The positive (peaceful) side of technical progress is inextricably linked with the moral progress of society. In its most general form, this is the idea of ​​giving people something that does not yet exist, but - with the help of technology - can be produced. For example, there is not enough bread - but new technology, new varieties, new methods of agronomy will help. From a dream to provide others with benefits - a technique is born (and, which is very important, is not classified [1]), which increases the everyday happiness of mankind.

The aggregate of useful knowledge for everyone (which is fundamentally different from the aggregates that are useful only to the top [2]) is the transition of scientific thought into the material technical environment. Generalizing the ideas of individual useful machines, a person comes to the generalized idea of ​​a “happiness machine” (of course, only for everyday use), which has the character of a flying carpet and a self-assembled tablecloth.

To put it very simply and briefly, the “happiness machine” (domestic, consumer) is a request button and an automatically provided result. The machine does everything by itself, providing a person with a finished product at his request. In the twentieth century, with its CNC and three-dimensional "printers", we have come closer than ever to the technical implementation of the "happiness machine". We already had it in our pocket …

This machine (a set of mechanisms) can be debugged in such a way that it will save a person from all tedious, dirty, uncreative and unwanted work. The mechanical assistant will be behind you and clean, and carry weights, and bake pies - when you order.


And why exactly "mechanical"? Here is the most important point of the link between technical and moral thought.

A person has yet to come up with a mechanical assistant - but simply an assistant has long been invented, and is called a "slave". And if you remove the moral aspect from technical thought, then the invention of iron technology will seem like “inventing a bicycle”. And the whole thought will go through a different channel, in the other direction: how to work with the psyche of slaves so that they will put up with it forever and never create problems for the owners?

Why, indeed, does a slave owner need a fragile, costly, and very limited mechanical helper when he has a slave? Indeed, to live in the world of fine mechanics, you need to be a very educated person, and this requires decades of persistent study and mental development from a person. And the slave owner is born a slave owner. There is no such school in which they teach to be "masters". The wolves, the leaders of the pack, do not graduate from any school. And so they differ from the bespectacled mechanics of human society …

Again with bread (in the broadest sense, all products):

there is logic for humanists, and there is logic for egoists

The humanist proceeds from the basic idea (axiom) “more bread for everyone!”. Therefore, he is very worried about the general yield, its growth or decline, general agronomy, etc. And the egoist proceeds from the fact that bread is needed only for him, and perhaps for several of his relatives.

Therefore, the issues of personal share in the harvest for the egoist are an order of magnitude more important than the total grain yield. It is much more important for him to get a lot from a small crop than a little from a huge one. He will willingly contribute to a decrease in the overall yield - if this somehow increases his personal share in it (which is what corrupt officials have been doing in all centuries).

What does he care if the overall yield is increasing or decreasing ?! It is important for him - how much a given type of society gives him personally. No matter how bad the type of society is - if it singles out a lot, then it is preferable to any good for this public …

Vadim Prokhorov derived (in a series of his video lectures) scientific communism from Aristotle. And this, of course, is so, with one caveat: scientific communism can just as well be fished out of Confucius, and from the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and from the teachings of Vladimir Monomakh, and from church patristics, and from … Let's leave these exercises to the best times, limited to a single phrase:

- Scientific communism can be deduced from any thinker who formulated a general idea, who tried to deduce uniform rules of behavior for unlimited multitudes of people.

The only thing from which scientific communism cannot be fished out is from a predatory beast that did not leave any generalizing thoughts after itself and lived only for itself, without formulating any abstractions. Leaving no spiritual heritage, such a social predator did not leave any clues for scientific communism. He lived with the priority of instincts over rationality, and therefore could not leave anything for rational science.

The only attempt to somehow rationalize anti-communism is medieval nominalism, the spiritual father of capitalism. From the point of view of understanding the world and society, nominalism turned out to be the most fruitless stream of thought, about which we wrote in more detail in other works …

But, of course, scientific communism is not someone's monopoly, but a "thing in itself", to which thinkers (all) approached from different angles, and with varying degrees of understanding. Nor can it be considered a monopoly of Marxists, whose mistakes in cognition turned out to be fatal for the twentieth century.

