Autarky
So, sanctions, sanctions, sanctions ...
Not only on the sectors of the economy, institutions, officials - already on the Head of State.
Most of all, our bureaucracy and intelligentsia - starting with 1991, and even before that - were afraid of just that. And so…
Russia can only please the owners of the world by self-liquidation.
Therefore, today we have only one way. In political and economic theory, it is called autarky. By the way, in Korean, this is “Juche”.
Of course, Russia absolutely does not need to take North Korea as a model. The “Korean Way” is for a small, peninsular, “extremely Asian” country that does not bear world responsibility. For a huge, multi-structured, multi-climatic, multicultural, very diverse in the manifestations of Russia, of course, it is not suitable. Our autarky is of a completely different order. "Autarky large spaces." In fact, the continental, imperial autarky is authoritarian, but not totalitarian.
For the first time the word “autarky” appears in Thucydides, in the sense of both self-sufficiency of a person and political-economic independence of a state. In medieval Russia, the term “autocracy” or “autocracy” was originally close to this concept, appearing in the XIV – XV centuries. Autocracy - external political independence, and the "white king" - the king, free from paying tribute to another state - if you talk about it in terms of law. Of course, there are other meanings, but this is what is important for us now.
Autarky in a sense, "closeness" and "stillness".
The hermetic confrontation between solid and volatile, sulphur and mercury - “land and sea” - today is already a common place, without an understanding of which nothing can be understood at all.
With regard to politics and public life, this is about the economy of production and the economy of exchange (in Aristotle, the “economy” and “chrematistics” proper), as well as two types of state and law.
Most modern political scientists, brought up on the ideas of "European enlightenment", have a negative content in the concept of autarky. Attitude to autarkic economy is determined on the basis of civilization or formational approach to stories. But the real reasons for the negative attitude towards autarky lie in the field of metaphysics. Criticizing autarky, they deny space and choose time, they choose the ephemeral nature of the volatile - these are the “socio-economic formations” that replace each other. The civilization approach is based on the possibility of an autarkic economy at any time and in any place, and it is mainly associated with the continental geopolitical position of the country. Autarky is also an important feature of a traditional society dominated by a religious or other non-materialistic worldview. It is characteristic of this that the Soviet (post-Lenin, more precisely, the Post-Elen) and the Chinese economic models, with their formal materialism, were associated with autarkic approaches. In any case, they dominate in cases where political factor in thinking is preferred over economic (the so-called "Eastern type of state and law"), when spiritual, religious (or anti-religious), in general, intangible prevails - "invisible takes precedence" . Paradoxically, but, for example, in the USSR “scientific atheism” appeared as a religious principle. God was called "God-no." Enough to see the great film by Alexander Dovzhenko "Earth".
The Soviet Union held - as an ideal, invisible - “affirmation of denial”. But it killed him. "It will kill that."
The spatial paradigm is opposed to the temporal, and the "synchronic approach" to reality - to historicism (another circumstance disastrous for the USSR is the militant historicism of ideology in the tasks of "retaining space"). It is the synchronic approach that is characteristic of the principle of autarky or “autarky of large spaces” (the expression of Friedrich List). It is wrong to associate autarky with pre-capitalist formations. If we talk about "formations", then about non-capitalist. By the way, their diversity is not necessarily associated with socialism, especially in the Marxist sense. But it is important to remember that in itself the uniqueness and unconditionality of the global capitalist model is also completely unnecessary. Moreover, it is a trap into which humanity has been driven. Globalism is not predetermined. This is the same purely existential choice as autarky.
