How Trade Unions Will Save Russia in Times of Government Inaction

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

I would like to ask the author a question: how is a trade union fundamentally different from a political party? And if the parties are incapable of “saving Russia,” then how can the trade unions be able to do this ??!

annotation

For Russia, power is a "sore" issue.

Huge territories located more to the north than to the south naturally give rise to a slowed down organizational metabolism ("female", passive gender).

Hence, excessive compensatory centralization. And with it, clearly redundant power structures trying to neutralize centrifugal tendencies.

In such a situation, trade unions are the only way to make the government worthy of its people.

Ontology of society. Power

The nature of power lies in the systemic (structural and functional) retention of stability (symmetry) during genesis. Successful transient forms of genesis stability become homeostasis.

In other words, the nature of power is the preservation of the "whole" by a certain specialized "part" with evolutionary "consent" by the selection of other parts. In its systemic meaning, it is asymmetry.

Symmetry is needed by nature as a minimum price (for the production of entropy) for the preservation of processes and forms. Asymmetry minimizes evolutionary essence: structure / function. In this paradigm, power becomes an active (asymmetric) form of organizational homeostasis on the evolutionary track.

1. Background

In the previous article [1], an entity in ontology was considered. Essence is a substantial unity: passive / active [2, 3, 4].

This understanding is new for philosophers by its specificity. The problem lies behind cognitive development, in particular, behind the power of associative ("parallel") thinking in comprehending the principles of similarity. While the most developed form, at the moment, is "sequential" thinking of the technological type. The associative thinking of the individual "resists" demiurgic concepts.

It's one thing when talking about essence (passive / active) as mechanical speed s / texpressed through a number, the essence of linear geometry as distance / direction is another matter, and the third is when we examine the genotype / phenotype relationship. Trying to find the right words in the semantics, it is preferable to name the principles characterizing substances as parity / priority.

In this understanding, we avoid the duality of "ortho" and "anti". This understanding comes from the theological “priority of spirit over matter” (but not negation!).

For ontology, substantial analysis has a more applied character. So, regarding the essence: genotype / phenotype, an actual example can be given. There is a writer and scientist R. Dawkins who wrote "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker", etc. Its ideology is the priority of the genotype over the phenotype (which does not correspond to the ontology!).

According to him, a phenotype is generally … so, a "vehicle" (vehicle), a "carrier" of genes. To some extent, he is right if we understand the ontological pair of egoism / altruism as substantial.

Only he tore off one side from the very essence of life, which always in this substantial pair! It was the development of the phenotype, through language, through science, that made it possible to understand the genotype and give hope for its use in the future. It is “spirit” (active, future) that pulls “matter” (passive, past). This is the peculiarity of ontology, that it allows you to develop your own, independent of the subjects, point of view, the use of which is in its ideal.

What is the highest priority in a pair of rationality / emotionality? And what about the consumption / production pair? Or a much more insidious question - what is more priority in a pair of goods / money, supply / demand? The priority is always for the unifying - in essence active, as a passive / active unity!

People are united by an emotional attitude, not rationality, rationality is an individual. In any of these pairs there is (where it is clearer, and where it is not) "material" and "spiritual" shade. But, both those and other extremes do not lead to good! Extreme altruism is just as bad as extreme selfishness.

In the evolutionary gain, there is a singularity [5], as the duality of a unit.

2. State

Let me remind you of the statement of M. N. Fervent about the state:

"When I am abroad, I miss my homeland, and when I return, I am terrified of the state."

The state is neither a homeland, nor a country…. Wikipedia defines a state as follows:

"The state is a political form of organization of society in a certain territory, a political-territorial sovereign organization of public power, which has an apparatus of government and coercion, to which the entire population of the country is subject."

Further, Wikipedia in the same place tells us that there is no single definition of the state ("Neither in science, nor in international law there is a single and generally accepted definition of the concept of" state "").

The very fact of defining the state through signs in five points is also interesting:

• “Division and organization of the population according to the territorial principle.
• Sovereignty, that is, the presence on the territory of a state of a single authority, independent of other states. Sovereignty determines the public nature of power. (Not highlighted in the Montevideo convention)
• The presence of a group of people specializing in government, as well as bodies and institutions of state power that ensure the enforcement of its decisions (including the army, police, prison)
• Taxes, duties and other fees received from which funds go to the government to perform its functions, including ensuring the work of the state apparatus.
• The exclusive right to pass laws and other normative legal acts, binding on the entire population throughout the territory."

These five points are very reminiscent of eidos, the essence of which is sovereignty. In this essence, from an ontological point of view, an active, as an organizational priorityunity. It remains to understand what acts as parityin the substantial passive. (We are trying to "grope" the entity through isomorphism: parity / priority).

Most sources indicate some kind of independence in external activities. We are more interested in how the same striving for the unity of people living in a single territory is ensured. And here, first of all, attention is drawn to the legislation in relation to the population (parity), which is provided by state bodies.

Thus, the ontological essence of statehood (in a certain context) is provided by the projection of Aristotle's dual substantial “immovable prime mover”: lawmaking / self-organization.

3. Information sources about the government

It will be useful to get acquainted with some references to the concept of power. So, in particular, TSB says this about power:

“Power is an authority that has the ability to subordinate to its will, control or dispose of the actions of other people. It appeared with the emergence of human society and will always accompany its development in one form or another. … The term "Power" is used in various forms and aspects: parental V., state V., which, in turn, includes such concepts as V. supreme, constituent, legislative, executive, military, judicial, etc."

