communism) and the disintegration of the USSR, an event that unlocked the “fathom of the abyss” of globalization. Today, this era is finally becoming obsolete: the system of neoliberal capitalism, the weak element of which is the Russian Federation, is collapsing, and, as we know, it is the weak links that fly first.
Can we jump out of a geohistorical trap, is there a game plan for this, means and, most importantly, that subject who will fortify his shoulder? Before discussing this topic, it is necessary, at least briefly, in a few strokes, with the inevitable simplification to describe the world situation and the roots of the situation in which the Russian Federation found itself at the turn of two centuries and millennia.
Global neoliberal capitalism has exhausted its development possibilities. In this regard, the watershed 1970 – 2000-epoch was equally powerful flash in the development of capitalism, its violence, in which its agony or at least the pre-diagonal stage. The situation resembles the males of some species of spider, who have an orgasm and madly run wild in him only after the spider has bitten off their head; In a sense, neoliberal capitalism is acephalous capitalism, head-bitten capitalism. Well, its peripheral versions are still headless, just look at the RF, especially in the 1990-s.
However, the Russian Federation has its own dimension of the exhaustion of the era, only indirectly connected with the world and rooted in the deep logic of the Russian past, in its “historical hours ”striking the 24th hour of the era when its material heritage, historical substance, is being consumed. In fact, the Soviet legacy, primarily the material, technical, infrastructural, has already been almost eaten away; processes of social disorganization dominate those of social organization; criminalization is becoming a form of social organization of the life of the lower classes, corruption - of the upper classes, between the upper and lower classes dangles a half-withered middle stratum - meaningless and hopeless.
The perestroika five-year plan and the post-perestroika twentieth anniversary brought the Russian Federation to a point beyond which only two alternatives: either strengthening the state, decriminalizing society (she is denoliberalization in all senses), changing the position in the world division of labor as a raw materials appendage of the West, or disintegration of the country, design is colonial - of the criminal criminal police system and the final slide into the "fourth world". This Russian alternative is partly correlated with the one facing the West: either strengthening the state in the face of financial, socio-economic, racial-political and geoclimatic disasters, dismantling capitalism and creating a new system, or the collapse of the state and society in the face of disaster and the onset of new ( fourth) dark ages (previous - XIII – IX centuries BC; V – VIII centuries AD; mid XIV - mid XVII centuries AD) with unclear prospects for civilization, the white race, and possibly Homo sapiens.
In other words, the world and Russian alternatives largely coincide. Under the conditions of this wave resonance, personifiers of options opposing each other in the Russian Federation and in the world can, at least in a certain, most likely short historical period, act as allies (and not always ultimately for the benefit of Russia and the Russians, here are other calculations therefore, we must keep our ears open) - an external (western) ally may emerge in power in the Russian Federation in strengthening statehood both at the state and at the supranational level. A dozen years ago it was impossible - they were not interested in a strong RF at the time, or they were quiet; of interest were weakening and decay, and the forces of decay were maintained. But today the world situation has changed, and the forces that have personified and carried out the collapse will most likely have to either leave the arena or go into the shadows, wearing different masks. The struggle of the world elites, their clans, "nomenklatures" is projected onto the Eref reality.
However, the gain of the Russian Federation and the more so the change of its position in the world division of labor, and consequently, in maintaining weakness, in the “development of underdevelopment”, there are more opponents than allies in quantitative terms - the above talked about the global trend that is gaining strength, but its victory is by no means not guaranteed. Too much and many against it and against the normalization of the situation in the Russian Federation, the transformation of the Russian Federation into a new historical Russia. What are these "many and many"? The answer is simple: a significant part of the dominant layer of the world capitalist system is the corporatocracy (K).
Predators and strangers
K is a predatory and active faction of the world capitalist class that took shape after World War II and declared itself in 1950 in the overthrow of the Mosaddyk governments in Iran (1953), Jacobo Arbens-Guzman in Guatemala (1953), the creation of the Bilderberg Club (XNUM) attempted coup in Hungary (1954). If the state-monopoly bourgeoisie could somehow coexist with the zone of antisystemic capitalism, then for K this was unacceptable, and already in 1956 – 1948 its intellectual-military intelligence vanguard adopted the program “Liote” - an unlimited struggle against communism; The first term was tentatively established in 1949 years, and it was completed.
On K, on this promising layer, at the beginning of the 1950-ies made bets the Hosts of the World Game, united in clubs, lodges and other structures. In turn, K actively began to influence all these organizations, not only integrating into their developmental logic, but also embedding them in their own logic - the developmental logic of the newest form of capitalism, creating their own clubs and “boxes” based on the old ones - the Rome Club , Trilateral Commission. It was K that “broke” the USSR.
