N O W , L O O K H E R E !(publicistics)Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2001 ...— — — — — [ Remark: As far as the book is enormously big it is published here, by old habit, in small booklets amounting to about 50 (to 100) KB, containing normally from three to five papers. In this booklet is just one thing from 2015 for journals. To add also that the footnotes, again by established here habit, are marked with "*" and placed immediately after the paragraph in [ ... ] brackets. ] — — — — — Contents Of Section "For Journals" Essay on the common sense About the turn to the left How much has to win a company in order to have no gain? Our people again hoarded goods by higher prices Too good is not good! Are we free, or on the contrary? Political gratitude Neo-Malthusianism, or rational judgment Myths about democracy About the ownership and its future Just injustice In ovo e veritas Oh, 'manci, 'manci -pation! What we want to tell the world? In Bulgaria everything is quiet Political parties in Bulgaria About the degradation of morality Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria? Essay on the common sense — II already the end — — — — — ESSAY ON THE COMMON SENSE — II As it is evident from the title the subject of this material is a social order which contradicts, in some extent, to the common sense of its citizens, only that this time this isn't the communist socialism but the contemporary democracy. I hesitated for a long time to write this paper or not, because it is obvious, and I alone have emphasized this many times, have written whole books, or, if by papers or chapters of books, then more than 50 (rather near to hundred) things, where have explained that, putting it aphoristically, the democracy is the most flagrant contradiction to the common sense, and exactly for this reason it is the very biggest achievement of humankind in the social area! Saying it otherwise, if all people want to deceive one another, then here is the democracy. Your rulers will cheat you so bold that you will even like this. So that from this viewpoint there is no more need to ... "stir with stick the guano" (in order not to use here indecent English words, but foreign is allowed). So, but my readers in the Internet continue to pay bigger attention to this essay (under the implied now number one), compared with others much more interesting papers of mine, so that I have begun to give a thought to really writing continuation on this theme. Because there the question is posed quite naive, we wanted then that the society was humane, for it is obliged to care about people, while now it, even if takes some care, then this is for defending of the pockets of the wealthy persons of this world, for the simple reason that the hungry and discontented people (as also home animals, the situation is similar) perform worse their duties, i.e. there are not proper conditions for exploitation! But this, too, at least for me, is obvious, and there is no need to "dig a hole in the sea". Still, when 25 years later I have begun to translate myself in English, I have come to the conclusion that it is good to write this second essay, in order not only to state that the capitalism, i.e. the democracy of Western type, that of the stronger in this world, is inhumane, corrupt, and so on, but also to try to point out the possible ways for its improving, which are much more difficult than in the times of totalitarianism (when it sufficed to reach somehow the ruling place — not that this was easy, but it sometimes happens — and then perform changes on a big scale, how, for example, has done Gorby in his time). And, in general, 25 years is not a short time for to allow oneself to raise again old questions, under new condition. So that I will write this review, using initially the same points of the former material, and later something will be added. But I must warn you that this, to what I will lead you, is ... well, to vindicate the communism, of course, for there were many good ideas in it, only the realization was limping (but under the democracy there is not at all worthy idea or moral — if we exclude the clever deceiving of the common people). In what there is nothing surprising, because all totalitarian forms of ruling (like, say: church state, Sultan ruling, the idea of aristocracy, and others, the pharaohs, if you want) go out of the assumption that the people are simple and they must be taught, not to put the "cart" before the "horse", as the democracy does, spreading the delusion that exactly the masses must teach their rulers what to do, or, using words from proverbs, the calf will teach its mother. So that I will whiten the communism and blacken the democracy, and if somebody does not like this, then let him not read further. But let us begin. 1. About the unnecessary prohibitions. Oh, God, they become not at all less, they have become now more. Earlier there were predominantly such, where minor servants, hiding behind their posts, have shown redundant zeal, so that the others, if they do not respect them, at least to be afraid of them (we even have a proverb saying that the King permits but the guard doesn't), and now it is shockingly full with such where the jurists "wash their hands" and the "plebs" suffers. Because, for example, when you go in a bank to open a deposit you must sign a document of 20, usually, pages, and confirm that you agree with the conditions, and the same is the situation with protection of rights of given products, and it is pretty funny this to be applied also for some software products or on the Internet sites, where nobody can check is it really so or not (for example, confirm that you are of full age — certainly one can bet that every adolescent will eagerly confirm that he or she is such, how it is needed), but this forces people to lie (that they have read it) if they want that the things move further. This is utterly incomprehensible teaching of honesty through accustoming at an early age to deceive, but it exists, because is "democratically". Or also, that the cigarettes harm the health, even lead to death — and tell me, please, how one must live in order to avoid the death, because for me, in my old age, this point is of great concern — but nonetheless they are sold everywhere; the same also about the prostitution (well, not exactly the same, there they don't warn you that it is unmoral, there you know pretty well how the matters stand, but it exists wholly legally, so that the inconsistency between the said and the existing is entirely obvious); the same also when is advertised some medicament and you are advised, just in case, to read the leaflet with the instructions; or when they proclaim that buying and selling of votes is offense (especially when it does not exist, for everyone