What's the difference? - A big difference!
The second article of the cycle "Big War, Real Confrontation?"
Recently, there are more and more questions to stories USSR, history of Russia. A lot of controversial points bulging out exacerbating the relative lack of understanding of what is happening and what is happening in society. One of the most interesting questions for demagogues from history, a question that allows us to develop a serious delusion in people's understanding, supposedly intended to prevent the idealization of the history of the USSR, is "what's the difference?" For example - everyone is fighting for living space - what is the difference between the actions of the USSR in foreign policy in relation to its neighbors in particular, and their rivals? Really ?!))) But, further on the order.
Forward!
It must be said that in fact many, even extremely complex and complicated questions, have a simple answer, almost always on the surface. And only the inability, and sometimes the unwillingness to properly raise this question, leads to a confusing topic, - to the seemingly complicating problem, and the rejection of the possibility of its unequivocal interpretation. No less important, also the key importance is the real object of the question - that is, the analysis of which is the first part of the process of obtaining an answer to the question posed. And it just so happened that the easiest way to confuse everything, and to get an incorrect and ambiguous answer, this is a substitute for the real object of consideration!
Beginning is difficult?))) No, in fact, everything is simple, as already mentioned!
And it was precisely by introducing simplification into the system of independent search for answers to complex questions of the past, as well as modernity, using the example of highlighting the primary object of consideration of certain features of the history of the USSR, I was motivated to write this article. And only then, in fact the relevance and applicability in the analysis of current problems, the issues raised in it, I included it in this cycle. And in it I want to designate this "reliable object of analysis" to derive interconnections of its influence, as well as to give examples that will create, as the "conceptual apparatus" is now fashionable to facilitate the search for answers to the most complex at first glance questions of history.
Not so long ago, the first global cold war ended in the world, marking the end of the era of the socialist "naive" presence in the world, accompanied by the collapse of the USSR.
It must be said that this war ended somewhat earlier than is commonly believed. And it ended not with the fall of the USSR, but with the fall of the one with which it began to build its last peak - the Berlin Wall. Its significance and role in the world, it is customary to underestimate somewhat, reducing it to the theme of the "tragedy of the German people" only. In fact, a more significant symbol, capable of dotting many "and" exposing the whole essence of the global processes in the world, probably did not exist in modern history. Not for nothing at the headquarters of the CIA, as a trophy is stored, a fragment of this wall, the honor of destroying which, this organization itself attributed despite the fact that in the same headquarters about the actual cancellation of the Berlin Wall, we found out just like most of the inhabitants of the earth - by radio !
A big mistake is to believe that the Cold War is a confrontation between the superpowers. - Not! The Cold War is primarily a confrontation of the systems: the Soviet socialist system, which the Soviet Union personified, and the capitalist system represented by the United States.
Another confusion in the understanding of the processes brings the idea of opposition to ideologies! They are very important, not to be confused with systems! In fact, the state ideology in strict accordance with the original ideas about it and the literal translation of the concept from the Greek language, there was only the USSR, as the teaching of the prototype. This Union built communism, was preparing for it by the whole society, alien to remnants. And in the States, as there was no state ideology, it still does not exist to this day, but if there is something similar, then it is strictly according to Marx, as a statement expressing the interests of one class issued as the interests of society! And here everything is simply explained, - capitalism, does not carry any idea as such! Only completely natural, almost primitive strivings for dominance in a competitive environment are carried out by means of control over as large a volume as possible, of capital itself. - It's just instincts! And it is precisely on these instincts that capitalism is entirely built and evolves in strict accordance with them, simultaneously modernizing society in order to fully comply with its laws. And only at certain levels of society, certain obstacles to the “wild” competitive process are created, due only to the desire of the elites that once were designated, to stabilize their position. For what purpose any idea can be used, in this case it is not an ideology, but the very maneuver, according to Marx, is a diversion of society.
Another thing is the Soviet socialist system, in which ideology is at the forefront, and first of all, regulates the structuring of the power system and elites. And after, and society, focusing on public units, as opposed to capitalist - individuals. Thus, this system, declaring as the only goal and motive, the well-being of a community built on the principles of equality, through restriction of personal freedoms, is really idealistic, unlike the mercantilist system of mutual relations of individuals, in a competitive environment that is tuned specifically to meet individual needs. Which, by the way, is also the most natural from the point of view of pragmatic theories, why, in fact, it does not really need an accompanying and supporting ideology.
So it turns out that the whole difference between the USSR and the USA was the motivation of the system to serve the interests of their basic component. Capitalist, with the forced satisfaction of requests for the economic component. For example, it is convenient for me to call it "mercantilist". And the socialist, with the forced satisfaction of the interests of the ideological component, is idealistic! This makes the whole degree of altruism of the USSR in foreign policy completely understandable. And everything else that seems to us a visual difference of systems is nothing more than derivatives of one, own for each system, the base cause! “This is precisely the basic object of all questions designed to clarify the perception of both reality and the history of that era!” But the refusal to consider this factor is nothing more than a mistake that can only confuse perception.
And, by the way, it was precisely because of this significant difference that the socialist system was doomed to lose to the capitalist, purely realistic ideology based on the natural human aspirations of meeting personal needs, both domestic and psychological, in conditions of the coexistence of the two systems. It is precisely because the mercantilist system is entirely built on satisfying the needs of the individual, stimulating his competitive aspirations, and the socialist system is entirely based on meeting the needs of the community as a whole, satisfying the individual's requests on a residual basis. And as we all remember very well - the first in the conditions of the socialist system could not withstand individualistic, egocentric personalities, although the mechanisms for satisfying social needs were well developed in it.
