Military Review

Questions of ideology

65
I once had occasion, in one of my materials, to touch upon the subject of a request for a state ideology. But since that time, the number of citizens who do not see the meaning of life without the morning political information has not diminished, and the lack of state ideology is almost the main complaint of unsuited patriots to Putin. Already, even the sufferers for Ukraine, which has not yet been completely captured, are marginalized. Soon the heralds of the “drain of the Donbass” will die out (from natural causes). And the fighters for ideologization not only continue to suffer, but also find support and understanding, both among the broad masses, and in circles of experts and even the political elite. Moreover, in the struggle for the ideologization of the state and society, communists and fascists, liberals and democrats, supporters of constitutional monarchy, apologists of enlightened absolutism, and even supporters of the estate of the Kalita dynasty and the first Romanovs act as a united front.


What is the reason for the fact that the Russian state, which is usually sensitive to the demands of politically active citizens, does not respond to the pandemic of ideologization that has struck the brains of the population?

It would seem that what is simpler - the experience of the USSR is not just known, even the cadres of ideologues are alive. Download yourself on radio and television "correct" theses and citizens in harmonious, like-minded columns will move towards happiness, sweeping away all obstacles in their way and not exchanging petty squabbles over domestic stories, features of domestic and foreign policy, as well as prospects for the development of Russian statehood. And the authorities will be easier to manage. There is no need to carry on endless discussions, to endure the subversive work of agents of influence, who express wrong views in the media. And the ghost of Maidan, which adherents of a single ideology use as the ultima ratio, is completely dissolved in a universal joyful unity.

In fact, with a single ideology, everything happens exactly the opposite.

First, every citizen who advocates a single state ideology, by default, assumes that his views will be recognized as correct. I will not remind you how many communist parties and sects in the country are at war with each other, how many monarchical associations are oriented towards different forms of monarchy, different dynasties and different representatives of the same dynasty, how many fascist groups that hate their ideological counterparts more than ideological opponents. Even the "democrats" of the Yeltsin spill, now called liberals, who faded into political oblivion, fought each other for ideological purity with rare frenzy and still continue to produce party projects, all of whose members will not fit even on the same sofa, but on the bedside rug. Just to note that in addition to the general ideological trends (monarchism, communism, fascism, liberalism, democracy, etatism), every citizen who considers himself an adherent of one of these, in practice confesses some kind of his own particular ideology, periodically stigmatizing his own ideological gurus to what light is worth and almost their public burning on the market square, like hardened heretics.

In principle, the ideological preferences of individual citizens and small groups can be neglected, they do not affect the overall picture. For a start, let's look at general trends.

Let's make a simple separation between patriots and liberals. Patriots today in the country an absolute majority. We declare patriotism state ideology, prohibit anti-state propaganda and calmly drink tea in anticipation of a breakthrough to the gaping heights.

I could say that the country still has at least 15-20 million supporters of the liberals, that they will not put up with such violence against their conscience that they will actively protest and this will destabilize the situation. But opponents will rightly notice to me that if not all liberals, then their top leadership has long since been working against Russia and there is nothing to stand on ceremony with them. Start a civil war in their guts, and with the rest of the problems cope. Perhaps this is true. And several million of their fellow citizens can not be taken into account - endure-love. The main thing is not to turn off the main road to universal happiness, and small costs inevitably accompany any process.

If we put the liberals behind the brackets after the broad masses of the people, it’s still impossible to take everyone’s opinion into account.

We, however, need to define clear criteria for the ideology of patriotism. After all, a single state ideology cannot exist in conditions where each person himself determines what is patriotic and what is not.

Liberals also claim that they are the most patriotic patriots, and their opponents are just an uneducated flock. If everyone defines the ideology of patriotism himself, then we will have to recognize the liberals as patriots and then nothing will change. So it is necessary to develop canonical patriotic texts, correct books, a set of rules and a moral code of a true patriot.

Here we will encounter difficulties. We will choose from several popular versions of Marxism (including Trotskyism, Leninism and Stalinism), several popular versions of monarchism (both associated with Orthodoxy, and, surprisingly, atheistic), moderate fascism, akin to the modern European right and radical Nazism, appealing to blood and soil and diving in neo-paganism.

Each of these ideologies can also represent from several millions, up to several tens of millions of adepts, but there will already be an absolute minority of them. Many patriotic movements risk finding out with surprise that they have fewer supporters than the liberals they are going to hang in their lanterns. The main thing is that, facing the threat of suppression of their legal political activity on the part of the common state ideology alien to them, the same communists will unite with liberals against the "overblown monarchists", liberals, monarchists and fascists will come out with a united front against the "communist threat". And this is not counting the intra ideological contradictions in each of the major trends. Let me remind you that in the 30s, the Trotskyists were actively blocked against the Stalinists with any enemies of the Soviet government, after 1917, the Menshevik social democrats opposed the victorious Bolsheviks, together with the most inveterate Black Hundreds. And now the losers of the ideological struggle of the faction of the victorious ideological force will “fight for the truth” in alliance with the enemies of their own “heretics”. Ideology always requires purity and like-mindedness, so the ideological faction in its own ranks causes more rejection than alien ideology. Aliens - just enemies, and their own "apostates" - traitors.

Therefore, an attempt to introduce a single ideology will immediately deprive the state power of a broad base of support and force them to oppose the majority of their own people. At least against its most active part.