can promise to vote how they want, and vote how he or she wants, since the voting is anonymous). Id est these are not only prohibitions that are unnecessary, with which nobody complies, but you are even warned what you are not to do, what you, anyway, don't intend to do, with the only purpose that somebody else wins from this. And this, what is necessary, say, that after each advertisement they must be forced to add that commercials are cheating, or something of the kind, is missing, of course. And so on. For example, in the recent time I even become infuriated when in shops and in other public places they are directly "selling" politeness to you, repeating without whatever necessity "thank you in advance" or something of the kind, when this is simply a regular ... advertising, of course, that, look at us, please, how polite we all are, just a feast for the ears, so that go on, come to us again. Earlier we have said that there is nothing so cheap and which is valued so high like the politeness, but then the prices were of almost no importance, and now, when they are really important, this slogan is used to the full, because the politeness, really, costs nothing (yet it cheats the people, like the smile, by the way). Because of this I have come in my "Constitution of Cynicland" to the conclusion, that if we want that everything is honest and frank then it must be written in the Constitution the right of everybody to deceive, that this is basic inalienable right for each civilized society! And isn't it really so? Well, people don't like cynics and, surely, there is no radical way for fighting with the superfluous prohibitions and other annoying elements of life — and nowadays the most annoying element are the ads —, because this is reduced to moderate way of life, and the immoderation is main characteristic of the living matter, especially of the young individuals (humans or animals), so that we must cope with this, it is so, but something can be done, if we only want to. Like I have proposed above to mention by the commercials that this is delusion; or to revive the morality and try to raise it above the law, because the law can easily be changed, where the morality is more inertial. The morality, obviously, is a very fuzzy notion, but if this is desired it can be concretized by some procedure, I have hinted this somewhere: say, it can exist some Council of Moralists or Elders (what is the idea of Latin Senate, and the sirs and other titles of nobility), but in such way that there were included big number of independent thinkers, and this according to the estimation of the people, i.e. there must be expressed the democracy, in the defining what is moral, not in the governing, where there are some procedures, standards, requirements. The simplest variant of such Council is some congregation of all beliefs in the country, plus independent candidates, plus people who have achieved publicity. This isn't easy to be done, but I don't propose things that will be one and the same for thousand of years (like the fascist thousand years of peace, to which they, anyway, have not succeeded to come), I propose dynamically maintained structures. And this Council can easily pay attention also to all kinds of unnecessary prohibitions and complications of life — after all, there exists a Council (or Commission) for protection of the rights of customers /users /citizens, but it is engaged only with cases where the health of people is endangered, and that somebody have cheated, well, that is what the democracy is. 2. Initiative and money mechanism. Well, here I have judged not very correct before, but I simply wanted to raise the question that in addition to the price tables there must exist also some ways for tying with the demand, i.e. not to stay only on one pole, and in this sense I am right. I am right, as you alone can see, because we just jumped from the one extremity to the other, but the things are again not moderated, not properly linked, for there exist obligatory things and moments, and exist also such where must be acted according to the demand; now everything is the same, only in dual meaning, from the standpoint of the other side. Now in Bulgaria, at least in the period of initial robbing (well, let it be accumulating) of capitals, everything is subjugated to the demand, and if, for example, there is no particular demand on intellectuals (when they don't provide actions, thrillers, sado, maso, vaso — maybe? — and other forms of delusion, or simply something amoral), then, as a result, they can even die of hunger. It has happened so also by other revolutions, those intellectuals, who were linked up to some extent with the ruling class, by the overthrowing of rulers were overthrown, too. Yeah, but the intellectuals study and are built long time, while they go out of order very fast (approximately for two years, according to Western views by applying for work), lose their form. In the normal Western countries the society tries somehow to take care of all people, especially of the intellectuals, but it isn't so by us. We have destroyed our pro-communist intellectuals and have created just pro-commercial such, what, in my view, definitely, is worse. But let us take more concrete look here. I have spoken earlier about the medics, that they have not received good payment; now they more or less provide it themselves, but through advertising and delusion, where inconsistencies can also be seen. For example, in order to go to the physician now one who pays his (her) installments (I am not speaking about uninsured ones) must anyway pay to his JP for a referral to another doctor sum equal to one percent of minimal monthly salary, MMS (what makes roughly about ... 20 eggs, what isn't a few, I'll tell you), for routine paper work. And, in general, all payments for necessary expenditures, like healthcare, education, but also others, do not go out of people's personal incomes, but these are officially recognized social services without which nowadays there is no go; the only thing that is done in this regard is to outline some groups of people in dire need (say, disabled, with oncological diseases, or of Gypsy origin, etc.) and for them to make discounts, but there are no intermediate levels, what isn't a right way for doing of these things, in this way people may only be debased forcing them to beg (and in many cases even this does not help, because for Gypsies, as I have just said, there are such helps, but for Bulgarians, as a whole, there aren't, this only pours water in the mill of fascists). In regard of stimulation of the young as more initiative part of the society, not only that the things have not bettered, but they have definitely worsened, at least in Bulgaria. Earlier dwelling houses were given for