Five decades have taken K to fight against the USSR not only because of the strength of the USSR, but also because K led a social war on two fronts: inside the West, she fought for the palm with the geemkovo bourgeoisie (GMK - state-monopoly capitalism. - Note .) and, until it prevailed (in the USA - as a result of the creeping coup of 1963 – 1974, that is, from the assassination of Kennedy to the impeachment of Nixon, both presidents expressed the interests of the United States as a GMC system rather than a TNC cluster) could fully turn against the USSR, worked on the principle IMP "strangled in his arms." Of course, it was not a struggle not for a life, but for death for the sociosystem; the tops, as always, agreed, reached a compromise; physical death came to those who did not compromise (for example, the Kennedy clan). And the general situation in the West and in the world pushed old and new predators to agree.
After the final compromise victory, coming to power in the Anglo-Saxon core of the capsystem of direct protege K - Thatcher and Reagan - she went to the “final and decisive battle” against the USSR, all the more decisive, because the economic situation of the West at the turn of the 1970 – 1980-s was awful , he balanced on the edge of the abyss. This fight is the so-called 1981 – 1985 Second Cold War, which gradually turned into a “warm” dismantling of the USSR — Gorbachev’s, which turned the structural crisis of the USSR into a system-lethal one. The point, however, is not that the USSR was simply destroyed by some external forces. The nature of the poorly explored layer K, which has not yet been understood, is that, in contrast to the monopoly bourgeoisie connected with the state, K knows no borders. And, most importantly, it concerns the borders not only intra-capitalist, but also the world as a whole, including the world socialist system. And if in the pre-war period and in 1950-s the penetration of the West into the USSR proceeded mainly along the line of traditional backstage, then from the 1960-s it was added to the penetration in accordance with the logic of the political economy of the new caprist.
K is a global layer by definition, its globalization preceded the actual globalization (as the globalization of clubs and lies of the late XIX - first half of the twentieth century preceded the design of K), which started in the 1980-s after the victory of this layer. Being transnational, and in the future - global, K in its expansion easily crossed state borders. Responding to the crisis of the West (and above all the United States) at the turn of 1960 – 1970, it began integrating parts of the Soviet nomenclature, which from the turn of 1950 – 1960 began to look for its way to integration into the world market.
At the turn of 1960 – 1970-s, K begins to form his segments “on the other side” of the iron curtain, which in fact has never been iron (a myth launched in the West and picked up by the sixties and disside), begins to beat the enemy in a very Stalinist way its own territory, using the process of decomposition of the nomenclature itself and the most closely related sectors of Soviet society. Already in 1970-s K, membership in it (mainly indirect, but more often - direct, albeit secret) became a form of existence of a part of the dominant groups of Soviet society. Parts of a small, but very influential and active - certain segments of the nomenclature and the KGB, associated with the obvious and secret zones of the world market (trade in raw materials, precious metals, weapons), as well as with covert operations (gold exchange operations, control over the drug flow, etc.), and occupying important positions, which plays a decisive role in the centralized system.
The formation of that cluster (part of the nomenclature, the KGB, the scientific "establishment", "shadow businesses", "thieves in law"), in whose interests was the destruction of the USSR, the expropriation of a common power-economic system ("communism") for group / private purposes. So strangers appeared in the Soviet body, part of the global mucus that had grown through the world system. It was planned and done by the Soviet-Western cluster together with certain players in the West. Among other things, during the 1970s, they jointly selected and trained cadres for what became a “restructuring”, including at the Vienna Institute for System Applied Research. All this was done under the wave of the baton of the World Game Host.
This process was especially accelerated as a result of and after the oil crisis of 1970 that was planned at the beginning of 1973, miraculously enriched not so much the sheikhs as the West, and made any reforms and offensive actions against the West exactly in the eyes of the Soviet elite when the West, first of all the USA, experienced the most serious difficulties and objectively the USSR could “drop” them, slashing the blade of a geohistorical razor, and make a dash to the future, at Noon of the XXII century. Instead, the stupid Soviet elite was eating up oil money and the country's future, preparing for a “picnic” of the historical process, and K was preparing her neoliberal restructuring and collecting strength for the “final solution” of the Soviet issue with the help of the Soviet segment K.