Such things can be ignored after the revolution, when the civil war of the new and old world is still underway. Victory in such a war is almost always on the side of one of the most radical trends (from whatever side it may be). Conventionally, either the radical left (the Bolsheviks) or the radical right (the Black-Hundred monarchists) could have won the Russian civil war. The Bolsheviks had a serious advantage. They offered another unknown "kingdom of justice", which each represented in its own way. The monarchists, on the other hand, suggested returning to the well-tried old, to which practically everyone had their own claims. The monarchists lost, but all sorts of democrats and liberals had no chance at all. Appealing to reason during the war, they were alien to both camps, both sides considered them enemies and traitors. They were attacked by radicals from both flanks, and the extremely radical population striving for the victory of “their truth” did not understand their call to negotiate with opponents - it’s much easier to kill, especially “for the truth”.

However, modern Russia is rightly proud of not revolutionism, but civil peace, harmony and stability. The civil conflict, during which radical ideological trends take precedence, is a pipe dream of the geopolitical opponents of the Russian state, because whoever wins, he will destroy it from the inside, how the Russian empire destroyed the ideological conflict, how it destroyed modern Ukraine. Therefore, an attempt to introduce a single mandatory state-wide ideology will not strengthen Russia, but immediately, in the shortest possible time, weaken it. To understand what will happen, read any discussion in the comments on any political text on the Internet. You will find that for every ten arguing one and a half dozen ideological schemes are proposed. At the same time, peaceful intelligent people, already from the second phrase, are ready to shoot, burn and hang each other. And to understand that this is not a joke, also turn to the Ukrainian experience. An ideological discussion in which "patriotism" ("Ukrainians") was opposed to "national betrayal" ("anti-Ukrainianism") began there twenty years ago, and now is being conducted with the help of artillery, aviation and heavy armored vehicles. At the same time, pro-European liberals and Nazis who opposed the “Russian World” (which was far from monolithic) as a united front are already accusing each other of “national betrayal” and are ready to tear the former “patriotic” allies to pieces.

In the course of this analysis, I deliberately bypassed statism, that is, pure non-ideological statehood. In the end, no matter what ideology you adhere to, you are surprised (well, if not hopelessly late) to discover that the state is primary, and ideology is secondary. A state can exist with any ideology and without ideology at all. Ideology without a state does not exist. In this case, it is just an intellectual exercise of a narrow circle of political marginals. Therefore, in any case, you will have to subordinate the interests of ideology to the interests of the state, otherwise you will lose both the state and ideology.

So, since the absence of ideology is also ideology, the extra ideological statehood, which, by the way, is the quasi ideology of the Russian Federation, is the most acceptable ideology, although it does not satisfy the assorted “narrow” ideologues.

Russia was a kingdom, an empire, a republic of soviets, and became a bourgeois republic. At the same time, each adequate power (whatever ideological color it had) solved the same international and internal problems.

The simplest example is that the confrontation between the USA and Russia did not end with the abolition of the USSR and the communist ideology, as naive reformers of the 80-90-s of the last century hoped, but only intensified. That is, the problem is not in ideological confrontation, but in the clash of objective state interests.

Putin's reforms in Russia, Lukashenko in Belarus and Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan solved the same problems that faced the creators of perestroika and were not solved by them. The difference in the formats of modern Russian, Belarusian and Kazakh statehood is partly due to national peculiarities, and partly from the personalities of national leaders. Nevertheless, the consistently growing desire of these states to integrate, continuing (despite objective and subjective obstacles) for two and a half decades testifies not only to the significant role of the common past, but, above all, to the similarity of the internal political and foreign policy tasks solved today. .

The myth of the highly successful ideologized state has been refuted by history. Despite the short-term (from a historical point of view) impressive successes, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist (from the point of view of the dominant ideology) of the USSR eventually collapsed. But the Chinese Communists, who advanced the slogan about the irrelevance of the color of a cat that catches mice well, quite successfully created capitalist China under red flags, subordinating ideology to state interests.

You can motivate your right to power, even with a popular will expressed in free elections, even with divine anointing, even with the mandate of heaven, even the most advanced teaching. As soon as you try to turn an ideology into a dogma and begin to subordinate the activities of the state to it, it will fall in your hands.

This, by the way, was well understood by Lenin and Stalin. The first one, quite calmly, rejected “war communism”, in favor of the NEP, instead of the Bolshevik communist land reform program, adopted the Socialist-Revolutionary Socialist Revolutionary Party. The second, during the Great Patriotic War, temporarily revived the union of the state and the church (deeply contradicting the atheistic norms of the version of communist ideology that prevailed in the USSR), at the level of state propaganda replaced the appeal to the international feelings of the working people of the whole world, on the basis of national self-consciousness, eventually disbanded the Comintern and abandoned the idea of ​​a world revolution — the basis of Marx’s teachings. As long as the Bolsheviks used the ideology flexibly to state interests (do not hesitate to put forward slogans diametrically contrary to yesterday’s), they went from success to success. But what does ideology have to do with it? Today, such a method, adherents of ideologization is contemptuously called state propaganda.

Another experience of the Bolsheviks. As soon as all parties were banned, except for the CPSU (b), the struggle of the factions in the CPSU (b) / CPSU began, which did not subside (when explicitly, and when hidden) despite the prohibition of factionalism and repression against draft dodgers from the general line, up to the collapse of the USSR. That is why in the years of perestroika, a “democratic” wing emerged (and actually legalized) in the CPSU, the nationalist wing in the CPSU, the conservative wing, the reforming wing, etc. In fact, these were different parties that coexisted in the same party system within the one-party political system. As soon as the ban on the multi-party system was lifted, the adherents of the “single ideology” instantly found themselves in parties that were at war with almost the degree of civil war.

You can set up an experiment. Collect fifteen to twenty ideological like-minded people and puzzle them not by criticizing alternative trends, but by developing the canonical foundations of their own ideology. And you will see how the seemingly unshakable ideological unity will crumble before our eyes on the seemingly secondary issues, and the yesterday's ideological monolith will split into irreconcilable hostile groups.