deserves "in the building of socialism and communism", and today they are bought by people with deserves "in the delusion and cheating of citizens", so to say. According to my approximate estimation in Bulgaria the population (for, say, 30 years) has diminished with about 15 percents, the housing stock has increased with about 25%, what gives real global bettering in the living space of 45% and more (1.25 / 0.85 = 1.47), but this has expressed itself in this, that homes are bought just to be used as capital investments, i.e. somewhere about one quarter of all homes are, either bought as second homes, or they are simply not yet bought because people have not enough money! Id est the situation with the living space in principle has not changed, the young continue not to have where to live, and when nowadays there were almost not left families, then people can more difficult provide themselves with decent home or flat; this is confirmed with the fact that the rentals at market prices continue to reach nearly one MMS for a decent flat, or they come to this including the communal expenses where the major "weights" are the central heating and electricity, and, besides, all banks for more than 10 years are directly "pushing" offering loans for purchase of homes. Add to this also the paid education (in colleges or universities), as also for healthcare, and you will see how the horizon of the young is darkened to the unimaginable. Ah, in regard of the fight with monopoly of the state — also nothing is done, we have only changed the monopoly of state with the monopoly of big companies, where roughly half of them are with foreign participation; the small and media-sized business, however, continues to experience great difficulties, but the latter is, at least in my view, the proper business where the competition is good and necessity, by the large-scale companies in any case is needed some control on the part of foreign to the business (i.e. of the state) instances, there such companies are not many, they can somehow reach agreement, make analyses of clients and act reasonably. In addition, as I think (if something has not changed in the recent years, but hardly), the companies are divided in two natural categories according to the paying of VAT (value added tax), in big, which return to the state the VAT from bought raw materials and other expenses, so that for them everything comes about 20 percent cheaper), and in small fry, which either must maintain their own cycles of buying and selling with companies like themselves, what wide away from always is easy to be achieved, or else they buy everything more expensive and their production becomes also more expensive; moreover, they apply also more manufacture production methods what hinders the competition with the big business even higher. But for the communists of the past there are some excuses, they have defended the monopoly of the state for otherwise, by the low prices of majority of goods and services taken to be necessary for the population, without this it was impossible, without this these goods would have not been offered at all. And in the current time I see no reason why people, who — to put it bluntly — are ready to lick the other people's bottoms with the purpose to receive more money, receive them really and exercise monopoly on decent homes, on rental prices, on education, if you want, of the young (because when there must be paid then surely not all who want are studying but mostly go immediately after school in the sales), and from here also on the moral of the whole population. The money mechanism is again badly used. And how it can be made so that it will be properly used I speak in my materials on moderate communism or on the social ministry, and in other places here and there (I have also a good idea about better provision of pensions and partially, so to say, retirement). 3. Questions related with the property. Well, after the moment of writing of my first essay I have thought quite enough about the question of property and my views are expressed in other places where I speak about the future of the property. They are reduced mainly to this, that it has to be divided not on state owned or not, but on exploitative, which is used for exploitation of the others, and personal. If we approach so this question then there is no difference between the capitalism and the communism (only that by the latter was one exploiter, and now they are many); the only difficulty for mass application of this my view is expressed in psychological aspect, that people don't want to accept the existence of exploitation, but if one goes out of its inevitability in every society, then this view is very fitting, I think. So, and in this regard something is done, the various forms of property are more or less equalized, but this, nevertheless, does not significantly change the things. Why it does not change them? But because there exist large scale and small and medium-scale businesses, I have spoken above about this. If all forms of property are equal then, more than obvious, wins the bigger owner, and this that now in every area of production exist about 10 (rarely more, in one country, especially in not very big one like ours) instead of one universal owner-exploiter does not change the things essentially. About the living premises I have just spoken, that they are not bought by those in need of them, the same is the case also with the private cars, I suppose, because by us it isn't so (like in the USA), that one is able to buy a car for some pennies (say, for half of MMS) and it will work by him and the petrol will cost him almost nothing. By us even the fact that one ticket for city transport costs as much as a loaf (kilogram) of bread for the majority of people means that the transport by us has incredibly risen (and how it will not be expensive when the price of a ticket by us is only twice cheaper than in Europe, but there the salaries are from 10 to 20, and even more, times higher than by us, i.e. by us the situation is about 10 times worse). So that, again, it turns out that the old situation was much better than the correct (from the standpoint of the right capitalism) situation nowadays. Ah yes, it has remained the question with the agricultural land. But there we present, I suppose, an example of the worst possible decision compared with all former communist countries, we have given it in real borders after many years of meaningless debates, and who has received it just keeps it for himself (and even does nor admire it). Now, whole 25 years later, it continued to be bought (of course pretty cheap, that is why people don't want to sell it) by companies-resellers and we are going to form our new, democratic, kulaks (wealthy peasants), where in a worldwide scale the existence of family firms in agriculture is rejected (and, for example, in USA the quantity of all farmers is given as roughly 4%). Notwithstanding this wide away from all agricultural land is used, and I have told my readers that somewhere about 2013 I have seen that we have at last begun to plow our "democratic virgin lands". 