What is really hidden under the guise of "class struggle"? Our version is as follows:

It is not difficult to imagine that a person has some kind of need: for food, clothing, housing, etc. Let's conditionally designate its "need" X ". That is: here is a person, but that thing "X" without which he cannot live.

People in relation to "X" can be divided into three main consumer types:

1. A person satisfies his need "X" easily and instantly.

2. A person has the ability to satisfy the need "X", but only through a multitude of difficult, long, heavy, dirty intermediate actions.

3. A person in general cannot satisfy the needs of “X” in any way, because he is a resource deprived of resources and is deprived of consumer rights.

The consumer of the 1st type has not only the resources of the benefit-extraction, but also the service personnel (slaves or robots). If we are talking about bread, then he has the land in his possession, and those who will cultivate it. And he will receive bread immediately - without touching his land.

The consumer of the second type has the resources to extract benefits, but there is no one to do the work for him. Suppose he has land, but no farm laborers. He can get bread if he is not lazy.

A person deprived of the third type does not have the very source from which earthly good can be made. He is deprived of the right to use not only the final product of labor, but also is deprived of access to the raw materials from which productive labor begins.

These three categories (dominants, users, disenfranchised) are the main "classes" of society that have existed throughout human history. Of course, such a scientific picture of the world is very different from Marxist constructions (although in the basic core it is similar to them).

We cleanse the socio-economic phenomenon from husks and accidental impurities, from all "bourgeoisies", "proletarians", and other inconvenient, meaningless terms [3].

Yes (in all ages) dominants- who took over everything, using force and cunning (and more often - their interweaving).

There is users, servants of dominants, who are admitted to the feeding trough, and for this they provide massive support to the dominant leaders, for fear of losing access to the feeding trough.

Is there disenfranchised, outcasts of society - they are deprived of access to goods, do not own and do not use earthly resources.

The basic idea of ​​the "happiness machine" (as a set of mechanisms that provide the lightest satisfaction normal [4] needs) - consists in the "principle of air".

The air, the breathing mixture, has neither owners nor dispossessed. In relation to air, everyone is a user. In a genuine class tripartite, the upper and lower links are eliminated: domination and poverty. Everyone breathes according to need, and lets the other breathe.

But what if other normal needs were as available as air, water, etc.? By themselves, they cannot become so accessible, in their natural environment there is a terrible deficit. That is why there is a bloody fight for them.

This fight cannot be avoided by changing the authorities, the parties in power: who will become the watchman over the watchmen? The new owners of the territory will build a new system of domination, access and deprivation.

Only a "machine of happiness" (a set of mechanisms that performs all the dirty and uncreative, mechanical work for a person) can end the eternal massacre on the basis of the redistribution of material values.

Of course, the very idea of ​​a "happiness machine" is a product of the mind of superclass geniuses, people beyond the ordinary. But the attitude to the idea of ​​the really (in contrast to the Marxist) existing classes is different.

Most of all sympathy for this idea is among the disenfranchised, outcasts, pariahs. After all, it is their dirty and hard work that the smart mechanism will undertake. It is they who will be provided with what they have always been deprived of.

As for the users, the service staff, their attitude to the idea is cool, close to indifference. In the position of users, little will change: yesterday a slave served them, today a robot, the main thing is that themserve, and not themselvesserves meals in the restaurant.

For alpha individuals, for the dominants of the pack of beastmen, the attitude is rather negative. Dominance has two psychological motives: rational and sadistic.

A rational motive is an attempt to secure for oneself (both by force, and by cunning, and by collusion with one's own kind) the necessary benefits and resources forever, firmly and unconditionally. Rational power is an unobstructed passage to the river from which you want to drink water. An outcast will not be allowed to drink water just like that; they will first be required to pay, work off or humiliate him. And the representative of the authorities controls access to the “river” of goods. This motive can be understood by the mind, even by the artificial intelligence of a computer: power is needed so that no one blocks my access to the benefits I need.