Contrary to today's “new red”, the USSR could not but disintegrate. One sixth of the world’s land, located in the form of a “bowl” between the mountains and oceans — and the oceans not of the West, but of the Northeast — with its enormous, incredible riches and natural diversity predetermined autarkic development, self-sufficiency, and Marxist progressive attitudes still predetermined elites for Euro-American models. The Soviet elites could not fail to sacrifice a country for the sake of an “economy” - such as Western models see it. China managed to get out of this situation more mildly because Mao Zedong - no, in fact, not a Marxist, but a Taoist who called himself "a lonely monk with a leaky umbrella" - saw in communism ("gunchan" - "jointly generate) manifestation "Dao", and not at all the Marxist "formation". He only “used Marxism as a language” (A. F. Losev said the same about himself). But China did not know its focus on time, and not on space, of the “Greco-Jewish world” (J. Attali), and Russia yet historically implicated. Therefore, the "Chinese way" was impossible. You can love the USSR and regret it. But it is impossible to return what originally existed "on a break."
Focusing on time, and not on space, is associated with the domination of the originally “Greek-Jewish”, Atlantic models in the twentieth century, from liberalism to Euro-Marxism and social democracy. But, oddly at first glance, not anarchism, in which, like in monarchy, space dominates time (“Walk-field”, in which the “father” himself is the archetype of “long-haired king”). “A Russian is either a monarchist or anarchist, but never a liberal,” wrote Lev Tikhomirov. Before his death, he was echoed by Nestor Ivanovich Makhno himself: “In Russia there can be either a monarchy or anarchy, but the second is always for a short while.”
Monarchy is antinomic. That is, “illegal”, more precisely, “supra-legal”. “It is necessary that one person be above all, even above the law” (A.S. Pushkin) Anarchy is autocratic. But neither one nor the other is a “stagnation”, about which one can speak only in terms of time. Like autarky, not stagnation. Autarky models are considered, on the contrary, as an element of development. Most clearly in modern political theory, the principle of autarky and the associated “law of spatial progression” formed in Europe — and for Europe, Jean Tiriar: “from city-states through state-territories to continental states”. In Russia - and for Russia - Alexander Dugin. In his “Foundations of Geopolitics” it says: “Autarchy is self-sufficiency, the possibility of a sustainable existence of the economic, social, environmental and other systems only at the expense of domestic resources. The history of civilizations shows that the minimum level necessary for the realization of autarky of social systems is constantly increasing. ”
Both Tiriar and Dugin eventually follow the already mentioned outstanding German economist of the nineteenth century. Frederick Liszt - it was he who, in fact, created an economic theory that opposes both liberalism and Marxism. According to Liszt, the “autarky of large spaces” connects economic development with a territorial and demographic factor. The Eurasians (Prince N. Trubetskoy and P. Savitsky) supplemented all this with an even broader notion of “development”. The spatial paradigm is opposed to the temporal, and the "synchronic approach" to reality - to historicism.
Alexander Zinoviev generally wrote about the fundamental "non-reformability" of the Soviet system and in general Russia. This is so and not so. If we understand by reformability the change of the historical paradigm - yes, but if the actions within the paradigm framework are not. But this applies to any living state, both autarkic and liberal.
Alexander Yakovlev, the “foreman of perestroika”, spoke of the “thousand-year Russian paradigm” and the need for its “smashing”. The restructuring failed - only because we are still alive. In fact, everything remains, as it was and is, the pressure and power of space, the "autocracy of space", acting under different names.
Were the reforms of the Soviet political and economic system necessary? Of course. But completely different - on the ways not to break the “thousand-year paradigm”, but on the ways of clearing debris - from the 1917 year, and, in fact, from the XVII century, at least. Actually, this path, although in the framework of the “Soviet Newspeak” was proposed, and it was called not “perestroika”, but “acceleration”, that is, not a change in the historical paradigm, but its maximum concentration. "Russia is focusing." This is actually autarky. Autocracy, when the ruling subject "keeps himself". The primacy of power in relation to property, and not vice versa. The domination of space over time. But if power is primary, then it cannot but have roots that do not grow from here. It is not rooted in itself, it is external. That power which professes the primacy of property is godless. It is godless, for it is not autocratic. It relies - or rather, does not rely - on "pure nothing." She does not hold herself. Therefore, it is not. When we talk about autarky, we cannot fail to think according to Heidegger - “why is there any existence at all, and, on the contrary, nothing?” There is simply no liberalism or democracy. In politics, there is only autocracy. And all thinking about politics is always only thinking about autocracy. Or about surrender, which is simply surrender in time and before time.