4. Questions related with the education. Here something is changed, but far from being for the better. Id est we have chosen the easiest (and silliest) method for solving of the problem and have introduced everywhere paid education, but without well thought system for paying it from aside, not from the pockets of the parents, because this method, naturally, means that the wealthy retain for themselves the right of monopoly on education; the only good nuance in this relation, in comparison with the situation in 18th - 20th centuries (on the West, what concerns the 20th century), is that nowadays, when there are left almost no families, the parents do not pay for the education of their children, they can not afford themselves this. This can hardly be called good moment, but maybe exactly because of this it will force a decision, which, I suppose, will consist in returning to the old system with distributions after the graduation, and complete financing from the part of the state or big companies. What concerns the level of our education in the present days I will not engage myself in asserting now that it is especially low, but when the prices by us for foreign students are equalized (nearly, I suppose) with those in Germany, for example, or France etc., then this will hardly contribute to the influx of students from abroad (this only restrains the migration of our students in those countries, but not much, I think). So that there is again nothing good; who of the young people can go abroad to study he goes, the selective emigration from Bulgaria continues, this explains to a great extent also why our population has decreased, as I said above, with roughly 15% (even I alone, no matter that I have a pair of tertiary educations, would have departed from here to study somewhere on the West, as I have done this for an year earlier, but at an age of 65 to receive a new tertiary education is at least unethically, isn't it?). Only the question with educational levels and their names is now solved, when we are part of European Union (although the very names do not sound very good to me) And what exactly must be done here, I think, is clear. Every citizen of the state must have the possibility (not just the bare right but for money) to study in the major universities of the country, when he (or she, surely) shows on the basis of entrance examinations, and further via his grades during the study, that he does not spend in vain the invested in him money. Only sums of the order of 10 to 20 percents of education costs can be required from the parents and this in accordance with their income (i.e. from the poorer less, and even nothing), in order that the students (as also their parents) do not remain with the impression that the education is of bad quality, when there is paid nothing for it. It is possible also, as an exception (though the exceptions are always fraught with various problems), to require payment for such kinds of education where a big influx exists (because of repaying later, after finishing the education), like, first of all, in the sphere of business, but also of law, maybe something else, too; and /or can exist paid education in the usual, people's so to say, universities, for the weak students (when their parents have superfluous money, then why not to take it from them?), as also for such from abroad. In one word, nearly to return to the well-tested system in the time of totalitarianism (which needed only some small reforms, not such revolutionary). 5. Questions of financial policy. Earlier I have spoken here that the money gives good one-dimensional scale of values, about hard currency, about taxes and all kinds of contributions to the state, about updating of pensions, lower salaries for intelligence, stimulating of important industrial branches, and about different price discrepancies. Now many things have changed, but, alas, again not to the best (though, still, not to the worst — I am realist). In the present time we have hard currency, but under the conditions of Currency Board, which I have sharply criticized in various places, and now continue to criticize, because it has taken away our independence as a state, and this in the worst possible moment when our own currency has begun to grow stronger after spending of all totalitarian savings of the population. But in all cases in the current moment, more than 15 years after introducing of this Board, many things have stabilized (on the bottom, surely), and there are not such turbulent changes like in the first, not a pair, but 7-8 years, after the transition to democracy. The questions about updating of the pensions are always actual, so that there is no sense to dwell on them (they as if are updating, but this is not the radical decision, I have spoken about this, I think, somewhere; this, what is necessary to be done, is to establish the pensions not in absolute money units, but as coefficient to MMS, and update them even each quarter, or when the MMS is changed). That the salaries of intellectuals were pretty low earlier this is so, but I have never supposed that we can reach nearly to a state of genocide to the intelligence! And yet we have come to this, because it became necessary for the small business to support those people, and this was not it its abilities (and it has never intended to do this). We had, if I am not mistaken, about 30,000 scientific workers (including the professors and above, what out of nearly 9 mln people gives quite normal 3-4 per mil), from which, I think, at least 2/3 have simply disqualified themselves (like your author), and the new ones, who have emerged only there, where the students paid for them, are not of the same quality, because the creative worker works in his or her pleasure, not for money, as a rule (though I don't deny that there are exceptions here, but hardly more that 10%). How the situation is to be bettered, and not only for the intellectuals but also for the whole population, I have given a proposition (surely, what only I have not proposed?), and these are the elaborations on moderate communism, which are reduced roughly speaking to this, that the people must receive each month some minimal sum, and later, in the end of the month, it must be restored in most of the cases subtracting it from the received salary, and that if this is done via some bank then there are no special problems for realization of this. Well, I have touched earlier also questions