Why Putin and Trump win ...
Francis Fukuyama, a famous American philosopher, delighted by the fall of the USSR, proclaimed the “end of history” in his self-titled work, enthusiastically greeted by “exceptional and progressive” humanity. The "end of history" allegedly brought the victory of the liberal-democratic ideology over the communist on a global scale. Now we can say that Fukuyama, or liberal-democratic thought in his person, has substituted the West, the countries of the golden billion, in full!
It turned out to be exactly the opposite: world history did not die at all, but it came to life after the hibernation of the Cold War, while world ideologies, including the liberal ones, really died on a global scale. And the policy of "multiculturalism" has become their tombstone! On the other hand, the death of ideologies results in the death of their political emanations - political parties.
The death of political parties in their classical sense, with the original ideology and party membership of like-minded people, as they formed by the beginning of the twentieth century, is already a generally recognized fact. It has become commonplace with most Western analysts: today, they put "party machines", that is, apparatus from functionaries for elections, party activists and electorate mobilized by them, to replace former parties. Party membership has become symbolic, and a matter of tradition, rather meaningless, which is especially clearly manifested in America today, the phenomenon of Donald Trump.
The death of political parties is an obvious consequence of the death of ideologies. Although this connection is blatantly not noticed by the media in favor, for ideological or marasmic reasons, the process of the withering away of classic parties goes all over the world, from the USSR-Russia to Europe and America. Today, ahead of the entire planet, for obvious reasons, America.
In the US, 40 formally operates nationwide parties, but the presidential race is always completed by two well-known systemic ones, which are difficult to distinguish from each other, like thimbles in the hands of a street cheater. Today the moment of truth in the person of Donald Trump has come for them, and it turned out that the division into democrats and republicans is a fiction, they themselves were divided in relation to Donald Trump!
No, in principle, it is possible to arrange a three-party performance, but it will be more expensive, and the ruling class will minimize the costs to a two-party system all over the world. This is a global trend - cost optimization.
The death of ideologies inevitably led to the commercialization of political life. The classical commercial organization of the political process, primarily in the United States, has replaced the classic party organization. MLM network trading companies, as is known, first appeared in the USA, and the principle of their organization gradually spread to the political life of the country. A network company can, after all, sell any product, including a “political product” ...
Leading political parties in the United States inevitably took the form of networked political companies, for “selling” a “political product” to society - a candidate for the Senate, the House of Representatives, or for the country's presidency - it does not matter. Barack Obama was elected to the presidency completely on the network technology, from Chicago obscurity to the presidency! The relative success of our Navalny at the Moscow elections was explained by a number of our observers by the use of the latest American election technologies, adding that they are “networked”, but what stands behind this is left behind the brackets. We will try to uncover them.
We will not consider here the dirty side of politics, although there is always such a thing, take a new political, de-ideologized and commercialized reality ideally. In order to understand how a network company works, it is desirable to work on it myself, in this sense, I was lucky one day, so I recommend it. And I will share my memories ...
Alpha and omega of any network company is its “product”, it is always presented as the highest quality and “unique” on the market. (Familiar word? America is a unique country!) People are stupid, according to the network definition, they don’t understand this, so the task of the networker is to enlighten people and encourage them to buy their “unique product”. The networker receives a percentage of sales, so his brazen confidence and perseverance are endless - he makes money on - attention! - the uniqueness of your product!
Therefore, among the agitators that Obama, that Navalny always have “glass eyes,” when they appeal to reason, this feature of Moscow political scientists noted in the “Navalny sect”. And the light criticism of the “unique Navalny” caused almost rage! In fact, there is nothing strange in this: the protection of their “unique product” against the criticism of dissidents from network agitators is developed on long-term trainings.
There are many nuances connected with the pre-election legislation and the political process, but the principle of selling the network party machine of the “political product” to the society remains. Network agitators "sell" their "political product", a candidate for an elective office, replacing the word "sale" with campaigning.
Good network policy or bad, in principle, should not be discussed: this is a given! Older political parties are either dying out or are adopting a network image. Ideology and political programs become fictions - the voter cannot distinguish between them! They are still talking, according to tradition, but political scientists have long said: the voter today votes for the names, for the charismatic leader. There is a leader - there is a party, there is no leader - nothing will help! A leader is a “unique product” ...