Even when Russia tries to get away from autarky, it does not leave it anywhere. She did not leave her either in 1861, in 1917, or in 1991. “Despotism of the inner idea” (KN Leontiev) is irreversible, and if we try to “think it out”, the enemy will impose it. The restoration of Russia through autarky did not begin now. It passed through Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech, but began even under Yeltsin — from about 1998, from the second Chechen and from the Balkans. Just today, we - God forbid, forever - spoke to the outside world in Russian. And, yes, they didn’t start talking themselves, and not of their own free will. The West itself forces us to do this, isolating Russia, the West itself is creating a new “iron curtain”. But we must make it completely different than the “iron curtain” of the early fifties and beyond. That one is not needed. The border, in our opinion, should be open, but only in one direction. - "there." And no “returns.” Moreover, it is quite possible to restore to the Criminal Code an article on deprivation of citizenship (if the notorious 282 is abolished). Deprive citizenship, among other things, for separatism, And do not need any gulags. Moreover, it is possible and decisively to reduce the number of places of deprivation of liberty in general - they, as a rule, do not correct, but further decompose. Crimes of minor and moderate severity can be punished with correctional labor, restriction of movement or fines (including in installments).
And there will be no more camps and prisons -
All the enemies of Russia will be executed - sings Zhanna Bichevskaya.
Regardless of the predictions about the last times (the singer sings about them), we still have to create opportunities in which only outright enemies and bad people will be executed - military spies, traitors, direct agents - well, serial killers, child molesters ... Dissenters just let them go where it is easier for them to think the way they want. They are coming to not return. Their fate does not bother us, and let them not care about ours. “There was love without joy, separation would be without sadness.”
The achievement of self-sufficiency of development will provide an opportunity to finally start living and working for yourself Get off the needle of "Euro-Atlantic dependence." Including primarily in the field of hydrocarbons. In the end, we are left behind - the BRICS countries, the SCO organization, etc. Not in Europe the world has come together.
We - more precisely, those who came to power after 1991 of the year - did not want Russia to return from the “Marxist captivity” to itself, to the Russian “affinity”. This will entail the “ascent” of deep-seated archetypes and meanings, including social and political ones.
Ideally, the social structure of Russia should be like this. The whole nation is divided into “those who protect the state and those who feed those who protect it” (V. Klyuchevsky). Well, and still a small layer of monks, ascetics, servants of God - "sovereign pilgrims." Land, finance and large property are transferred entirely to Stainless. Small and medium, as well as any labor property - saved. Sale of land and mineral resources is terminated. Products, fruits, products - please. But not the earth itself. Free education and medicine (despite the fact that those who want frills can pay, and this will be provided). "Blooming complexity" in the culture - with the prohibition of the industry of glamor and defilement. Yes, it is socialism. But not the Marxist, not Leninist, but the primordial Tsarist-national socialism, a “cumbersome state” (again, Klyuchevsky’s expression). Social monarchism of Lev Tikhomirov, Konstantin Leontyev, General A.D. Nechvolodova. Of course, this is ideal. Transitional and temporal options can be many. But without “Euro-Atlantic dependence”.
"New Iron Curtain" will bring the country cleansing. LI error Brezhnev had obstacles to leaving the USSR the Jews (to Israel) and the liberal intelligentsia (to the West). Thus, the “fifth” was created, and then the “sixth column” (the last - in the depths of both the Soviet and the present authorities). Created entire generations oriented to the West, not knowing and not wanting to know and understand the country in which they live.
And now - the West does everything by itself, for us ...
Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions ...
Sanitation, sanitation, sanitation ...
Information