To begin with - some concepts.
Democracy. Demos and Kratos. People and management. This is a state system, which implies the solution of the main issues affecting the interests of the people and the state, the general meeting of the population, discussion and voting.
Liberalism. The political trend, defending personal freedoms (freedom of conscience, speech, the right of self-defense, etc.) of every citizen of the state. This implies minimal government intervention in the economic relations between citizens and organizations.
Have you ever tried to take a sleeping pill with a laxative at the same time? An interesting effect, you know, it turns out!
So it seems to me that the analogy from a mixture of liberals and democrats seems to be not without a certain meaning. The first are fighting for absolute freedom: every man for himself and for himself. The second ones are for public priority in any business and the common good (ideally). The combination of two ideologies and gives the situation described by Ivan Andreevich Krylov in stories about bird, arthropod and fish: it seems that there is one goal, but it is impossible to realize. And, summing up all the modern “civilized” ideologies of the enlightened West, we come to the conclusion that they are a mixture of liberalism and democracy, laxative and hypnotic. And the same gentlemen do not stop trying to introduce to us their point of view on society. That is, to bring confusion and confusion into everything, so that we, in the simplicity of our soulfulness, would not notice how we are being turned into animals with blinders before our eyes.
Each of us is full of conceit. Everyone is sure that he knows the answer to any question. And it does not matter how opponents can react: I am always right. This is the consequence of the latest social reform, which proclaims the triumph of individualism. Collectivism and partnership, which were brought up in us by the Soviet authorities, went into oblivion. Many do not even understand that the main traditional value of the peoples of our Motherland was (and is still) the commonality of the interests of a nation and a collective. The main negative factor brought by the wind of “perestroika” changes is the primacy of personal interests over public ones. My car should be cooler than a neighbor. My TV with a meter diagonal in the 12-meter room is inconvenient, inappropriate, but more than that of my brother. I! I! I! I have! .. As it is said in a good Soviet cartoon: “Love yourself, sneeze at all, and success is waiting for you in life!” Everything is taught to us, even, more precisely, not by us, but by the young people who have been abandoned by their parents (someone - just to survive, someone - in pursuit of a new fashionable technical device), from the screens “masterpieces” of the type “house - 10 years”, “become a millionaire”, “become fashionable”, “become yourself a doctor ", Build it yourself." Make it so that no one needs you. Then you yourself will not need anyone. In general, dig your own grave.
The traditional expression of “the whole world” in Russia is sufficiently alien to both Eastern and Western civilizations. After all, we have "one man in the field is not a warrior," and in the West - a lone hero. We have “I am coming for you!”, And in the East a lonely night ninja is a secret samurai killer. It was in our village that houses were built in turn, all together, and not everyone for himself. We even had “friendly” courts, now “world” ones! Who can condemn a person more honest and impartial, sometimes more severe than the people with whom he has lived his whole life? And it does not matter, by and large, whether the law is a secular, religious, or unwritten tradition - the society where the transgressor has a line is fully responsible. Not the abstract “world community” (means progressive humanity, which was referred to during the times of the “cold war”), but the World in which each of us lives. I write the word “Peace” with a capital letter, considering that the place with which the life of an individual is inextricably linked is surrounding people — traditions, nature, climate — everything that the soul aspires when parting from its motherland.
Anti-globalists are right when they want to thwart globalization, but they are wrong in defining cause-effect relationships when they struggle with this process. After all, the basis of globalization is still the same notorious morality of Western civilization, which reads: himself, himself, for himself. This is the main flaw in the model of building the future in a Western way. After all, any of the world religions preaches the cleansing of the bad and the saturation of the good for each individual. One of the Western philosophers, most valued by me, who showed the viciousness of the Christian worldview, Friedrich Nietzsche, has a chapter about three transformations in the legend of Zarathustra. At first the Spirit takes upon itself the burden and becomes the Camel. Constantly increasing the weight of the burden, it accumulates strength, and turns into an independent Leo. Leo is strong, bright, free, but when he gets fed up with his greatness, he becomes a Child. Only a child can be a creator, come up with something new, give impetus to development. There is one more thing: the transformation of the Child into a Man (Nietzsche has a superman, but there, again, purely individual improvement) is a social individual living in a society connected with the environment. And this is nature, and similar creatures, that is, a particle of a complex consisting of the lithosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and anthroposphere, which are inseparably connected with each other. Only after the fourth transformation can we talk about Man. Receiving the Superhumans, as well as the construction of Happiness in a single state, even if an “exceptional” nation lives there, is impossible, as history has proved.