Being a “fifth column” within the USSR, on a global scale this cluster at the same time functioned as an element K. It was this layer that, through the hands of its agents as a collective economic (systemic) killer, destroyed the USSR from the inside and the outside, turning part of the anti-capitalist system into an area of interest capitalist K, by the middle of the 1980-ies becoming for her a hidden inner contour of external control. Actually, Gorbachev is the contour, Yeltsin region only finally institutionalized and designed it, as a result of which the Russian K took its place in the global corporate-political hierarchy - the discrepancy between the explicit and the hidden, internal and external, state and global contours.
Pessimism of the situation and optimism of the laws of evolution
The normalization of the country, the transformation of the Russian Federation into a new historical Russia requires a change in its position in the world system. Attempting to do this affects the interests of a huge geohistorical cluster — the global K and its local agents, the Matrix and its local “Smith agents”. Is it possible to theoretically defeat such a monster, Gorynych about three heads (military-industrial-intellectual complex)? To win in a world in which the Russian Federation is far from subjectivity, and in itself there is enough evil, playing for the World Masters of the Game, made far beyond the borders of the Russian Federation - not to get it - and owning financial, informational and material "hyperboloids" and other "omnipotence" rings. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the Russian Federation in its current state, representing not so much a system as a union, if we use cybernetic terms.
So is it possible to cope with such a giant, break its network or build in it a virus that is destructive for it? Can. Who can do this? A giant of comparable size? Not. The history of evolution gives a negative answer to this question.
In the Big Evolutionary Game, as a rule, the “little ones” win, followed by an advantage in intelligence (information) and organization (energy). Dinosaurs were “made” by small mammals, whose advantage consisted in the possession of the limbic brain, warm blood and short sleep - the most powerful information and energy weapon. Homo sapiens outplayed Parantrop robustus (“blue-haired people” of Roni Sr.) at the expense of social organization (that is, “collective intelligence”). Small Christian communities undermined the Roman Empire, and then the Protestants played a similar “game” with a giant Catholic machine. Of course, the “little ones” win, as a rule, in a crisis — and the bigger and fuller it is, the greater the chances of the “David” versus the “goliaths”. Moreover, since crisis situations are systemic transitions, bifurcation points, they are not important for force (impact), power and mass, but for a direction in which a small but verified push is sufficiently small, but it has an intellectual and target advantage to the subject who knows where to go. At the bifurcation point, when “and even a thin thread is not able to cut a steel blade,” a small group of people who know the exact address of the “koscheevoy death” and accurately determine the direction of the thrust-strike are equalized with a giant machine. There is no need for a lever here - it is enough to change the direction of the blow, often with a stranger: “Go, poisoned steel, by appointment” (Shakespeare).
In the bottom line: they win not with numbers and masses, but with skill and information and energy potential, using the state of the bifurcation point and the opponent's strength against it (“judo principle”) and “eating” its space with its help (“go principle”) . However, this is a reality and practice. It is this ability that a subject of strategic action (CCA) should possess, that is, in our case, a subject who is able to set and solve tasks of a systemic and historical scale in the interests of the Russian people and other indigenous peoples of Russia, relying on the traditional values of our civilization, giving them a dynamic , offensive nature and using for this purpose and in their interests the information and energy (organizational) potential accumulated by other SSDs, including those hostile to Russia and Russians, in the course of history.
The goal (meaning, imperative) of any social organism is development in accordance with its nature, its values based on its own goal-setting. We are talking about increasing the information and energy potential of the organism and the growth of its independence from the external environment. Transferring these parameters to the current situation in the Russian Federation, we can say that the purpose of the SJS is to preserve Russia and Russianness as the unity of the population (with its values, historical tradition / memory, culture, organizational types) and its territory; a strong, powerful, prosperous Russia, the dominant (system-) constituent element of which is the Russian nation, living meaningfully, in accordance with its values (the main one of which is social justice), in prosperity and security. Only the presence of the Russian national core guarantees a normal national life to other indigenous peoples of Russia; without this rod, they become easy prey for an external predator - however, like the Russians without a strong organization of imperial scale and quality.
The benefits and harms of nationalism
On paper, everything or almost everything seems right and doable. In reality it is different. The world is not what we would like it to be. Each task actually hides several tasks, each of which is hidden in the other, but grows to gigantic proportions as soon as you get to it. Moreover, the solution of this task guarantees only one thing - the opportunity to solve the next one. But failure means a very unpleasant thing - the end of the game. So the problems.
