Such a temptation is unnecessary and harmful
Every day, all-around political scientists, artists, etc., on leading television channels, spend hours discussing democracy issues around the world; study sociality and what it means; to mourn the loss of ideological foundations, to love and to hate Dostoevsky.
Photo: ru.wikipedia.org
These are talk shows, which does not mean a serious scientific level (liberalism loves discussion, that's its style). It is a pity that everything is limited to this, because all the terms used in the interviews have long been revealed and deciphered by philosophers, theologians and Christian thinkers, and the new dead ends are said to be old riddles that have already been solved.
And let's try to talk about it. To come up with quite accessible material, after all, we live in a democratic, legal and welfare state according to the Constitution.
Let's start with the power of people – democracy. Since the end of the 18th century, the Liberal Democrats have diligently introduced the well-known principles of democracy into people's minds. These are legal equality, human rights, social justice, permanent elections and re-election of power, etc.
Democracy looks both white and fluffy in the text of its declarations. At the same time, the democratic methods of fighting the supposed enemies of democracies – the monarchy – were cruel and inhuman. In England, King Charles I was sentenced to death not by a court but by parliament (although the king was not subject to the supreme laws in force at the time). In France, King Louis XVI and his wife were sent to death by the Democratic Convention. In Russia, Tsarist Emperor Nicholas II and his children were destroyed by the Bolshevik Communists without investigation or trial. In Germany, Emperor William was deprived of power by a decision of an extrajudicial body (only unjustified). All parliaments and some councils were publicly covered by the will of the people. In fact, the overthrow and execution of the monarchs was led by a small group of people: in England, Cromwell et al .; in France, Robespierre et al .; in Russia, first the Western Liberal Kerensky and then Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, etc .; in Germany, a group of socialists. The will of the people was far from here. Its worst part, using the revolutionary turmoil, burned, robbed, stole, killed, sawed, and the most skilled quickly moved to new bodies of power (from the House Committee to the Supreme Soviet). In Soviet Russia, such people were actively promoted to parliament: if they were “from the plow” and voted on the orders.
Liberal Democrats are sympathetic to the crowd, because their political school does not recognize any dogmas, folk customs, traditions, etc. as a starting point for sustainable public policy; it recognizes no authority, absolute judgment or categorical conclusion. Full civil freedom of opinion, expression, judgment and action – everything is in accordance with the Declaration of Rights and Freedoms, everything is relative and everything is questionable. To this end, a kind of abstract community of people was invented – “civil society” in a kind of “rule of law” invented by lawyers in Europe at the end of the 18th century.
In their public speeches to the people no, no, and even remember the attitudes of famous Russian philosophers towards Russian soil, who warned the original Russia against the temptations of any European economic (socialism) and ideological schemes – blind faith in the omnipotence of “market” self-regulation and liberal values of declarations … They remember, for example, NA Berdyaev, I.A.Iljina, F.M. Dostoevsky, but they remember it selectively so as not to cross the line of Europeanized tolerance.
Well, let's also recall them within the designated topic. So, N.A. Berdyaev: “Democracy is born through demagoguery (relevant to this day for the ubiquitous” talk show “- SD), despite the low flattery of the interests and instincts of the masses. Any higher thought in democratic societies dies. Democracy sees power as a right, not an obligation. The doctrines of liberal constitutionalism make a poor impression … Faith in a constitution is poor faith … It is indecent to make an idol of the rule of law … Democracy is a transitional state. According to IA Ilyin, “democracy is a transitional state from monarchy to anarchy.” Look at the so-called democratic Russia in its 30 years of existence: at all levels, power as a legal right and duty, as the highest duty to serve the country, the people (Berdyaev's “supreme idea”) is recognized only by a small circle of people. There is no concept of law as a moral obligation. Hence the massive irresponsibility for a given case, which is episodically stopped only by administrative or criminal sanctions. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has a chapter – crimes against public morality. In the last ten years, five new articles have appeared to punish fraud. The Criminal Code on the protection of morals and protection against widespread fraud is a great success in the embodiment of the democratic institutions of a liberal state. And it's not evening yet, tk. our federal assembly (parliament) passes an average of 300 laws a year.