Even general, strategic - the most common interests and priorities of society are constantly changing. Moreover, it is always divided into social groups (classes, estates, castes), interacting within the framework of the law on unity and the struggle of opposites. On the one hand, they cannot exist without each other and constitute a single state organism, on the other hand they are shared by a lot of irreconcilable tactical interests. In the end, any society is divided into managers and managers, creators of information and its consumers, leaders and followers. And material separation is present in any society. Moreover, in the late USSR, the material stratification, ridiculous compared to today's Russia, was perceived by the population no less, but rather more painfully, than the existing social inequality.

Ultimately, the task of the state is not to accept the position of a single social group as a dogma (even if it is framed in an outwardly attractive ideology) but to smooth out existing contradictions and, on the basis of a social class compromise, achieve unity. But the ideologists of all colors and shades, formulating the preferences of the social and national groups they represent, help the state authorities (if, of course, it is adequate to the tasks before it) to find and embroider bottlenecks.

Therefore, the ideologues were, are and will be, and they are needed. But if, on the whole, ideologists and ideologies can bring substantial benefits (clearly articulating the most important social tendencies and preferences), then an attempt to determine the “only correct doctrine” and the entire power of the state to brush everyone's hair together is an absolute evil.
Author:
Originator:
https://cont.ws/post/331515
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 1 August 2016 05: 38
    +10
    You contradict yourself

    As soon as you try to turn ideology into a dogma and begin to subordinate the activity of the state to it, it will sprinkle with you.

    Incidentally, this was well understood by Lenin and Stalin. The first, quite calmly abandoned "war communism", in favor of the NEP, in return for the Bolshevik-communist program of land reform, adopted the Socialist-Revolutionary petty-bourgeois. The second, during the years of World War II, temporarily revived the union of state and church


    Ideology is not a dogma.
    1. populist
      populist 1 August 2016 06: 13
      +4
      In fact, there are more than one ideologies in society. But what ideology does the discontented and non-liberal part of Russian society require? This part of Russian society requires the ideology of Russian, patriotic and sovereign at such a crucial moment in our history.
      Power cannot give such an ideology to the people, is not capable, and partly does not want. From here the wrestlers appear, hired to powder the brains of the people. What we are observing in this article.
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 1 August 2016 06: 47
        +2
        Quote: populist
        This part of Russian society requires the ideology of Russian, patriotic and sovereign at such a crucial moment in our history.

        Patriotism is the only ideology that can unite all (almost all).
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 1 August 2016 07: 25
          +8
          Quote: Aleksander
          Patriotism is the only ideology that can unite all (almost all)

          - patriotism is not an ideology
          - patriotism is a state of mind that is the result of appropriate personality education

          Somehow yes
          1. Vend
            Vend 1 August 2016 10: 17
            +2
            The whole problem with ideology rests on one thing. Sooner or later, the temptation appears to make everyone walk in the foot and wherever they point. Most often, the problem arises due to power. let there be different ideologies. but government agencies must watch them. One, when the citizens themselves create a social movement, and the other, when financing begins over the hill.
            1. 34 region
              34 region 1 August 2016 10: 54
              +1
              Wend! 10.17. About walking in the leg. The struggle of religions is also walking in the foot. When the conquest took place with a cross and a sword, it was also walking in the foot. And the planting of religion is also an ideology. If in the Middle Ages the church was engaged in ideology, then today the media are engaged in this. The church and the media are political leaders promoting a certain ideology. Take the US media and show business, this is also an ideology. Take radical Islam, and this is ideology. The world simply cannot live without ideology. The author raised an interesting topic, but he is wrong. The state is primary, and ideology is secondary? And where is the ideology of social equality in the USA? A Jew can be a Muslim and vice versa (I’m even interested to know the opinion of the Israelis). And the problem of power arises in any team.
              1. Vend
                Vend 1 August 2016 11: 31
                +1
                Quote: 34 region
                Wend! 10.17. About walking in the leg. The struggle of religions is also walking in the foot. When the conquest took place with a cross and a sword, it was also walking in the foot. And planting religion is also an ideology.

                There is one. It's all about power. And it does not matter in the state, or religious, or sponsorship, and so on.
        2. alicante11
          alicante11 1 August 2016 11: 08
          +2
          Patriotism is the only ideology that can unite all (almost all).


          And the peak of patriotism - Anglo-Saxon - England is always right.
          In general, patriotism is too intimate to shout about it. What does dominant ideology imply. And patriotism is manifested not at rallies and not at processions, but on the battlefield, or, at least, in Stakhanov’s methods of work. And can you imagine that someone worked with the Stakhanov methods for the oligarch, well, even if just a businessman? Or that Abramovich build a column of tanks for the RA?
          What is "unthinking patriotism" was well shown by WWI. In the beginning, processions were held, and at the end the king was overthrown.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 1 August 2016 13: 11
            +3
            Quote: alicante11
            And the peak of patriotism - Anglo-Saxon - England is always right.

            Or the German "Deutschland uber alles!" The question of state ideology is a complex and multifaceted question. And we have historical examples of its practical solution.
            But the question of the NATIONAL IDEA is a subject that can unite society in achieving its goal, regardless of religion, sexual or political orientation.
            For us, for example, the idea of ​​social justice is very attractive. Therefore, people react so painfully to the fact that a handful of oligarchs manage (for 13% of income tax) our national mineral resources and natural resources at their discretion! And their conscience does not torment. And they do not want to share the unjustly acquired with the destitute and poor. I have no questions for those who raised their business from scratch to competitive heights ... But those who unscrupulously misappropriated a national treasure ... at least have to pay a progressive tax for the use of mineral resources.
            But this is not.
            So maybe * patriotism * is something other than love for an abstract homeland. Maybe patriotism is love and care for the people living in this "homeland".
            The Yankees have one idea - to become a millionaire. We probably live in good conscience and justice in a prosperous country - it can become a national idea.
            Israel, Sweden - built under capitalism a socially oriented society: * socialism with a human face *. Maybe we can do it too?
            Yours faithfully, hi
            1. Army soldier2
              Army soldier2 1 August 2016 14: 21
              +1
              Once upon a time I had, in one of my materials, touched upon the subject of a request for a state ideology.