To begin with, the Russians are still not a nation in the strict sense of the word. Or they are not completely: the process of the formation of the Russian nation is not completed, moreover, it is deformed. A nation in the strict sense of the word is such a form of socio-ethnic organization, the basic unit (“brick”) of which is an individual: a nation cannot consist of tribes, clans, castes, polis, communities — these collective forms, embracing an individual, do not allow a nation to form. It is no coincidence that nations begin to emerge in Western Europe in the 17th – 19th centuries as the “primary collectivities” decay. In the Russian Empire, where the community existed until the beginning of the twentieth century, there were no conditions for the emergence of a coherent Russian nation; moreover, the focus of group identity was not ethnic, but religious (Orthodoxy) or monarchical (autocracy). In such conditions, the natural state of the majority of the population is the people (ness), while a small part — the nobility — turns into quasination. I note that Orthodoxy and the monarchical system do not contribute, at least in Russian conditions, to the development of the nation. Therefore, the current calls for the revival of Orthodoxy and the restoration of the monarchy in Russia are meaningless. And it's not just that both of these forms, especially monarchy, have become obsolete in the early twentieth century. The matter is also in the other - they do not contribute, if not block the development of the nation. It is indicative: those who advocate orthodoxy and monarchization of Russia often keep quiet about the development of the Russian nation and look not to the future, but to the past, thereby condemning themselves to defeat.
In the USSR, the Russian nation did not work out either: firstly, a new type of community was formed - the Soviet people; secondly, the Russian-national, with the exception of the period of the end of 1930 - the beginning of 1950, was not encouraged, to put it mildly - in contrast to the course towards the development of "national consciousness" in all republics except the RSFSR.
Thus, at the moment the Russian nation as such has not been fully formed. Moreover, since the 1980s, to a large extent, there has been a partly spontaneous, but even more deliberate, dismantling of the people, above all the Soviet ones; however, psycho-information strikes were inflicted on the Soviet and Russian archetypes of consciousness simultaneously. In this connection, a task arises that is closely connected with the creation of a strong, prosperous and independent Russia and anticipating it. It is about recreating a viable, full-fledged Russian nation and the corresponding forms of power, social, economic and spiritual organization, coupled with ensuring its psycho-historical (meanings and values), geopolitical (economy) security in the context of an impending global systemic crisis that, if not total disaster may last 100 – 150 years (that is, will cover the XXI, and possibly the XXII century).
However, there are serious obstacles in the way of achieving this goal. Firstly, it is both the current internal environment, and we are talking about the state of not only the authorities, but also of the population as a whole, and the external environment, hostile to Russia and the Russians. Secondly, a quantitative aspect: it is impossible to create a nation directly from 130 million people - first a core must be created (“modal personality type” - 7 – 8% of the population), which partly makes it difficult and difficult, and partly makes it easier to solve the problem. Thirdly, the question arises of who will be the creator of the nation. They just can only be a fundamentally new SSD that meets modern Russian and world conditions, which, combining network, institutional, hierarchical and territorial principles of organization, is able to solve strategic problems of a geopolitical, system-geohistorical and civilizational nature. At the moment, such a subject is not visible in the Russian Federation. How it can appear, we will talk later. Here and now we will talk about the tasks that objectively face the SSD, and about those iron demands of the historical process, which it must meet in order to be able to enter the Game, in which you can win. Compliance with these tasks and requirements and forms the SJS, determines, outlines it.
Nation and Empire
We fixed one task: the final design of the Russian nation, without this it is difficult to imagine a new historical Russia. Nation, as history shows, is created through nationalism, the main tools of which are the school and the army (these institutions were purposefully destroyed in the Russian Federation).
The question, however, is what kind of nationalism and what balances it, since nationalism has its pluses and minuses. The advantages are obvious: the history of Western countries, where nationalism is interpreted very positively (just look at English, German, French, Spanish dictionaries), shows that nationalism is the most powerful tool of internal integration and external victories. National disunity and a weak sense of collective identity are two of our most serious problems in historical as well as in everyday life, because of this, Russians often lose outwardly to much weaker ethnoreligious and even ethno-mafia groups that have a national unity. national identity, dissolving everything else, even religion, is transformed, in fact, into special corporations.
However, as our sworn friends of the Anglo-Saxons say, every acquisition is a loss, and every loss is an acquisition (every acquisition is a loss and every loss is an acquisition). Completed nationalism often leads to ossification, bringing the final development of a given people closer. The nation ends - ends its development, stops. Could this have happened to the main nationalists of Europe - the French, the Germans and the Poles? But the British had something that significantly limited nationalism, compensated for its bottlenecks, moved beyond its scope while preserving national identity as a supreme value (Right or wrong, my country - “Right or not, this is my country”; this principle is pledge victories of the Anglo-Saxons). This is something - imperial, one of the best means against the rigidity and extremes of nationalism, which does not allow it to turn into ethnocentrism. Of course, the “non-nationalism” of the Anglo-Saxons should not be exaggerated, and nevertheless the difference in this regard between them, on the one hand, and the French, the Poles and the Germans, on the other, is obvious. This difference is in contrast to imperial nationalism from narrow ethnicity.