All arguments about the essence of the welfare state have ceased. Sociality in direct translation from Latin – public. Can the state as the embodiment (symbol) of power be generally public? The Communists were already building barracks-type social socialism in Russia, and in 1991 the barracks fell on the heads of the USSR. Why adore deliberate utopias when we know it's just an absurd statement and nothing more. The market economy and socialism as a tool of material well-being for the country's population on a voluntary basis are not synthesized in any way. For example, German scientists came to this conclusion in the mid-1940s: “There can be no social market economy at all, because there can be no social market economy. market economy has only one goal – profit “(1931, Prof. Otto von Nel-Breining), confirmed 50 years later by Nobel laureate M. Friedman:” There is only one corporate social responsibility: to use its resources and energy in the activities of leaders to profit ’. All this is not a discovery at all, because the World informed N. A. Berdyaev (“Capitalism is absolutely impossible to consider a sacred economy”) and, of course, the unforgettable K. Marx and F. Engels. In order to somehow balance the social status of the rich and the poor, there is a strict tax system where there should be no balancing, ie. more from the rich and less from the poor (and nothing at all from some categories of people). Most countries have a progressive income tax scale, while ours is flat (13%). Why? Many parties promise to change that, but when they are elected, they forget.
And finally, the passion for ideology. The predominant topic: there is no such thing in Russia, but without it it is bad. There was an ideology here in the USSR and there was a type of one “Soviet people” and now there is in China, and there is also one people. Let us ask ourselves a simple question: if ideology is so omnipotent, why in 1991 did the rigidly ideologist Communist USSR and all the countries of the so-called Soviet Union collapse so easily. “Socialist Camp”? It is so easy that in August 1991 no one even went to defend social communism. It is useless to look for a deep metaphysical meaning in the word “ideology” from philosophical dictionaries, there is one and the same thing – it is a system of opinions and ideas, among which there may be and even predominant spiritual irrational-sensory religious dogmas (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism) , and anti – religious, atheistic principles with an emphasis on material goods – economism may also prevail. It was the development of the ideology of materialism in Europe and Russia that led to the temporary defeat of the Christian monarchies in Europe and Russia, the power of the Theomachists, the militant atheists was established: and the souls of murderers, rapists, and indifferents were confirmed by the dead (they were buried in and around the mausoleum).
According to their concepts, the Liberal Democrats who wrote the current constitution for Russia are against ideology in general. To quote part of President Kennedy A. Schlesinger's historian and special adviser at the World Political Forum (New Delhi, 1962): “Ideology is a model that isolates and highlights only certain elements of reality, and it is reprehensible that people forget that they take it as reality itself. “At the same time, it honestly distinguishes ideals from ideology, presupposes spirituality (the spirit of the nation) and ideals is a rational, logical system. To this day it has one important observation: but it restricts their civil liberties, which is why America chooses pragmatism over an ideology that is “like a drug and a desire that remains.” The word “pragmatism” means “deed” in Greek. Can action be key in modeled ideology? Of course, because action can also lead from reality and become only a model of unprincipled behavior of people. In fact, all people are, to one degree or another, rationally pragmatic when looking for some material benefit – a superficial benefit.
Religious beliefs, unlike the symbols of ideology, cannot be enforced (violently) because he was in the USSR, but only the first are able to create the most stable worldview in all self-governing communities – family, people, nation. State power is capable of this – no, and even more so in a secular liberal-democratic state. 150 years ago, it was noted that “the more liberal the state, the more independent it is from the church” (Frenchman A. Foulier – 19th century).
The famous Soviet writer F. Iskander remarked that “The prodigal son returned to his father when he felt really bad. So humanity will return to God. “Hopefully, knowing Christian dogmas, God is a thousand years old. And there is no need for politicians in Russia to push for a return to ideology, to replace religious dogmas, and to remember wise warnings from the West as well. : “It is unfortunate that the earth has not accepted its religion from God” (C. Montesquieu “On the Spirit of Laws” – 1748).