              Maybe the author with the goal setting messed up? State ideology is one thing. And the national idea that everyone is trying to find is different.
              1. larand
                larand 4 August 2016 15: 14
                0
                Quote: Army 2

                Maybe the author with the goal setting messed up? State ideology is one thing. And the national idea that everyone is trying to find is different.


                The gentleman has been living in the Russian Federation for only two years and has already figured out our affairs. Apparently European education allows natives to teach. As for the ideology in the Russian Federation, then it is. To paraphrase and concentrate the grandfather of Marx - "There is no such crime that capital will not go to in modern Russia for the sake of profit."
  2. Kazakh
    Kazakh 1 August 2016 05: 39
    +6
    And several millions of their fellow citizens can not be taken into account - he is hardened, in love.
    But today, they do not take into account not several millions but several tens of millions and tolerate nothing. Well, let those few millions of liberals suffer.
    1. 34 region
      34 region 1 August 2016 10: 57
      0
      Kazakh! 05.39. It is hardened, in love! But somehow the poverty class does not fall in love with the nouveau riche class. And the nouveau riche class does not like poverty in any way. A plus!
  3. PValery53
    PValery53 1 August 2016 05: 42
    +5
    The article was written by a tried and tested fighter on the ideological front. The literary language is "suspended" confidently.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 1 August 2016 05: 49
      +5
      Quote: PValery53
      The article was written by a tried and tested fighter on the ideological front. The literary language is "suspended" confidently.

      I agree, but from whose trenches is a fighter?
      1. CONTROL
        CONTROL 1 August 2016 08: 13
        0
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Quote: PValery53
        The article was written by a tried and tested fighter on the ideological front. The literary language is "suspended" confidently.

        I agree, but from whose trenches is a fighter?

        On the "neutral" strip stuck ... flowers of "extraordinary beauty" smelling ...
      2. Oorfene Deuce
        Oorfene Deuce 1 August 2016 11: 52
        0
        There is rational grain in the article and, frankly, makes you think. Pluralism of opinions is present in every society or social group and in any ideology.
        The author’s conclusions about the role of the state are formulated as it seems to me quite correctly.
        1. Ivan Ivanov
          Ivan Ivanov 10 August 2016 11: 36
          0
          I agree, there is something to think about. The bottom line - let all the flowers bloom for the sake of the civil world and fresh trends. And what to do with radical flowers? let them be, if only they would not break the law? for me it's a loaded shotgun on the wall. And with the competition of ideas, cunning. Her free is not. Education, education, the capitalist lifestyle, reproduces itself, marginalizing other ideas. We shamefully hang the mausoleum, the Yeltsin pantheon does not cause questions, etc.
      3. grandfather Mih
        grandfather Mih 1 August 2016 11: 54
        +1
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        I agree, but from whose trenches is a fighter?
        Blur and uncertainty. Wraps around.
    2. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 1 August 2016 06: 16
      +10
      Rostislav, have you published in the journal "Propagandist and Agitator"? .. Is everything all right in our "kingdom"?
  4. Teberii
    Teberii 1 August 2016 05: 43
    +8
    Ideology is based on developed concepts. What is Homeland, Fatherland, conscience, memory, etc. And we do not have a single history textbook, what to build on. Ideology was laid in the USSR from a kindergarten. And the big 90s nothing is needed.
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 1 August 2016 05: 57
      +5
      In Google there is a map of the Distribution of ideology by country.
      https://yandex.ru/images/search?source=wiz&img_url=http%3A%2F%2F4y.nomagic.ru%2F
      pink%2F36717875-gmod-kak-dopolneniya.jpg&text=%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%
      BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F&noreask=1&pos=4&lr=56&rpt=simage
      It is said that there is no ideology in the USA. Rave. The fact that it has not been officially announced does not mean its absence. “America is above all!”, Get rich and be successful, in any way! “Slogans? But everyone follows them. This is their national ideology.
      They do not suit us. We need ours.
      1. Makarov
        Makarov 1 August 2016 06: 42
        +5
        and I thought their ideology was embodied in the principle of the "American Dream" ... about which they talk so much and for a long time ...
        1. CONTROL
          CONTROL 1 August 2016 08: 11
          +2
          Quote: Makarov
          and I thought their ideology was embodied in the principle of the "American Dream" ... about which they talk so much and for a long time ...

          Prosperity - "prosperity" - at any cost! ... This is a paraphrase of the "American dream"; in fact - a variant of the fascist ideology!
          ... Let's unite in a bunch, beat them - these, well ... - and take everything from them ... and take them away ... and become "prosperous"! ...
      2. 34 region
        34 region 1 August 2016 11: 33
        +1
        Mauritius! 05.57. We need our own ideology. Based on what? On the basis of religion, on the basis of financial and official superiority or equality, racial superiority or equality, on tribal superiority ...?
        1. populist
          populist 1 August 2016 22: 09
          +1
          34 region
          We need our own ideology. Based on what?