Perhaps, the desire discussed in recent years under the specious pretext to instill in us an understanding of the normality of perverted sex education is not a concern for discriminated minorities, it is working out the next way to drive certain ideas into the heads. And in fact the most offensive that acts. Suffice it to recall the principle of Herostratus - committed a crime, left a memory of himself in the ages, although contemporaries decided to commit it to oblivion. So here: the main thing is to give more mentions, someone will get stuck in my head, and then there will be followers. In Soviet times, the mention of such a phenomenon with all the desire could be found only in the medical literature and in the Criminal Code.
Accordingly, the adherents of this pastime during the day with fire could not be found. Now, in many very good Western films with the participation of well-known artists this subject is discussed, even our film and television producers and distributors do not shun the use of this topic in circumvention of the federal law banning propaganda. And how many sites on the network devoted to these topics? Is this not one of the evidences of the "victory of world democracy"? How should we be grateful to the gentlemen democrats for the freedom brought to us! By the way, at least twice in the history of Europe, similar “victories” have already taken place: the Greeks over Rome and Rome over the barbarians, and both options are connected with the legalization and chanting of all sexals and phils. Whom have western geypepeytsy and north americans won now? Do not yourself? Where are we going, man?
We are witnessing the development of mankind, but this is not progress. This is an ordinary modernization of a discredited model of the world order. Progress is a calm revolution, it is always a transition to a new level. As materialism says, the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones. And no matter what - technology, medicine, consciousness. But it is impossible, as long as the existence of earthly civilizations is based on the prosperity of some at the expense of others. Indeed, in fact, in our time, nothing has changed since the days of ancient Rome (if someone does not know, then all Western jurisprudence is based on ancient Roman law), free citizens (an exclusive nation and its vassals) and slaves (say, third world countries) continue to exist ), conquerors and subjugated, obliged to fulfill the will of the winners. The first attempt - the Great French Revolution 1789 — 1794 (achieved the overthrow of the absolute monarchy) and the Paris Commune 1871 of the year that followed — ended without reaching their goals completely, revolutionaries were discredited, and the survivors became bourgeois). The second attempt - the 1905-1907 revolution, the February and Great October Socialist 1917 of the year - was more successful. The new state with a truly progressive device existed longer, but surrounded by aggressive players was forced to pursue foreign policy in the traditions of the old world, which led to internal political changes with time, and as a result the state ruined itself. It is logical to assume that the third attempt is just around the corner. It can happen in the Islamic world, in the world of Taoists or elsewhere. But the fact that this will happen - no doubt. At the same time, our goal is not to remain under the horse of the progress horse.
Some lyrics. In my school childhood, the history and social science teacher “embarrassed the mind”, made her thoughts flow in a different direction when she said that the country and the state are two different things, and you need to know the distinct differences between these terms. She explained that a country is a community of people having the same history, the same traditions, the same unwritten laws of morality, morality. And the state is a system of political and economic structure of the country, its laws. At that moment it was absurd for me: the Country of the Soviets suddenly became something else, new. Over time, I realized the whole power of this concept, because it united our country with our own government, made it inseparable. And we really had something to be proud of. Thank you, not indifferent teachers!
Why did I like living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Not because everything was fine. Not because our army and navy were stronger than ever. Not because I did not know the hunger and deprivation, which our fathers and grandfathers more than ate with. And not even because it was the country of Lenin and Pushkin, Kapitsa and Mikhalkov, Lomonosov and Kropotkin, Nevsky and Zhukov, or many other great people, which you can list endlessly. I liked to live in the Soviet Union only because I was always sure that I would come to the rescue in a difficult situation. Not relatives, so friends, not friends, so familiar or simply unknown to me at all, strangers, whom I most likely will never see again in my life. But they are always there! I could never imagine a hopeless situation for myself or for others. Everyone came to help another. But today, with the advent of our "uncouth", "lapotnuyu" education, anyone (without exception) can go missing or become a celebrity, become a beggar or a millionaire. For this I hate the democrats, despise the liberals, am in extreme dislike for modern communists. “I don’t want to be a millionaire, I don’t want to be a drug courier,” but I want our children to also be confident in us, in our society, in their future, as we used to be.