There is a certain correlation between the incompleteness of Russians as a nation, on the one hand, and the imperiality of pre-revolutionary Russia and the quasi-imperial (proto-global) nature of the USSR. Both the autocracy and the Soviet system retarded and even deformed the development of the Russian nation. However, they did not allow the Russians to become stiff in the narrow national perception of reality, and made them open to the world; true, often too open. Another thing is that for the last three hundred years the Russians, bearing the main burden of imperialism, disproportionately to their share in the country's population, have been represented in many crucial areas of society.
Indeed, the Russians dragged on themselves the main burden of both the Russian Empire and the USSR, as a rule, without receiving a decent reward for it (“the winner does not receive anything”); at the top was a disproportionately high percentage of non-Russians. However, the tragic irony of history lies in the fact that outside and without an empire, Russians generally lose their historical chances. Unlike the West, where empire is a political form and no more than that, in Russia the empire is a social form, and its collapse leads to a rupture of the social fabric and a catastrophe, primarily for the Russians. In this regard, any attempt to qualify imperialism as a burden that must be dropped by creating a narrow national Russian state should be viewed either as stupidity or as a conscious participation in one of the Western (Anglo-Saxon, Vatican and other) schemes, the common denominator of which is “strike the Russians nationalism in Russia. "
Taking all this into account, the SJS should build a new historical Russia as an imperial-like entity, the boundaries of which can differ significantly from both Tsarist Russia and the USSR. In addition, a new historical Russia should have not only a physical dimension, but also a metaphysical - virtual one. We are talking about the networked Russian world as the implementation of the Russian globalization project - the unity of the material and the virtual. Network forms, superbly complementing territorial ones, are able to develop on their own (see two “academies” from the famous Pentateuch of A. Azimov). Who knows, perhaps the Fourth Rome as a dialectical unity of the global network of the Russian world and the new historical Russia as a macroregional territory will begin to be built in the virtual sphere, germinating from it as from the future into the material present.
The form of a new historical Russia can be different: the imperial federation, the empire-web, a combination of neo-oriental, neo-imperial and corporate structures - all this is already the historical specifics of real power construction, realized in the form of social (class, psycho-historical, international, etc.) struggle .
The Russians, of course, must turn into a nation, but the nation is the core of not so much the national state (nation-state) as the core of an imperious entity. Soundness, of course, must have a decent reward - ethnosocial, geohistorical, material; first of all, it is proportional to the share of Russians in the population, representation in crucial areas of society (management, economics, finance, the spiritual sphere, etc.). This is the only way to correct past mistakes related to the “burden of the Russian person.”
If the principle of proportionality is observed, imperialism will not oppress the nation, will not allow healthy nationalism to turn into ethnicism, and will keep it from extremes. In fact, internationalism is nothing more than a dialogue-union of nationalism, opposed to both cosmopolitanism, which pretends to be universalism, and various forms of ethno-religious particularism.
Finally, imperialism can, at the supranational level, effectively restrict excessive Russian provincial universalism — the excessive “humanity” of Russians, often forgetting their own interests and sacrificing themselves in favor of “humanity”, which is nothing more than the ideological construct of the World Hosts of the Game, calculated on simpletons and acting as a psycho-historical weapon. However, this construct can and should be turned against the designers themselves, filling it with new content, but this is a separate question.
Empire and Freedom: "Prodlitsya, prodnili, charm"
Imperialism, however, solving some problems, creates others. The main one, it seems, is the following: empires are created only by free people, subjects of strategic action. However, when created, empires begin to suppress freedom and free (the combination of freedom and empire lasts very briefly). What can balance, limit imperial in this regard? A certain socio-economic system, the dominant system of distribution of factors of production. What can the new Russia rely on in this plan in historical experience? Here we are faced with the most interesting aspect of Russian history.