Such a time bomb was in the system from the very beginning, since the idealistic approach requires an exclusively idealistic motivation of the subject. And of course, the initial assumption about the possibility of its existence was based on the thesis about the possibility of creating a self-replicating community, with absolute dominance of a certain type of personality characteristics, that is, a community of ideal people, with similar personality characteristics and a uniform system of values. This is precisely what the assertions that communism is possible, but society must grow to it, that is, synthesize these very, most universal personality traits, rejecting all unnecessary! I don’t know, of course, is it possible in reality? .. it may well be in completely isolated communities from alien influence. But if there are points of contact with a different environment, more natural, not idealistic, as practice has shown - alas ... impossible !! Immediately, lies the reason that at a certain stage of its development, thanks to the individualistic structure of the capitalist system, the socialist was simply forced to isolate itself, in order to preserve its guidelines and prevent its corrupting influence, which, by the way, was quite frankly declared! And, of course, there was no question of any serious degrading influence of the socialist system on the capitalist system, as practice has shown. As with the availability of opportunities to satisfy individual requests, a person turned out to be little susceptible to theses about a certain public benefit. More precisely, it is weakly motivated, to the perception of such!
Probably the most striking example in the history of such unequal confrontation was Berlin, the city mentioned at the beginning of the article, divided into zones of occupation between the victorious countries in World War II and at the same time between the two systems literally alive. The main, and perhaps even the only real problem provoking the construction of the Berlin Wall, was an incredibly large outflow of population from its eastern part to the west, on the territory of which all the conditions promoting the advantages of free capitalism were artificially created. That, I must say, hit the ball right on target! - The overwhelming majority of immigrants to the west were young people who received free and high-quality education in the east, specialties that were in demand, and all the other necessary services needed from the point of view of the socialist system to create a socially active and useful person, preferred to realize the acquired talents and knowledge a system that was not designed to give them such a start, but much better allowed to realize all the benefits derived from it with the elimination of personal benefit versus difficult to perceived public benefits. And all this, whatever you say - in a much more relaxed atmosphere! Of course, there was no need to talk about any open coexistence of systems. And the understanding of this fact, on the upper levels, came almost instantly! And a little later, it grew into an understanding that such tight points of contact are more likely vulnerabilities of the system aimed at creating an ideal society than the zones of its beneficial influence outside, as it was supposed theoretically, and the Iron Curtain has gained a new power. But, by that time , it was probably too late. After all, not only ordinary citizens turned out to be stronger than they were thought to be subject to such weaknesses, but also all strata of society, including representatives of management in principle. And it was a sentence for the USSR! And in the end, after a rather short time, the idealistic system was literally dismantled from the inside, without which, no matter how cool, its defeat in the Cold War was absolutely impossible!
The most striking example of the various influences of these, fundamentally opposing systems on the outside, are the most large-scale external conflicts with their direct participation in the process of opposing each other. For the USSR, this is Afghanistan, and for the USA, of course, Vietnam.
And at the same time, here I will give an example of the correct determination of the object of analysis, with the correct characteristics. - These two conflicts in scale, dynamics, and tragedy are completely dissimilar, in essence, of the same nature! Both conflicts as a response, the reaction of one side of the global confrontation to the excessive growth of the influence of the opponent on the zone of their interest. Both conflicts with the active participation of one side of the global confrontation, and passive participation of the other to counter. Both conflicts ended in a strategic retreat of the active participant. And the whole difference, which does not allow to equally perceive these two wars, is hidden, not as mistakenly believing those who incorrectly represent the object of analysis and its characteristics - the difference in the level of military training, the motivation of the parties and the territorial specificity of wars, but in what systems active participant in the process! How were they motivated basically, and what specific tasks were set and implemented only for them, systems!
And it is for this reason, the reason for the fundamental difference of systems, that the actions of the warring parties in wars were so different. It is precisely because of this, the United States, by virtue of this characteristic of its inability to act that does not meet the interests of its economic components, turned Vietnam into a recycling factory with the capabilities of testing as many weapons as possible. Simply blasting the capabilities of the defense industry and related sectors with unprecedented infusions. While the USSR, implementing the requirements of its main ideological component, paid not so much attention to the hostilities, that is, the destruction of the enemy, but to the construction of the statehood of Afghanistan through the creation of its social sphere, primarily implementing a lot of infrastructure and industrial projects on its territory, and these are merely a cover for this, and there were already hostilities, which everyone remembered as the main phenomenon, solely because of the emotionality of the question! And all this is extremely altruistic, by the way! What, I will pay attention, reveals not the "short-sightedness" of the system, as it is sometimes mistakenly perceived, but fully corresponds to its specificity, clearly demonstrating what we tried to designate here - the real object of the question in the analysis of such events and factors!
By the way, there was another system in the world, now actively reanimated, judging by a number of signs, when something like destroyed in the hardest war of the epoch is fascist, nationalistic. Ideological of course, but absolutely specifically motivated, and completely in accordance with its motivation, it has changed this world in an extremely unpleasant way for it, for the rest of the world. How exactly, I think, is not worth spraying here. But, it should be noted, it is with this system that people often like to compare the Soviet socialist system, people are very close! Well, what can I say ... it seems that too much mind is needed to distinguish two ideologies ?!)) - Based on the equal coexistence of carriers of any distinctive features, based on recognition of exclusive rights, carriers of a specific identity.
Alas, how about time ... and maybe the new Cold War? .. more and more often, and from an increasing number of commentators echoing the "fake" historians, one has to hear the questions of the plan - what is the difference between the wars of the USSR and the USA, and there they die people and there? What is the difference between the occupation of the USSR and fascist Germany, and there was lack of freedom there? What is the difference between the influence of the USSR and the USA on the world, and those for themselves rowing and those?
.... Really)) - What is the difference ??? )))))
... A big difference! Yes, just - awesome!
Information