"To own" - this word denotes both power and property, and, in essence, the highest degree of use of an object. An object can be used in different ways (temporarily, partially, etc.), but when it is absolutely at your disposal, it is called “owning”.

It is unlikely that the "machine of happiness" that increases the availability of goods for everyone can somehow interfere with satisfaction. normal needs of the ruling caste. What is it about? Before, there was only a glass of milk, and therefore only the most important drank milk. And now the machine has worked out a tank of milk, at least fill up: and the chief began to drink two glasses, and the other remains.

But, as for the sadistic motives of domination, the "happiness machine" threatens to eliminate them along with the very possibility of dominating, using the lack of benefits. That is, not to stand out with your mind, talent, beauty - but your access to scarcity.

The tremendous successes in the construction of the "machine of happiness" in the twentieth century made it out of a fairy tale - in fact, a reality. Various mechanisms give us so many benefits that it was difficult even to imagine in previous eras!

The reality of the "happiness machine" multiplies not only the hopes of its supporters, but also the efforts of its enemies. You will no longer laugh at her as at a myth, she is real, she is already here! And this is a fact that everyone should take into account.

If reason, the rational principle do not see anything terrible in the machine of expanded reproduction of goods and democratization of satisfying needs, then the bestial side of domination howls with horror.

Hence - not predicted by sociologists, the process of splitting the power corps into rationalists and sadists. After all, before the two motivations were in a confused, indistinctly mixed state. And you can't tell when the feudal lord whipped the girls for the cause, and when - for the sake of sadistic pleasure in the very process of whipping!

But as the construction of the "machine of happiness" progressed, a rapid polarization of rationalism and sadism in politics began. Rationalism goes into a planned economy, inevitably, because mind and planning are synonymous [5].

If there is an opportunity to plan the economy, then the mind can no longer refuse such an opportunity. To abandon it for reason is to abandon oneself, to fall into madness (which we see in the marketophilia of our days). Another thing is the dark, bestial instincts of possessiveness and domination.They act as the main antipode of society, which threatens their general well-being. So - in opposition to the "machine of happiness" stands out its main enemy, FASCISM.

That is, an overt terrorist dictatorship of the most possessed and demoniac carriers of the thirst for domination and possessiveness.

It is important to note here that in social Darwinism, Nazism, libertarianism, there is NO AT ALL, even at the theoretical level, the concept of "HAPPINESS OF HUMANITY". As a substitute for happiness, these teachings offer will and struggle, the happiness of all - the triumph of some. Those who fight, it is important to emphasize, not for universal happiness, but only for themselves, their personal domination. They win, building their happiness on someone else's defeat and misfortune, which is considered the only possible form of human happiness …

The main task of fascism (which it never hid) was to turn history back to pagan and phallic symbols, to that "golden age" in which people differed very little from animals, and therefore the life of an animal in human form was comfortable. Fascism is designed to stop progress, primarily social progress, to restore slavery and the caste system, and in full. Beginning with Nietzscheanism, fascism declared a "great campaign" against rationality, logical and coherent thinking, actively restoring and creating from scratch the worlds of surrealism, primitive epic myth, thoughtlessly volitional principle + indulgence of all human lower instincts.

Power in fascism loses the confusion of the rational and sadistic principles that the power of previous eras had, crystallizes into distilled sadism, purified of all rationality. Instead of the "happiness machine" of a normal person, this sadism promises a sea of ​​thrills and risks, a stormy life amid dangers and trials, the ability to kill, pirate and seize slaves.

It is in this way, through a series of intermediate stages, that a very hungry, but furious and energetic fascist UG is formed from the well-fed and fertile Ukrainian SSR. Fascism thinks to compensate for the incalculable misfortunes of the population with incalculable adventures. And, I must admit, partly he succeeds: man is not only intelligent, but he is also an animal, and like an animal he is “led” to all zoological lures.