We had neither feudalism, nor capitalism in the strict sense of the word, but what resembled the latter, as a rule, represented external, borrowed forms. The latter, first of all, because of the low level of the aggregate public and, consequently, the surplus product, required not only the surplus but often the necessary product from the population; the result is the westernisation of the tops - the regression of the system as a whole; classic “genre” - pre-reform Russia and the post-Soviet RF. Secondly, these forms could not take firm roots in the Russian reality, grow into it. Not without reason in the textbooks about both feudalism and capitalism in Russia it was written: “It developed more in breadth than in depth”. In other words, both of them were layered on something. This was, in fact, a Late Varvarian / early class basis, which economically, and in a large part and socially, remained until the end of the XIX century, rejecting both the noble-Petersburg and bourgeois system and at the same time decomposing under their influence, and - Attention! - decomposing them. In this regard, Soviet communism, the Red Project with its denial of private property, classiness (that is, the “St. Petersburg system” in its autocratic-noble, and then quasi-bourgeois, essentially anti-people variant) negatively and dialectically became a modern (modern) expression of Late Barvarian / early class essence of Russian life in the form in which it existed during the last millennium. This class informality, by the way, corresponds to national informality - and vice versa.
Communism, the Soviet system as anti-capitalism was negative according to the principle of construction of the system, double denial - autocracy and capitalism. The social system of Russia should be created according to a positive principle: not anti-capitalism (the World Game Hosts are already working on it, dumping capitalism as social waste to Russia, China, India and other countries), and not even non-capitalism (“anti-” and “ non- ”must be discarded), but some kind of positive beginning arising at the junction of Russian tradition and world history. Is it foggy Yes. But only historical practice, realized in the form of social struggle, can dispel the fog. The specific result of the latter determines the form of the future socio-political system. From the crisis of the “long XVI century” (1453 – 1648), the West emerged in three ways - French, German and English, each of which was determined by the struggle of peasants and seniors (victory, defeat, draw) with the participation of the crown. The specific form of the future structure of Russia and other countries of the world, and of the world as a whole, will be decided in the social battles of the 21st century.
In the most general terms, in Russia, with its low level of created aggregate social product, a society with minimally expressed class differences (“nation-corporation”), characterized by the primacy of public (state-corporate) property, weakly expressed polarization (decile coefficient not more than 5: 1 ). Such a socio-economic system is able to limit the advance of the empire on the freedom of individuals, who, by the way, can oppose the empire with such a form of social organization as a corporation, of course, not in the capitalist sense of the word.
Of course, “it was smooth on paper”, but this is the fate of all projects and ideals. Council one - Kipling: "Be able to dream, without becoming a slave to a dream, and to think, thoughts are not idolized." In addition, paraphrasing Lenin, who wrote that one should not become the idiots of democracy, I note: one should not become the idiots of imperialism, as well as freedom and equality, not to mention brotherhood, which various “brothers” and “children” so skillfully use and other "relatives."
Outside world: dialectic of dialectic
Separately, among the conditions of activity of the Russian SSD (Russian does not mean that there are only Russians there; a person of any nationality can be represented there, proceeding from the fact that only Russians can keep their natural historical territory, protect it from any predator and become a nation-forming nation). the benefit of all the indigenous peoples of Russia, or, paraphrasing Eurasians, the Rusosphere), is the question of creating a favorable external environment. Who can be an ally of the SSD on the world stage? The answer to this question has always been difficult for Russia, doubly - for the Russian Federation, many times - in the context of the global crisis, when there is an acute struggle of all against everyone for a place under the sun of the post-capitalist world, even if this sun is dark, as in some versions of the game Dungeons and dragons, “The sun is better than nothing.”
In the most general terms, the allies of the Russian SSD can be states, peoples and groups, over which waves of “progress” planned by the Masters of the Game are about to close, dismantling capitalism in their own interests; groups interested in relatively egalitarian post-capitalism, in preserving the humanitarian and democratic achievements of bourgeois society, in the continued existence of primarily European civilization and the white race, melting away before our eyes. This interest can materialize in the supine ideological alliance of conservatives and Marxists, who in the conditions of crisis acquire the same adversary, if not the enemy, and, in fact, the same tasks. Conservatism in a crisis can turn into a dynamic left strategy, and Marxism - a course conserving the most democratic achievements. In other words, IV Rome needs a V International, so that it takes place, but not only it.
In concrete terms, under the conditions of the unfolding world struggle (simplified) between state bureaucracies and financial capital and the supranational structures that represent them (actually, between neo-Orda’s and club-type supranational-state clusters and the old Vatican-type structures), an ally of the Russian SSD may suddenly (at first glance) be those forces (also SSD), who are somehow interested in the current conditions in a strong Russia (an ally, a counterweight, cannot be ruled out - the counter-object of rallying, subsequently quently be destroyed - see the game of the Western powers in 1930-ies on the inflation of the Third Reich). I'm not talking about the hidden SSD and SSD-relics of the past, which in times of crisis will be forced to get to the surface, get out of the shadows and look for tactical allies. Of course, all this looks like an alliance with the devil, but such is the dialectic. The only way to escape from social hell. As F. Braudel wrote in his time about the European crisis situation of the 15th – 18th centuries: “Is it possible to break out of social hell? Alone - never. ” In such conditions, the price of the question and the knowledge of who you are dealing with, and therefore the knowledge of the modern world, how it works, takes on special significance.