          We need our own ideology based on the most popular social justice among the people.
          The national idea, and thus the goal, should be a social state responsible to the people. This idea needs to be revealed (to explain what it is) in national ideology. what
    2. EvgNik
      EvgNik 1 August 2016 06: 10
      +11
      Quote: Teberii
      Ideology is based on developed concepts. What is Homeland, Motherland, conscience, memory, etc.

      That's it. What do we have? Above - robbery is still possible (and after all, a progressive tax is not introduced for the same reason). below - how to survive. That’s the whole current ideology.
      Everything else - what should be the ideology and diversity of parties and factions - from the evil one.
    3. Amurets
      Amurets 1 August 2016 08: 03
      +7
      Quote: Teberii
      And the big grown-up 90s, nothing is needed.

      How do you not need anything? Get more popcorn and watch on TV stupid serials on banyukov and no less stupid shows of different orientations. And where are the normal films, such as "Earthly Love" "The Chairman", but there weren't many of them? So no, it turns out "Soviet propaganda ", and" Gangster Petersburg "or" Secrets of the Investigation "are high-quality films.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 1 August 2016 10: 17
        +3
        Quote: Teberii
        Ideology is based on developed concepts. What is Homeland, Fatherland, conscience, memory, etc. But we do not have a single history textbook on what to build it. Ideology was laid in the USSR from a kindergarten.

        Very good words! Here is the slogan of America --- to bring democracy to the whole world. And why not make a slogan for Russia: bring justice to the whole world! Protect justice at near and far borders! People still watch Soviet films, listen to Soviet songs, so the sprouts of the ideology of the Country of Soviets can sprout !!! More Russian people inherited a tremendous legacy from past times --- Russian folk songs and Russian folk tales They teach patriotism, justice, good. But they also want to destroy this World of Good and Justice --- Pokemon, Batman, Scrooge, then
        mom and jerry, etc. The other day, one girl called and wrote poems found on the Web about who is to blame for the tears of children and the suffering of children and toys: "they ripped off a bear's paw" or another girl told by phone that in a private exhibition hall in St. Petersburg, there is an installation at the entrance: under the ruins of the furnace --- tortured, tortured Emelya. For my own reasons, I cannot go there and see.
        I do not mention fine art --- paintings by Russian and Soviet artists, otherwise I won’t be able to finish the commentary until the evening.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 1 August 2016 11: 09
          0
          I want to add that another friend said that as you come in --- a state of horror and shock at once. It turns out that she will not read Russian folk tales to her children later.
        2. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 1 August 2016 13: 07
          +1
          He was worried and missed the main thing. WHO IS GUILTY for the suffering of children and toys ----- Agnia Barto. She is to blame for all this. So the stishata are formulated.
        3. arlekin
          arlekin 1 August 2016 16: 58
          -1
          Quote: Reptiloid
          And why not make a slogan for Russia: bring justice to the whole world!

          In Russia, justice in our country is not enough to take it somewhere else. laughing
          "Who is pushing the iconostasis,
          Who is the cross, who is the icon,
          So faith in the Lord is from us
          They are being taken away slowly. "(C)
          Thanks to the author for the article.
          The minuses are probably put by those who in the comments express themselves on behalf of all the inhabitants of Russia, attributing to everyone their thoughts and aspirations, considering their position to be the only true one.
    4. 34 region
      34 region 1 August 2016 11: 08
      0
      Tiberius! 05.43. But then the Motherland gave you something. It is interesting to ask a question today: What is Homeland? Homeland where were you born? Or where did you come for permanent residence? Should the Motherland give you something or should it only take it?
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 1 August 2016 20: 04
        0
        Quote: arlekin
        Quote: Reptiloid
        And why not make a slogan for Russia: bring justice to the whole world!

        In Russia, justice in our country is not enough to take it somewhere else. laughing .


        There is no democracy in the states, but there are beautiful words on this topic and "mistakes" with huge human sacrifices. And what you write is very bad - either repent or be ashamed or ashamed that we are Russians, or Russians.
  5. PKK
    PKK 1 August 2016 06: 18
    -4
    Only a single ideology will be able to direct the mind in the right direction. The ideology should be compiled by traditional healers, elders.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 1 August 2016 07: 28
      +7
      Quote: PKK
      Ideology must be compiled by folk healers, elders

      - ... with the obligatory involvement of Chumak, Kashpirovsky in the process of "drawing up" and other obscurantists laughing
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 August 2016 13: 32
      +3
      Quote: PKK
      Ideology should be compiled by folk healers, elders.
      Ideology is developed by the most educated representatives of the class, social group. For there is no classless ideology, because in a concentrated form it expresses the mindset, goals and objectives, aspirations of this social group, based on its financial situation and social role in the reproduction process.
      But we, contrary to reality, are trying to move away from the teachings of Marx on classes and class society. We are trying to define all as * people * - and the homeless oligarchs. Therefore, a single ideology for the wolf and the lambs is impossible!
  6. Makarov
    Makarov 1 August 2016 06: 41
    +7
    the author only forgot to mention that on the basis of the ideological dogma adopted in society, laws are created according to which this society lives ... without ideology, society lives according to the laws adopted in other states ... recall how laws were adopted in the 90s on the principle: just like in the West, if we fix it later ...?
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 1 August 2016 07: 48
      +4
      Well, why are we minus Makarov? fool What is he wrong about? Ideology exists in any society, and is a connecting society. Before the revolution, it was Orthodox Christianity, after the utopian dream of communism. What now? Makarov is right - a holy place does not exist empty, in the 90s there was an ideology of liberalism, and laws were adopted on the basis of this ideology.
      Now, with the government's external declaration of patriotism, we see a gradual regression in the little things. In particular in the field of education. The government plans to reduce 40% of budget places in universities.
      The position of the Ministry of Education and Science is formulated in response to the reduction by the Ministry of Finance of budget allocations for state programs “Development of education” and “Development of science and technology” and discussed at a budget meeting with the prime minister Dmitry Medvedev July 29. The government approved the general approaches to optimizing state programs, including those controlled by the Ministry of Education and Science, at a meeting on July 7. Then it was decided to freeze the total budget expenditures in nominal terms for 2017-2019 at the level of 15,78 trillion rubles. in year.
      https://www.gazeta.ru/business/2016/07/31/9722969.shtml
  7. demotivator
    demotivator 1 August 2016 06: 46
    +3
    To begin with, I recall a couple of provisions from Article 13 of Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:
    1. The Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity.
    2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.