The fact that power is applied in "various forms" speaks in favor of its certain evolutionary universality. And in this regard, the following statement about power will be useful (from the collection of articles: Boytsov M. A., Uspensky F. B. (editor-in-chief) "Power and the image, essays on potestarny imagology", St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2010. - 384 p.):

“However,“power”can be understood in a completely different way - not as a quality concentrated in one segment of society that is separated from the rest, but as an organizing principle that permeates the entire society from top to bottom, not as a set of people - bearers of power, but as a relationship that is taking shape between people about domination and submission."

This expression is apt for the reason that it highlights the symbolic duality that characterizes power in existential representation: submission / domination.

It is necessary to add a critical view of the authorities to the ascertaining references. Here is what M. N. Khokhlov writes about the power.in his work "The Era of Harmogenesis":

“POWER is an instrument of a very specific organization of PEOPLE - hierarchy,“vertical”and very specific management - violence, subordination, imposition of one's will, even in spite of resistance. That is, the concept of power, conceptually, by definition, contains a spatial and power imbalance in bilateral relations (interactions with nature and in society).

The presence of power forms hierarchical tree-like architecture of the organization of society in all types of associations of people (political, corporate, religious, household, …). Wherein elevation power is always built on humiliation others and monopolies the right to use force (the power reflexion of the humiliated is declared illegitimate and is brutally suppressed).

There was a time when there was no power. There will be a time when she will be gone.

Let's consider the basic concepts of the nature of power and the principles of its existence.

All thirsty and seized power have learned to legitimately clothe coercion and violence in virtuous packages, anonymous forms of power, virtual despotism: laws, social contract, customs, traditions, faith, law (position and powers), standards, promises, democratic elections, referendums, security, violence (war) as "peace enforcement", …"

In this criticism of power, we see its clear cybernetic meaning: it can both positively contribute to the evolution of society, and negatively. But anyway, power – these are the costs of society due to its own imperfection of the consciousness of its constituent individuals.

This position is in full accordance with the modal concept of essence as a dialectical unity of the real / possible.

If we turn to the specifics in Russia through the essence: legislative / organizational, then it will immediately become clear that not the adoption of a progressive legislative scale in income tax (2020) depends on the organizational capabilities of society. In particular, from her conscientiousness and passion.

4. The essence of power in ontological representation

Power in society, in the utilitarian everyday sense, is a "stream" of coercion by the prevailing circumstances, among which the main thing is the legislation of the state and its executive bodies.

Power in the ontological sense is a “product” of the One, already representing both eternal modal possibilities (active) and historical necessity (passive).

In other words, we have here a clear manifestation of self-similarity, the main representative of which is the ontological eidetic (substantial) essence = passive / active. As you know, the modality of possibility and necessity is manifested in the modality of reality. This is the modality of reality and is a concrete embodiment of being, one of the attributiveness of which is always the presence of an ideal [3].

The essence of power (as a “flow”) is symbolically reflected by the following substantial attributes: “part” / “whole”, coercion / domination, restrictions / freedom, lawmaking / self-organization, etc.

In society, the ontology of power is embodied through personalization in the appropriate hierarchical structure. Forced personalization power (in the absence of awareness of the masses) gives rise to feudal caste, authoritarianism, forceful influence in accordance with the principles of cumulativeness of the five formation phases according to A. S. Shusharin [6]:

tribal - slave - feudal - capitalist - socialist ("linear")

From this definition it is already clear that any personified power bears transaction costs to society (for the maintenance of power). Especially if the government, instead of maintaining the parity of the "parts", ensures the priority of the "part" rather than the "whole". In this regard, it is useful to recall the relative legitimacy of anarchist views (in the historical aspect). On the other hand, the ideal of power can be the awareness (knowledge of the laws of nature) of the masses. This universal awareness is that One.

Power can exist exclusively on a certain resource base. For the 4th formation (according to A. S. Shusharin), this power contains the powerful "assets" of the previous formations: power, authoritarian, caste. The main "asset" of the 4th formation, capitalist, is money.

The "asset" of power can always be an exceptionally active substance. In terms of society, this is something common for everyone. This common to society is primarily money (not their amount, but the mechanism of turnover), legislation, rights to land, fixed assets, etc. As a rule, the conflict arises on the grounds that the authorities (persons), instead of protecting common parity interests and their “assets,” simply “privatize” them (a vivid example of which is Russia).

In fact, in Russia the cult of personality as “one” is more developed, exclusively in an authoritarian form. The transition to the necessary cult of the personality of all ("much"), behind which lies the passionarity of the masses (citizenship), is still to be done.

5. Intermediate conclusions

5.1. Since the essence in a concrete form does not appear in the philosophical academic discourse, it is possible only with caution (preliminary) to introduce an ontological “unit” of the effectiveness of power. In my opinion, this is the right, as it is formulated in [7].

There, law is interpreted as the essence of institutionality through the ratio:

1. Ontology of society. The essence

2. Eidos. Substances of passivity and activity

3. Ontology. Roles of Substances in Constructiveness

4. Ontology. Roles of substances in constructiveness (2)

5. Singularity in ontology

6. Ontology. Essence of the fifth civilization formation

7. Synthesis of eidos. Social determinants

8. The Fifty-Fifty Principle

9. Meritocracy in the light of ontology