Knowledge is power, or the need for sinister intellectual superiority
Well, the SSD originated in the Russian Federation, the energy “materialized” into the political will, and the latter “molded” into some kind of organizational form. What's next? What to do? How to do? Late drinking Borjomi, when the liver collapsed. It is late to try to answer questions when confronted with them in practice, this should be done earlier, much earlier: the SJS should be formed primarily as an information (knowledgeable) subject, as a subject with powerful knowledge, and therefore a reasonable program of action. The genetic, embryonic phase of the development of SJS is informational. Preparatory work requires the study of the experience of SSD that existed in history, and successful ones. We need to learn from the winners, diligently avoiding the mistakes of the losers and at the same time carefully analyzing historical mistakes, first of all our own - we need serious work on the mistakes of our history plus studying the experience of those SSDs who have realized themselves. Unfortunately, there were no effective and long-term SSDs in Russian history, and we know very little about the variegated variations that were, for example, the oprichnina Ivan the Terrible, the Bokian Special Committee, Stalin's personal intelligence, the Beria Special Committee.
What is the main SSD weapon and at the same time a necessary condition for its occurrence, its locus standi and field of employment at the same time? Information. Only on its basis can an organization with an energy (volitional) potential, which materializes itself in history, can arise. Information organized in a certain way, that is, KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING - of one's own country, world, mass processes, the laws of history and the secret and explicit management of historical processes, of how the world really works.
One of the reasons for the defeat of the Russian / Soviet elite in the geohistorical battles of the last two centuries was, first of all, insufficient knowledge and understanding of their own country, the world of which it is a part (“unconsciousness of what is happening”, as the people of the Club of Rome say) and strategies, their strengths and vulnerabilities, their real opponents on the world stage, in short, how the modern world works. The exception was Stalin - the only ruler of Russia in the last 200 years of its history who KNEW and UNDERSTAND whom he opposes (primarily because he was a “native” of the Bolsheviks, knew “his” party, in both senses the word “party” the background of its history in the version of the “long course” itself). After Stalin’s death, the situation worsened, especially as the Soviet elite integrated into the capsystem, becoming almost catastrophic in the 1970 – 1980s, when the protective (KGB) and cognitive (science) subsystems of the system were most affected from inside and outside.
The main “instrument of production” of SSD is psycho-historical weapon, that is, a set of ideal (informational, scientific, educational and spiritual) means by which the SSD directs the historical process (or influences its direction), positively affecting the mind, psyche, spiritual sphere in general collectives and individuals.
One of the most serious types of psycho-historical weapons is the real picture of the world, especially today, when this picture is deliberately crushed, fragmented, replaced by a dummy, when there is a growing lack of understanding of this overall picture. It is the real picture of the world that should be provided by information and analytical activity - monitoring of information flows, which reflect not only reality, but also the interests of the forces behind it - “engineers” and “designers”.
Today a powerful muddy stream of tertiary information in which they drown and hide the real state of affairs deliberately collapses on people. In this regard, the necessary condition for the existence of SSD is the presence of an intelligent shock group, or, if you like, “information and analytical special forces”, operators of exclusive information, who are able at the same time to “roll up”, “compress”, “pack” the flow of information, to hear the Music of History in its noise, to give the appropriate scientific interpretation of its content and to determine the interests behind this noise - cui bono (who benefits).
But with this - with the science of society - we (and in the world) have the most serious problems.
For this, in turn, we need a new science of society, since the old, in the form in which it was formed in the XIX - first half of the twentieth century, firstly serves certain interests; secondly, even in such a "service" form it works worse and worse. This is not surprising: it has always basically corresponded only to the realities of the North Atlantic core of the capsystem, this science does not correspond to the current state of the world system, and therefore is experiencing a methodological crisis, much more serious than the ancient philosophy in the 3rd – 4th centuries AD. or western scholasticism in the 15th – 16th centuries. Moreover, modern science, both on the basis of its design and on the interests invested in it, fundamentally hides the real springs, levers and mechanisms of world governance, that is, it acts as a cryptographic. In this regard, the SJS requires a fundamentally new rational knowledge of the world, a new science about man, society, and the world.