    It is clearly and unequivocally stated in the Fundamental Law of the country that there is no and cannot be any state ideology in Russia. Someone likes it or not, but while it is, this Constitution is what it is today, we must reckon with this. By the way, no one can change this first chapter of our Constitution under the existing Law - neither the President of the country, nor the Federal Assembly. This can only be done by the Constitutional Assembly, whose work must be determined by the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Assembly”. However, such a law has not yet been adopted in our country. And this means that in practice it is simply impossible to change the Constitution, more precisely, any articles of Chapter 1 today.
    Well, after that it is worth breaking the spears about the so-called. "State ideology" if such is legally prohibited in the country?
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 1 August 2016 09: 27
      +4
      have to reckon with this
      don’t you remember who said that Russia is doomed to liberalism?
      1. Trick shot
        Trick shot 1 August 2016 10: 40
        +3
        Really - "guarantor"?
        And words are confirmed by actions. For many years now, as well as at present, the staff choice has been consistently made in favor of the liberal monetarists.
        That is why the rating is held at the expense of decisions made in the sphere of foreign policy.
        If we separate from the GENERAL figures, the data from the polls regarding domestic policy, then the rating will drop very low ...
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 1 August 2016 06: 48
    +6
    Whatever one may say, an ideological program is necessary for the country. Another thing is that you should not go too far and rush to extremes. This is me about a single party that leads and directs. So now no one is calling for this. But about the written
    there are at least 15-20 million liberal supporters

    Ishchenko clearly gives wishful thinking. He analyzes the events in Ukraine well and gives forecasts, but he probably should not try himself as an analyst in Russian reality. Well this is my personal opinion.
  9. Flinky
    Flinky 1 August 2016 07: 10
    +2
    With all due respect to Ishchenko, he did not go into his steppe.
  10. Stinger
    Stinger 1 August 2016 07: 15
    +3
    The question is complex. It is worth recalling Karl Marx: When an idea takes possession of the masses, it becomes a material force. Many ideas - many material forces and conflict is inevitable. Conflict is also inevitable if you tilt everyone under one idea. Sooner or later, the state, ideologized under a single idea, will fall apart. Examples of darkness. Therefore, I agree with the thesis of the author:
    Ultimately, the task of the state is not to accept the position of one social group as a dogma (even if it is framed in an outwardly attractive ideology), but to smooth over existing contradictions and, on the basis of a social-class compromise, achieve unity.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 1 August 2016 08: 04
      +6
      Quote: Stinger
      Sooner or later, the state, ideologized under a single idea, will fall apart.
      You can break anything, it would be a desire. And money. An example of 1917.
      Quote: Stinger
      but to smooth over existing contradictions and, on the basis of a social-class compromise, achieve unity.

      The eternal game in the role of catching up. Ideology should be, and should be in the interests of the people. Otherwise, they will slip it from the outside, as they slipped it now. Now we all see the ideology of consumption.pancake... wrestling. "The drawback of the Soviet education system was an attempt to form a Human Creator, and now our task is to grow a qualified consumer." - Fursenko. (Now an assistant to President Putin.) And it is she who is supported at the state level, despite the stated rejection of state ideology. hi
  11. cedar
    cedar 1 August 2016 07: 18
    +5
    State ideology is, first of all, a program of building a state by a people who, only by virtue of this STATE construction, become a NATION. And which, only by virtue of the awareness of the value of its national idea, expressed by ideology and the state, can and will keep, develop and protect this value (once again) embodied in the state and nation, i.e. to store, develop and defend MYSELF, by the means of the state and ideology.
    There are more nations on Earth than nations, precisely due to the fact that not every one of them was able to create an IDEA of such an idea, an idea capable of uniting a people for its embodiment, and then effectively protect it.
    A national idea is the essence of a state pursuing specific historical goals at a given historical stage, by a specific people or union of people, which again is due to the scale of the goals, which are nothing else than IDEAS, i.e. intangible!
    However, by the means of a unique being, which is a person, an idea can materialize. There is no need to convince anyone of this. We are surrounded, moreover, immersed in the world of humanized ideas. The name of this world is the civilization of earthlings on our planet. No one needs to be convinced of the presence of an acute struggle of ideas, by the means of their material carriers: peoples and states. This struggle, which has an intangible basis, proceeds in our material world fiercely, and under the hour it is very cruel. Always in the form of competition of carriers of specific ideas, framed in specific societies, to the limit in states and their unions. Constant military conflicts and wars, up to world ones, are a vivid witness to this.
    Voluntarily or involuntarily, but the author wrote an article calling for ideological disarmament, under the guise of all sorts of ideological weapons, i.e. defeatist for our state, nation, unique Union of the peoples of Russia, a malicious program. Virus!
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 1 August 2016 13: 53
      +1
      Does ideology not exist without a state? The Kurds do not have a state, but the national idea made them a force that many people reckon with.