about stimulating of important industrial sectors, as well of many price discrepancies due to our "soft" in that time currency. It is clear that earlier these questions were badly solved, but on the other hand nowadays they are ... not at all solving! There is no sense to stimulate sectors that are unprofitable, at least under conditions of severe capitalist competition this is in no way necessary. And the price discrepancies continue to exist, only now they are between the established by market mechanisms prices (on foodstuffs, but also on manufactured goods etc.) and the communal expenses (like central heating, electricity, homes, transport, etc.). I do not want to repeat myself but here I also have expressed my view, which is reduced to this, that by us, Bulgarians, there is no social feeling at all, no awareness of the injustice to apply the same prices for communal expenses for people which personal income differs at least 10 times; more than this, we have now the most right-wing from all possible views on taxation, no matter that we are officially recognized as the most poor in Euro Union state (we were before on nearly the same level with Romania, but now I think we are left in the very end). But, by God, the West will not teach us how to live in a well organized state, the social measures are work of each particular nation, if we are so unfeeling to our neighbour nobody is guilty that we stumble at every our step. 6. Attitude to the nature. Well, here was dealt with the environmental pollution, the bad planning of towns, and the same type of high panel houses. Here something is changed and for the best, now the pollution is less, and the towns look better, this is so. Only that this has happened as if by itself, because we have begun to use better means of transport, or have closed unprofitable productions, although we have also strengthen the control of environmental pollution, but nowadays this is just fashionable. I mean that in old times it was accepted that if it goes about industry then there a dust has to rise high (what is exactly the root of your word industry), but the times change and we would have come to this also under the ruling of "Party and Government". Only about the better houses is clear that the private initiative helps, it is more flexible than the centralized ruling, this is obvious, though with the time here, too, the centralized ruling would have come to the right decision, everything depends on the priority of tasks, so that here also are no special merits of democracy. 7. About political life. Well, we have now multi-party system, legal opposition, and competition, but this has led to so many new problems, that now, on the basis of real democracy, I am not convinced that "the game was worth the candles", as is said. Because when there exists opposition the people (and the parties, too) think that they are obliged (or, then, compelled) to show the opposite meaning even when there is no special necessity in this, just in order to show off with something, to be different. I personally, in the conditions of our totalitarian "greenhouse", have never supposed that people can be to such extent ... amoral, maybe, impudent, brutal, et cetera. So that I continue to think that the democratic requirements are necessary in a decent state, but now I simply see well why the communists have not allowed the opposition, because people must be restrained somehow, they have no provided by nature restraints, they come to incredible extremes with the only purpose later on to reject them and ... again come to the other extreme! I have dwelt on this human phenomenon in various places, so that I will not digress here, but I like to stress that the presence of right to vote presupposes at least a good upbringing, as also obligation not to misuse this right in the name of bare egoism. Ah, I have said further something original, that every dictatorship expresses weakness (of the government), what is so, surely, but the democracy is a weak ruling at all, for it there is no necessity to express this! And with the fact that the communism, still, dared to perform such radical changes, the perestroika, it deserves any laudations; the perestroika-change might not have succeeded everywhere (like, for example in Bulgaria), but it was necessary for to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and it (in Russian it is "she", ends on "a") has succeeded in this. The communists were not at all simpletons, as many people (especially between the young ones) may now think, and where the communists have done errors are guilty the very people, they would have done even more errors without the communism, believe me! Nothing will convince me that the centralized ruling is worse than the decentralized (to what we will return in the end), everything depends on the correct stating of questions and on the collecting of return information from the public. The compulsory communism, as I call it for to distinguish it from prognosticated by Marx natural communism, which long ago exists in many Western countries (say, in the Scandinavian), has arisen as temporary ruling in conditions of war, and because of this, being a strong ruling, it could have not so easy quit the scene, this must be taken in consideration. And later has come the Second World War, which, obviously has required strong centralized ruling, then has come the cold war, which has not allowed to "loosen the belt", the arms race, the danger of nuclear war, and so on. Please, don't forget these things. I even dare affirm that if the capitalists (chiefly the Americans) had not so persistently wielded the battle hatchet in the 50ies and 60ies (and maybe also in the 70ies, too), then they would have dethroned the communism about 20 years earlier, I have hinted at this moment, so that guilty for the so prolonged existence of the communism are first of all the well developed Western states, in the same way as they are, in outline, guilty also for its emergence! Instead of this, to make efforts to support with what they can and as much as this is possible this great social experiment (surely not less great than the democracy in Ancient Greece, because it has bettered the world capitalism — only look how differs the fight with contemporary economic crisis from those "measures" that were taken in the times of World War One and Two), the wealthy capitalist countries have succumbed to the foolish desire to see the enemy defeated, or at least begging to them on their knees, and such naivety I can't agree to forgive to intelligent or reasonable rulers. But where from will come these intelligent rulers under democratic conditions, ah? They, surely, are bound to "dance" so as the people beg them to, and to the people (i.e. to all nations) you just let to gloat. But at the same time the clever people long ago know (although I personally have not known this earlier) the English rule how to make a horse to trot — either with a whip, or with a carrot. You will persist only with the whip, you will achieve nothing, as also with the carrot only (I will come soon to this, too, though I have discussed this question in other materials). So that, however you turn it, by the totalitarianism was done this, what was possible to be done, this was not a real democracy, but under the particular international conditions this was the best, what could have been done. I have whitened the communism as much as I could, I wait applauses. Though, hold them a bit, it is a bit early now, I have not yet ended entirely. I have finished with what have written 25 years ago in the spirit of perestroika, and now follow some new (and more mature, I would add) moments. 