The main task of fascism is to protect private property from rational distribution, from the need to explain why and why this or that thing belongs to this or that.

- It belongs - that's all. Captured in battle - and will not give it up. And I don't care if it's reasonable or unreasonable, it's not up to you to decide! What, some research institute with bespectacled people will decide - how much to leave, and how much to take away from me ?! No, only I myself decide what to give to people and what to keep for myself … Whether I need it or not, it doesn't matter! You don't need it now - it may come in handy later …

Of course, of course, of course, the unlimited power of private property is inseparable from unlimited violence. Exactly this terrorist sidefascism is best seen by people, even without special economic and sociological training. But not everyone understands how terror is related to property.

Meanwhile, there is nothing complicated here, you just need to be able to think a little. Property is that which has not been taken away.This is not what is written down after the person: I can write down the Kremlin after you, you follow me the Hermitage, but where will we go with these pieces of paper later?

Property - that which could not, did not want or did not guess to take away from a person. If we are talking about large property, then, you yourself understand, the motive “did not want” or “did not guess” disappears. There remains one reason for ownership: there was no beast stronger than you in the company. Therefore, you have crushed under yourself a large aggregate of the material world (most often, having entered into a conspiracy of mutual support with your kind) - and by force you keep it, repelling all attempts.

It will not be difficult for you to see that all and every property right consists in the right to summon punishers.

Let's say evil people are breaking into your apartment. If you are not able to deal with them yourself, your only chance to keep the apartment for yourself is to call the police. And then nothing depends on you personally! If the police take your side, they will take the property away from other applicants for you. If you don't come or side with the thugs, your property is lost.

Understand what is written on the paper - it doesn't matter at all. The papers say that the Scythians lived in the Black Sea region - and where now there is even a piece of Scythian land? You can write anything on the pieces of paper - the question is, who writes: in what relationship is he with the punitive team? If he (like the tsar or Gorbachev) has lost touch with the punishers, then he is nobody and nothing, and his papers are waste paper, And this is my right of the owner to call a punitive command - all my ownership is based. Everything, without a trace! If you remove my right to summon punishers, then the property dissolves, instead of it there is a battle of claimants for a no-man's resource.

Thus, property and violence are inseparable, they are two sides of the same coin

Violence breeds property, and property breeds violence. Any, even a symbolic fence is being built as a military fortress structure, designed to help the owner hold out until the arrival of the punitive team. Since the punishers cannot arrive instantly, you need to withstand the attack yourself for some time: for this you need fences, gates, doors, locks, and bars on the windows (they are not installed for insulation!).

But what if we took the path of nonviolence? For example, how in "perestroika" - they say, did the Estonians want an independent Estonia, we will not fight with them? In the language of economics, this is called giving up property, money, rights, resources, and life itself. No matter who we talk about, everything that belongs to him belongs to him only by right of power. There is no such property in use that would not have been seized sooner or later.

By removing all violence, we are removing all property and all rights. Of course, if we start giving away land, they will gladly start taking it away from us. But in the end we are left without anything, without any land (for there is no land that has no value). We remain outside of life, because there is no one to protect our right to use anything.

Ownership can be based on:

  • 1) Ideological violence based on solid principles of law.
  • 2) Zoological violence based on the naked force and arbitrariness of the invader.

There are no other grounds for the property - so that it would not be stolen by killing the previous users - and there cannot be.

That is: either the ideological punitive service punishes a person for violating some ideological norm, or it does not exist (neither the norm, nor the service), and in this case, they simply punish everyone who is both profitable or available. After all, the bandits have no ideological claims to the victim of robbery, they need violence for a completely different purpose!

It is clear that the "happiness machine" insistently demands ideological violence. Well, think for yourself: you have parked a complex car in the middle of the street, it contains parts made of precious metals … If it is not guarded, it will be taken away for scrap metal, isn't it ?!

Public property, equality - cannot be introduced once - and then exist without conflict and power protection. Both fair and unjust distribution rest on force - because every distribution and every property rests on it. If you don't protect, they stole it. Is it really incomprehensible?