The network party machine, retaining the old form, and brand signs, after the disappearance of ideology, filled it with completely different content. The success of a network party is determined by two factors.
1. The quality of its “political product,” that is, the leader (s) of the party, their “mind, honor and dignity,” is the charisma of today's newspeak. Ideological phrases are still used by them, however, they do not mean anything, they are changed if necessary, like gloves.
What does it mean? Take the "old Bolsheviks", they uncomplainingly went under arrest during the Stalinist repressions, because they believed that if the party was wrong about them, the communist ideology is correct and will take its own, so you cannot rebel against even your arrest. If it were not for this Bolshevik belief in communist ideology, the USSR would inevitably have drowned in the depths of the internal, already “red” civil strife, as far back as the 30s.
On the other hand, the collapse of the USSR became possible when the communist ideology ceased to be a “symbol of faith,” but today no one will fight for the “idea” in its pure form. (The Nazi-Bandera and Donbas militia opposing them is a different story, it is the result of internecine strife.)
But for the charismatic leader, many will go! Such a leader already today ensures the success of the network party in public opinion, attracts volunteers to the party's election work, even free of charge. But not for the idea, but for your name!
2.The network party structure, starting with its leader, party functionaries, media and agitators, is a matter of money, administrative and business resources, but first and foremost money.
Thus, a network party is a combination of a “political product” (leader) and money for its promotion to an elected state post. With approximately the same cash resources of the opponents, the network propaganda and media structures will compensate each other, and then the “political product” determines the election victory: who has a better, brighter party leader.
This new political reality has developed not only in the United States and Europe, but also in Russia, emerging in all countries that call themselves "democracies." This is modern democracy: a combination of a popular leader leading his electorate and money. Or even just money: after all, a popular leader can be bought, intimidated, or even killed, with the help, again, of money, of their owners. “Money is a fucked freedom,” says an American proverb. Therefore, there is a grain of truth in the fact that the United States is a concentration of democracy, because they are printing money to the world ...
In such a political situation, with a relatively fair fight, in the US presidential race, theoretically, Donald Trump should win, as a better, brighter and fresher "political product", and Hillary Clinton should lose, as the old, stale and tainted "political product". Since the funds of the parties are about the same.
In Russia, network technologies have penetrated all the leading parties relatively recently: not only the “Navalny party”, but also “United Russia” and other parties use network methods of working with the electorate, calling them a “mobilization campaign”. “United Russia” will use the “mobilization resource” more than others; its recent primaries are a purely networked American political element, very expensive. And not useless: indeed, local opinion leaders, that is, “sheepskins, worth further dressing,” are indeed revealed.
Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time has a rating under 80%, this is a statistical expression of the quality of the highest "political product" of Russia. His authority is so high today that the political party he supports is doomed to victory. Putin has already spoken in favor of United Russia, since this party has become the “assembly point of the country”, and he himself is one of its founders. This means that United Russia will win the fall elections to the State Duma, the only question is: with what score?
By the way, all opposition parties in Russia are betting on “protest moods”, completely forgetting about their ideological tenets, or almost forgetting. The communists manage not to even see the name of their party, and talk about some kind of “renewed socialism”. This is a confirmation of the “death of ideologies,” although, in the absence of other network resources, it was ideological things that could help the opposition in terms of agitation and propaganda.
Only on the “protest field”, owing to the network pre-election technologies, the lack of comparable resources and charismatic leaders, the opposition parties cannot show a good result. Society is always dissatisfied with power, parents - children, and children - parents, and this banality, if necessary, is easy to convey to the voter ...
For the story that came in the movement, it doesn’t matter: whether Donald Trump wins, that is, his election political machine, or an event that “changes the course of history”, such as the Kennedy incident, occurs; how will be formed in the future presidency of Vladimir Putin. The name of Trump in America, and Putin in Russia, is already linked to the final transition to a new political world order, when a charismatic leader becomes over the party, becomes more important than the party, he becomes the party himself.
On the other hand, if there is no charismatic political leader, then there is neither a party, nor stability, nor, ultimately, a country. Paradox: Trump's victory seems to be beneficial for Russia, however, if Clinton wins the election, the United States can begin to fall apart, by the way, Trump himself predicts this. The bipartisan political system of the United States is discredited by “trampism” in the eyes of the broad American masses, and Clinton is not a charismatic leader who can consolidate society.
... Such times have come, Putin - Trump!
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.