8. Each form of ruling is supported by the popular masses. If one begins to think (and not I have first come to the conclusion that the important thing is to raise the question, and then the answer will be found), then this is so, every ruling, not only the democracy, is supported by the masses. Id est the dictatorship is supported by the very population not necessarily directly, but indirectly, with their unspoken approval. After all, the humankind leads sedentary civilized (well, as much as this is possible) life at least for 10 thousand years, some date back to this time the development of ... wine making (because it is not possible to lead nomadic way of life and to keep wine or beer or mead to age, this is clear), and from all this time democratic ruling has existed only a pair of centuries in Ancient Greece, and a pair of centuries nowadays, and in the whole left time has existed some centralized ruling, another variant is impossible, ergo, the people like and support the power! Democratic elements have existed, they say, even in the primitive communities, where the leaders were chosen by the very fighters, but these are elements, this is not real choice, this is fight between competitors, often real, in duels, like also amidst the animals. In any case this is reasonable. But for ruling of big masses of people are needed strong rulers, like: kings, sultans, tyrants, pharaohs, cardinals and popes, or at least heads of bandits. I think there is no need to convince ourselves in this now. Good, and if this is so then the people have just tried to take somehow part in this strong centralized ruling and to serve the strong rulers. So that the dictatorship is such, which the population makes it, people like or not a given dictator, and if they don't like him then, in the end, they find ways to change him. The dictatorship is the real, strong, masculine ruling, and because of this also nowadays at the first opportunity people try to choose strong "fists", and on this is based, in general, the right-wing, i.e. of the strong hand, politics. Similarly the democracy is also supported by the people, what today is quite natural for us, but in Ancient Greece, when it was introduced, it turned out that was necessary to show a lot of efforts in order to convince the people that this is (also) in their own interest (not only of the rulers, by the way). The end poles, they always touch one another in some other aspect, and here also happens that the democracy and dictatorship are alike in this, that the people approve of them, as well also ... not approves of them, of course — the masses are always a little dissatisfied (just like the women, usually, isn't it so?). For this reason the simultaneous presence of these both poles is necessary, what also exists in some extent, but it also can be improved in different ways, about what I have also dwelt in other places (in my "Manifestos"). But the poles also differ (first of all) and when the people support the dictatorship they often overdo the things, "twist" them, go too far, what oft leads to unnecessary cruelties, but, mark, that the major part of the cruelties during the strong centralized governing are result of actions of the very people, not of the dictator alone (he couldn't have managed to be present everywhere, but I stress that often he does not require big extremities). And in the other case, by the democracy, when the people again overdo, often is come to usual ... chaos, in result of what by the democracy is not at all diminished the number of police force. And now I personally can not say what is better! The big majority of people (say, 90%) think (and are even convinced) that the dictatorship is worse, but I allow myself to doubt in this. People think that the dictatorship is worse because there exists a concrete person, he stays before all the others, who always (as if there are no exceptions here) later on becomes a scapegoat, while the "demos" is impersonal. It is true that the parties have leaders, and they often suffer afterwards, but with the changing of parties everything is pacified and people forget about vengeance, but the thing is that, after all, the people have chosen these leaders, the latter have danced according to the flute of the public, so that if one looks unbiased here then the very democracy is to be blamed; the very dictatorship as form of ruling also is sometimes to be blamed (for its inborn drawbacks), but under different dictators it is different, it corresponds more closely to the dictator, than the democracy to the demos, isn't it so? And the chaos which comes then can be much worse than the crimes of the dictatorship! Now, I have no intention to dig in this direction, but it is worth reminding, as I have indicated it many times, that the necessity of strong compulsion (or violence) is in this to avoid in this way the necessity of ... even bigger violence! And the dictators usually succeed in this respect. And the chaos generated by the democracy can be regulated as if only with subsequent dictatorship, although it happens also vice versa, the processes are cyclical. In any case the fascism in Germany has come in its time in quite peaceful democratic way, and this, that the communism in Russia has come after the October Revolution, but this revolution was only named so, on a small ship, and the tsarist Government has surrendered at once (it, maybe, would have surrendered even earlier, yet there was no one to whom to do this), but the people, if they were asked, almost surely would have chosen the communists. What does not mean that the people wouldn't have made error, exactly on the contrary, people very often make errors, and because of this they are not to be asked in crucial moments. With what I want to say that the dictatorship may very often be just (to call it good would hardly be suitable), but even when it makes severe errors, even then it is more effective than the democracy, but this is obvious. 