Fascism, as an antipode to the world of reason and planning, gives the shell of ideology to the zoological primary terror, built on the animal struggle for existence.Thus, criminal and state terror merge into a single suppression machine, in which underground criminal acts are no longer distinguishable from state ones. Legality evaporates, leaving behind either the fiction of the law, or even its official liquidation under the slogan "we dare everything!"

It cannot be otherwise if those who have broken through to power are overwhelmed by zoological passions. After all, as far as law (legality) is concerned, this is only inventory and structuring of ideology and its ideological values.

How can values ​​be protected if values ​​are missing? If they are not comprehended, not expressed, not ideologically formalized? What logic, in this case, will connect different laws, and how will these laws differ from arbitrariness?

That is why capitalism, losing its ideology (de-Christianization of the West), is also losing legality, any and all. For values ​​of law do not exist outside of ideological preferences.

If a person honors the law, then he has shrines, and if a person does not have shrines, he does not honor anything, including the law. Unwittingly, without fail, any Law must reflect a certain system of values, which is ideology.

Arbitrariness is not obliged to reflect anything. He does not need logic that would link precedents (say, the recognition of Kosovo and Crimea). The lot of de-ideologized societies is the chaos of naked arbitrariness and the constant randomness of criminal violence (which is what we see).

And as a result, from the harbor of the "machine of happiness", which we have almost reached, we find ourselves with the stone axes of lawlessness in the Paleolithic. Ukraine has already completely gone through this path of becoming savage, dismantling civilization.

Yes, and we have little left to complete it, returning to the original chaos of the triumph of concrete brute force over abstract principles and sacred ideals.

Chances to jump out of this inferno in "USSR 2.0." are melting every day, and the only alternative to the project "USSR 2.0." - stone Age. It suits the world rulers of the West very much, because they dream of reducing the global population, and in the Stone Age only a few thousand people survived on the planet …

[1] After all, it often happens that a person invented or learned something useful, but seeks to use it only himself, personally, alone. In this, in fact, the magician differs from the scientist. The scientist will explain honestly where that came from, and the magician will try to reduce everything to his personal superpowers, unattainable for others and incomprehensible to others. Scientists around the world create the collective intelligence of humanity, because they share discoveries with each other. And magicians are zealous in preserving their monopoly, "copyrights" and "commercial secrets" so as not to share their newfound power with other people. Therefore, their secret knowledge dies along with the bearers of this secret knowledge, and does not enrich the collective intelligence of humanity.

[2] For example, the invention of gunpowder was very useful for the peasants and cities oppressed by the feudal lords, but extremely disadvantageous for the feudal lords. Gunpowder (just one discovery) destroyed feudalism, the system of feudal domination, annulled the value of castles and armor, cavalry and fencing, the estate structure of society and, in general, the entire old feudal world.

[3] For example, the term "bourgeoisie" - from "burg", "city". That is, we are talking about the townspeople! Does this tell us about the essence of the phenomenon of oppression of man by man ?! It turns out some kind of Maoism - "the world city oppresses the world village" (Mao understood Marxism literally). “Proletariat” is a term from “prolos”, “offspring.” Originally it meant a derisive designation of bareness in ancient Rome - “having nothing but offspring.” This is almost a curse word - what can it give to understand the problem of oppression and inequality?

[4] This is an important addition, because the existence of a normal society is impossible without the mental health of the masses of its population.Normal needs are a rather narrow range of needs, outside of which are various pretentious and pathological needs of psychopaths that society can satisfy and cannot and should not… Satisfying all the whims and quirks of a sociopath is not only technically unthinkable, but also conceptually meaningless!

[5] Inanimate objects also sometimes have the ability to move: whirling leaves, flying a piece of paper in the wind, chips in a stream, etc. But we call reasonable only a creature in which the concept of movement precedes the movement itself, that is, the movement is planned in advance, and only then is it produced.

Popular by topic