      Russia unites many nations, if you do not offer them a path to common values, to achieve the desired goal, it means giving these weapons to enemies.
  12. ratfly
    ratfly 1 August 2016 07: 22
    +1
    "Etatism" means there it is. And I kept thinking what I am called. The etatist _la. Sounds bad.
  13. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 1 August 2016 07: 31
    -4
    My unpublished comment contained something seditious, or simply did not come to the court of the site admin ???
  14. Cat man null
    Cat man null 1 August 2016 07: 37
    -1
    ... an attempt to define the "only true teaching" and with all the power of the state to comb everyone under one comb is an absolute evil

    - my applause, article predatory plus
    - besides - think, and who will develop this state ideology (be it "allowed")?
    - Marx-Engels on the horizon, something is not visible yet, and the various Starikov-Fedorovs and others - absolutely do not pull on those No.

    PS: when the Union was a joke:

    Quote: From memory
    - we do not have unemployment, but no one works
    - no one works, but the plan is being implemented
    - the plan is being implemented, but there is nothing in the stores
    - there is nothing in the stores, but everyone has everything
    - everyone has everything, but no one is happy
    - no one is happy, but everyone is in favor

    IMHO marvelously described the result of "leading and guiding role" with the appropriate state ideology.

    Is it so necessary? IMHO no request
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 August 2016 14: 31
      +2
      Quote: Cat Man Null
      the result of the "leading and guiding role" with the corresponding state ideology is marvelously described.
      This anecdote was introduced in the era of perestroika and publicity to the masses. What also contributed to the liberalization of society. Now NPOs are sucking us in like that. I’m afraid, if you don’t fight, the result may turn out to be the same as with the Union.
      On business.
      The leading and guiding role of the CPSU (b) was best manifested during the years of World War II. But the vaunted Western democracies raised their paws, declaring their capitals * free cities * and surrendering them without a fight ... England, if it were a continental country, would have fallen just like France and a hedgehog with them.
      And the leading and guiding role is to learn from the CCP. There are no liberal snot in ideology (unlike the economy) and nothing, they live, they even hold the 2nd place in terms of GDP in the world. And they don’t have inscriptions in English in all boutiques and shops, they don’t hear English chants from the open windows of cars and in restaurant bars.
      So, maybe the role of a leading and directing force for a nationally oriented elite, not in contrast to the proameric litter, is not entirely bad!
      This is when it’s time to think about "The national pride of the Great Russians"! After all, they make fun of everything Russian! They will break the Russian core in this multinational country - and the globalists will pull it apart piece by piece to feed the Anglo-Saxons and other undead stinking in this world.
      And what is most noteworthy: the burry-curly-haired people will justify everything and justify to the great pleasure of the magnates, because verbally they are 10 times plugged into the belt of any home-grown speaker-goy in a public dispute.
      So, it is necessary to protect what has been worked out by the best minds of the intelligentsia for the working class, and not to scoff at the "leading and guiding role" of the ruling party.
      And if there is a little brain (intellectual abilities), then doctrine should be developed, and not shy away from side to side, looking for a special national path of development. There would be less verbiage, more attention to the economy - you look and you would not be the first to finish in a historical competition with capitalism!
      Yours faithfully,hi
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 1 August 2016 21: 26
        0
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        This anecdote was introduced in the era of perestroika and publicity to the masses.

        - And I remember this anecdote from 1978 of the forgotten year ... the memory is just that, it sometimes interferes with laughing

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Now NGOs are sucking us in like that

        - now NPO is under control, unlike the 90s

        And then - you got so many things out there that you won’t be without a pint .. and I can’t drink so much, now, at least for sure. Tired a little, call hi
  15. Mihalich17
    Mihalich17 1 August 2016 07: 42
    +1
    Ideology ... Hmm ...
    I stand on the balcony, smoke, admire the stars. A drunk man walks past, sneezing.
    I'm on top of him with a loud bass:
    - Be healthy!
    A man falls to his knees, raises his hands:
    - Thank God!
    That's the whole ideology !!! )))
  16. CONTROL
    CONTROL 1 August 2016 08: 01
    +5
    The Chinese Communists, who put forward the slogan about the immateriality of the color of the cat, which catches mice well, quite successfully created capitalist China under the red banner, subordinating ideology to state interests. Yes, if the cat catches mice! And if you start to force, say, a sparrow to do this ... then yes, the "color" of the sparrow will no longer matter!
    The simplest example is that the confrontation between the USA and Russia did not end with the abolition of the USSR and the communist ideology, as naive reformers of the 80-90-s of the last century hoped, but only intensified. That is, the problem is not in ideological confrontation, but in the clash of objective state interests. Sure! Because the communist ideology, approvingly and actively accepted - sorry for the ideological tautology - the Russian world, and loudly declaring a society of social justice, in fact - the ideology of Orthodoxy (regardless of the professed denomination) - opposes capitalist ideology (not declared, but professed and subordinate to any state power!), in fact - Catholic-Protestant! These pagans lived peacefully - you have your own gods, we have our own ... And when he is one, then you have God the father, God the son and the holy spirit ... and we have God, the Golden Calf, and better than yours! which we convincingly prove to you ...
    an attempt to define the “only true teaching” and with all the power of the state to comb everyone under one comb is an absolute evil.
    What about those who are actively opposing key social trends and preferences? And they have the right! "Rain" to water ... "echo" to deafen ... to publish "newspapers" in a "new way"? ... Nobody forbids! You have your own wedding ... ideology! we have even more of our own! And nobody forbids mining transport routes (okay, we won't ...) - as well as destroying the immature consciousness of the younger generation (and much more - just according to the unfading Dulles' plan ...) - no one forbids! ...
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 1 August 2016 09: 51
      0
      Quote: CONTROL
      But what about those who actively oppose critical social trends and preferences? And they have the right! "Rain" to water ... "echo" to deafen ... to publish "newspapers" in a "new way"? ... Nobody forbids! You have your own wedding ... ideology! we have even more of our own! And nobody forbids mining transport routes (okay, we won't ...) - as well as destroying the immature consciousness of the younger generation (and much more - just according to the unfading Dulles' plan ...) - no one forbids! ...