9. What is this "common sense"? Well, this, surely, is basic notion which is not defined (like God, for example), but even in such case it is worth to give some explanations, in order to avoid further contradictions, and this, on what I want to stress now, is that the common sense is not an averaged view of the population to the things, because the big masses simply "noise" (or suppress) the voice of the reason. No, this is the view of more wiser of the people, i.e. usually of the old ones, so that it is expressed more often in folk sayings and religious teachings. The common people usually know these things, they are thought to the masses, but the latter, or rather the young ones, don't pay much attention to them, they want to make their own ... errors, and they do them, don't doubt in this. In philosophical sense this is right, the young are not to listen to the old, but the old are to teach them, here simply exist struggle between the opposites, as the communist dialectics said. And now I want (again, for this is not a new topic for me) turn your attention to the fact that there exist chiefly two effective ways to force the people to listen to the commandments of common sense, or, generally, to do something what they don't want to, and these are the compulsion and the delusion (equivalent to the whip and carrot, about which we have spoken above); the first is the main trump of the dictatorship, and the second — of the democracy, but, as I have said earlier, it is better to use both these ways. In theory there are also other ways, I have made them once to be exactly five, for I have needed this number, but they are simply weak for the masses. They are, say, the genetic code, education, logical reasoning, personal example, our sense organs, and maybe others, they are used from time to time in various places, but they are not so effective. For me personally the reason is the most convincing argument, but I am an exception, don't look at me. The people, as a result of evolution (or God's creation — as you like it, this isn't essential), are first of all animals, and as such they obey the instincts, and the reason is only an addition (a whim of God in the last moment to improve His creation, if you like), it is quite often dubious and does not bring emotions to the people. Where the power is another thing; or the self-conceit, that if they ask me then I am considered very clever. The common sense, as if, stays maximally close to the scientific views, and at the same time is accessible for everybody — say, that the Sun "runs" around the Earth, we see it every day, after all, and although this contradicts to the contemporary scientific conceptions for the everyday life on Earth this contradiction isn't essential. So also my explanations in the majority of cases are based on the common sense, they may sometimes not correspond strictly to the scientific views, but they seem convincing. 10. The reasonable ruling is utopia. But, after so many explanations, if some of you thinks that when both things, the dictatorship and the democracy, are bad and also good, and when there are better variants, then in the near future we will come to more reasonable look at the ruling and then will reign, as I call it in one of my science fiction stories, "reasonocracy", then I must disappoint him or her because this will happen not soon. In any case not before one millennium, I suppose, but it might as well make five or ten such time chunks. Because we are people and, up to some extent, we even have no rights to be very reasonable! For, from the viewpoint of the God-Nature, what is reasonable, ah? Well, reasonable selection of better species, surviving of most fittest, what is reduced to this, that the "unfittest" must die, there is, after all, enough proteinaceous matter on Earth, and to make children is easy (to give birth is a bit more difficult, but the women still manage). And in the name of this selection were carried out, come to think of this, the First and Second World Wars, because they, the wars, to what are reduced, ah? They are reduced to this that "we will show now them, to these Germans, of Frenchmen, or Russians, or Japaneses, etc. etc."! For the people is much more reasonable that there were no wars but for the nature this is not so, and because of this something as if pushes us from within to fight and there were wars even from the time when the monkey came down from the tree, and still earlier. But in the previous times there was some reason in such selection, while nowadays, by all these weapons for mass destruction, this is not a selection anymore. Nonetheless, name me some state in which there is no army, or in which the young children are not brought up in a spirit of patriotism, but the latter means, after all, that we, our nation, is better than the others, isn't it so? Well, the defense is one thing and the offense is another, but when the best defense is the offense, then what to do, ah? Or also: what forces us (except some religions and habits) to give and give birth? A pair of children nowadays, surely, suffices, but only look, in China they are already milliard and a third, and in India they are not much less. But it turns out that something in us just pushes us to procreate like flies. And the religions welcome this, because wasn't it said somewhere in the Christianity: "Be fruitful and multiply"? Now my last hope is on ... the homosexuals, for they even if they wish it they can't (well, for the moment, but it might be possible some cloning or mixing of chromosomes, how can I know?) give birth to a child. And generally, taking into account the wars and the overpopulation, I think that somewhere from the times of ... Babylon, not to say earlier (but I have not a well known benchmark) people suffer most of all not from the nature but from their own human nature! What is a massive earthquake in comparison with a "decent" war? Or what is a swarm of locusts in comparison with a "swarm" of people, especially looking in the long run? The locusts can't, after all, make themselves artificial meat, or cheese, or butter, and so on, but we can, and produce. And now you count alone, what will happen by period of doubling of the population of 35 years, or three times in a century (i.e. 8-fold increase, "only"), after some centuries. We will settle on the bottom of oceans, I suppose, because the cosmos, anyway, will be much expensive. Or further: all religions state that it is not worth living for material benefits, but we, nevertheless, do exactly this. And we are doing this, mark, not when it is hard for us to find enough food, or clothes, or roof above the heads, not at all. In each country begin to be accumulated regions with unpopulated