It is significant that, challenging the Anglo-Saxons and realizing that knowledge is power, the USSR and the Third Reich were preoccupied with creating a science of society, which could be an alternative to Anglo-Saxon science. For the Bolsheviks, this was Marxism with its class approach (no matter how it was approached), the National Socialists had right-wing, conservative and racially oriented schemes (again, no matter how they were applied). This is what allowed both the Bolsheviks and the National Socialists to gain (albeit for a time) what K. Polanyi called "ominous intellectual superiority" over their opponents. In addition to the new knowledge, there were new structures: the Institute of Marxism-Leninism in the USSR and the Anenerbe system in Germany. I do not speak in this case about the quality and price of all research, it is about the principle.
In this regard, the creation of SSD involves, first of all, the development of fundamentally new methodologies of social research and the creation of new social disciplines, and in fact a new network of disciplines that bring socio-historical analysis to a new dimension, and therefore allowing them to deal with the conventional science of "opponents" "(Descartes incident). This metaphysical core must be “physics”. How - that is the question.
Let the storm break out stronger?
Last but not least, perhaps the first question: how and from where can the SSD appear?
As you know, the lower classes of SJS do not produce; At the same time, without the support of at least a “limited contingent” of the lower ranks, the SJS will not arise. Dilemma. History shows that a practical solution to this dilemma requires the union of a part of the top with the most active part of the middle and lower strata of society, to whom the nationally and strategically oriented part of the top can offer either a perspective, or a plan of salvation, or both. Thus, a necessary but not sufficient condition for the formation of the SJS is - and this, again, Russian history shows - the split of the top, the ruling elite. At the same time, one of the split parts, solving their own selfish problems, begins to identify itself and its interests with the majority of the country's population. And on this way, it develops or rather assimilates a complex of ideas based on social justice, on the “ethics of the brahmans and kshatriyas” opposing the “ethics” and “ideology” of money, acquires sovereign-world, planetary interests instead of town-gesheft, merchant and forms the apparatus suppression of gesheftmaherov in especially large sizes and the forces connected with them.
What are the conditions of the top splits? In Russia, as a rule, this happens when the existing system finally eats away the legacy of the previous epoch and it is necessary to make a breakthrough. There were two such situations in Russian history: 1) 1564 the year when the legacy of the Horde-specific epoch in general and of the glorious thirty years of Vasily III, in particular, was consumed; 2) 1929 was the year when the legacy of autocracy was devoured and the sharpest question arose about turning the USSR into a raw materials appendage of the West and complete de-sovereignty of the country in the future, which objectively guardsmen of the cardinal revolution of Lenin and Trotsky were doing (formulation "Right-Trotskyist bloc" is not idle artifice).
In such situations, the question arises of the source of the historical breakthrough - at the expense of the lower classes or at the expense of suppressing part of the top; for the top itself, it sounds like this: who are you, the “master of power,” with the people or with the “fat cats”? Ivan the Terrible and Joseph the Terrible gave a very clear answer to this question - and stories, and people, and "fat cats". Naturally, the people also got it - in history there is no other way, here we have to compare Russian history with western and eastern, and the comparison will be in our favor.
If we talk about the twentieth century, Stalin and his team defeated the international socialists (left globalists) and began to build socialism not in a planetary version, which in fact would mean working on certain Finintern segments and their interests, but in quasi-imperial - “in one , a single country ”, which was supposed to turn into“ one, separately taken world system ”. Conquer the global version at the turn of 1920 – 1930-s, 1990-s would come already in 1930-s with much more serious consequences than those that led the country to Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This is also because in the 1929, the USSR did not have a serious foundation, and in 1991, it was - the Soviet, Stalinist legacy - and such that it, including the economy, the military industrial complex, education, could not be completely sawn-ditched in two decades.
The Soviet legacy will be devoured in this decade. It will happen against the background of a deepening global crisis, a global storm of unprecedented power and a new global redistribution. All this creates a serious situation, fraught with confusion from top to bottom and the collapse of the country. However, here is a dialectic: a storm is a threat, but it is also a chance. Only in the conditions of a storm, walking on deck and creaking masts, sailors can get rid of the pirates who captured their ship, throw them overboard, and leave those who, when it subsides, flip on the deck.
Century Storm creates the conditions for the emergence of SSD. Although the occurrence is only the first act and the first step. As the Tolkien Gandalf spoke (quotation from Shakespeare's Macbeth): If we fail we fall; if we succed we will face another task (“If we lose, we die, if we win, we will face a new task”). In essence, this is our situation in anticipation of the MAS. Will he appear? But sometimes it seems that in the distance you can hear the heavy tread of his steps. Or does the cold east wind rise?