      - I recall, however, purely for information:

      Quote: Constitution of the Russian Federation Chapter 1 Article 13

      1. The Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity.

      2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.

      3. The Russian Federation recognizes political diversity, multi-party system.

      4. Public associations are equal before the law.

      5. Never the creation and activities of public associations whose goals or actions are aimed at forcibly changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the Russian Federation, undermining the security of the state, the creation of armed groups, inciting social, racial, national and religious hatred

      - so with the "destruction of the fragile consciousness of the younger generation (and many others)" not everything is so simple
      - and besides the Constitution, there is also the Criminal Code, for example .. and a host of other similar literature
      - not-e-her ... not so simple and linear ... not drive exaggerate
  17. tasha
    tasha 1 August 2016 10: 46
    +3
    I think that before deciding on issues of state ideology, you need to decide, for a start, a little bit of minor tactical concerns and troubles.
    For example
    - follow the rules of the road;
    - Do not park the car near the entrance;
    - throw cigarette butts past the urn;
    - respect the opinion of another person;
    - drank - snack ...

    Now, when we decide with trifles, then we will move on to global issues.

    And especially for VO readers

    - write a comment, check for errors;
    - take your time with the comment, think it over;
    - do not use words whose meaning you do not understand ...

    fellow
    1. alicante11
      alicante11 1 August 2016 13: 23
      0
      I think that before deciding on issues of state ideology, you need to decide, for a start, a little bit of minor tactical concerns and troubles.


      IMHO, if there is an appropriate ideology for most of these issues will be resolved on their own.

      - write a comment, check for errors;


      In-in, it is desirable to put the colon in time, for example.
  18. alicante11
    alicante11 1 August 2016 11: 19
    0
    Ideology should be. Without it, there is no incentive in development.
    Ideology should not be "like". There is a proverb - "how many people, so many opinions." Therefore, you need to pay attention not to how many people follow the ideology, all the same their number is critically small, 90% will accept any official ideology if it is actively imposed. It is only necessary to pay attention to the functionality of ideology. And yet, as the author correctly said, ideology must be flexible in order to adapt in time to the requirements of the time.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 August 2016 14: 43
      +1
      Quote: alicante11
      Ideology should not be "like".

      And who will follow such an ideology? We do not need sectarianism!
      And the second question: who will lay under the tank with a grenade for a "disliked" idea?
      Nonsense!
  19. alicante11
    alicante11 1 August 2016 15: 29
    -1
    And who will follow such an ideology? We do not need sectarianism!


    I said that the majority do not care what to believe in. Racial superiority, white man's burden, the American Dream, or social justice. Any of the ideologies will be wrapped in a beautiful shell and will be eaten by the people at the suggestion of propaganda. And those who "get to the bottom" of the essence will be in the minority and therefore no one will pay attention to them. The functional of ideology is another matter, this is important, because it affects the final result. And if you need to create a monster that will arrange genocide, then you can take fascism or the "burden of a white man", if you need to create a consumer and a working robot, then the American dream will do, and if you set the goal of creating a human creator, then you cannot do without socialism and communism ...
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 2 August 2016 12: 35
      0
      Quote: alicante11
      if you set a goal to create a human creator, then you can not do without socialism and communism

      - personally observed the "creators", being (a student) "on potatoes" (on its harvest, that is)
      - Moscow region, Ozersky district., With. Sosnovka, year 1981
      - to find a sober "creator", even a driver, after lunch is a serious task and great luck, if you are lucky enough to find
      - The slogans "Everything for the good of man, everything in the name of man", "The people and the Party are united" and "Glory to the KPSS" were not mocked only by the lazy. True, in a whisper, since the organs worked competently, and especially "loud-speakers" turned out to be somewhere in the White Pillars, for example

      Say it wasn’t like that? Lie if you say.

      So - any ideology that does not correspond to the realities of life is dead. And, as befits a corpse, a few ... stinks yes
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 2 August 2016 14: 24
        +1
        - personally observed the "creators", being (a student) "on potatoes" (on its harvest, that is)


        From this path turned back at Khrushchev. For a while, everything was still on the old footing, and then sausage trains appeared. There was no time for creativity.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 2 August 2016 14: 43
          0
          Quote: alicante11
          From this path turned back at Khrushchev. For a while, everything was still on the old footing, and then sausage trains appeared. There was no time for creativity

          - I would not so explicitly link the "level of products in the refrigerator" and the ability to "creativity". Physically, it was much easier to survive under the Soviet Union than, for example, now
          - I, as I grew up "after Khrushch" (although I did have an alphabet book with a portrait of him on the first page), all my adult life I observed a striking discrepancy between declarations (ideology) and reality
          - this despite the fact that the school was - Soviet, medicine - also Soviet, circles-sections-music school - free (or for a nominal fee), and other similar buns were also
          - I mean that ideology diverging from practice is not viable.

          If you wish, challenge yes

          PS:
          Quote: alicante11
          90% will accept any official ideology, if it is actively imposed

          - they will accept it ... for a while, and then, as grandfather Marx said, "Practice is the criterion of truth."

          Something like that.
  20. vlad007
    vlad007 2 August 2016 21: 51
    +1
    And Peter the Great, what was the National Idea? And what is ideology? They stole no less than now, but Russia became a Great Power and built St. Petersburg (my favorite)!
    "We must do the job!" - this is the Ideology of Peter! And Peter himself was a WORKER!