apartments, and people now often buy themselves a pair of homes — simply because they can afford this, have extra money. And from all sides they are trumpeting that you have to compete with the others, no matter in baseball, rugby, with personal car, home, haircut, dog, boy- or girl- friend, and so on. But not with something really personal, what can't be bought or taken ready, isn't it so? Be different, but with what the busyness offers to you, and that these are differences at the level of psyche of the kindergarten — but who comes to realizing of this? Let us select ourselves, don't stop competing, for otherwise you are just not living! It is not enough that one aims at this by himself, but the busyness and upbringing, too, and this in the developed Western countries, push him (or her) in this direction. And do you know why? I will reveal this "secret" to you: because this contributes to the strengthening of exploitation, and, from this, to the increasing of (unnecessary for them, frankly speaking) capitals of the wealthy. And here I even do not defend the thesis that the wealthy people are bad, no, they are just partaking in the game, they can't go out of it, the capitals must be used, multiplied, like the people. But, on the other hand, scratching your head, you are bound to come to the conclusion that to work for money this is ... debasing of human dignity! Look at the dog, for example, it is an intelligent animal, but it does not want money — and there is no money in the world of animals, right? — it (or he or she) wants to make something good for its (or his etc.) owner, to be liked by the humans. For it is one thing to live decently (as it is written in Arab fairy tales, at least in translation, of course, I don't understand Arabic: "they ate till were satiated"), and it is another thing to want 5 and 10 times more than one needs. The animals don't behave so, they are moderate, but the humans are not! The humans try to toil, usually doing some services to the others (in order not to say being servile or licking like lackeys), with the purpose to be in position after this to require from the others in their turn to serve to them! Because it is so, the majority of activities nowadays are such that everyone can alone perform them, but it is far more beneficial and prestigious if other people are doing this for him or her. Think a little about this, I am not exaggerating, our civilization has evolved to such an extent, that now one can live more or less so like earlier the crowned heads have lived, we can alone do at home nearly everything (wash clothes or kitchen plates, cook, even bake bread, automated and easy, do the work, of maybe five home helpers or slaves), but all this is nothing for us, we want that the others swirled around us, and in this case we, in our turn, must gyrate around the others; and the wealthy on this world gyrate around their money. It is everything a question of moderation, id est of our immoderation. Naturally there are needed specialists like: physicians, policemen, construction workers, teachers, and so on, but approximately half (I have done some rough estimations) of the activities are absolutely superfluous, and the people could have done them alone if they have had time for them, but it is something that they haven't — now, with all these home appliances, means of transport, et cetera (but before our era they have had time). And about the money: I don't say that it must be taken away, but each one of us should be able to satisfy his (or her) own needs, and work only for acquiring of luxury goods, if he wants; and the salary must be fixed, with possibility to have about 30 to 50% bonuses, as it is long ago in the whole world at least for the high qualified and creative workers; id est there may exist stimulus for receiving of something more, but not only on the basis of piecework, and who wants to stay idle and laze then let him do this, but without luxury things he will soon get bored by this, or if he will not get bored by doing nothing then he has his own ambitions, which must be allowed to him to evolve. And so on. From what follows that for the presence of this reasonocracy: must exist a single world state; in it must live approximately so many people like in one medium-large state, i.e. roughly speaking from 50 to 100 millions (not -ards); all must have the right not to work and receive sufficient means for reasonable life; children must be allowed not more than three on a pair of parents, but be assumed as right till two, and even better if each child is attached to one of the parents, and then each parent must be allowed to have one living child (else there must be fines and other punishments); the governing must be divided in three major directions, where the proper or tactical must be performed by highly qualified persons, with the necessary education, chosen somehow from above, by competent commissions, then in it must be present also a representative sample from the population for assessment of its decisions, and also some body of moralizers or sages, who must set tasks to the rulers and do the strategy and who exactly must be chosen by national (but better one, iterative from the very bottom) choice; and maybe also something else. And at the same time our contemporary society (how I have explained in another place) is at the level of organization of ... simpler organisms (say, amoebas), without whatever specialization of the individuals in it, and this isn't freedom, as it is popularized en mass, because the real freedom consist in this, that each one has the possibility to develop fully these qualities, which the God or chance have put in him. And do you know what will happen if we succeed to establish the reasonocracy? Well, it will happen that we will begin to live so reasonable, that for the majority of people this will become uninteresting and they will be simply bored by it! Or that till those times — several thousand years isn't a short time — will arise a new, really reasonable man, who will find pleasure not in some actions and thrillers, but in his own evolvement and improvement, as also in the very reason in general. So that, all things considered, we wholly deserve this social organization that we have. This is reasoning in the style of ancient Eastern philosophy, that our world is the only possible, and if there was possible something else then it should have happened (and that, to give an example, was necessary that the kamikaze-"lads" of Bin Laden have blown up the twin-towers in New York, for, if it wasn't necessary, it wouldn't have happened). It may be so, in general, and if you like the contemporary democracy, then so much the better, the important thing is to minimize the bloodshed. But don't forget that these talks about nationwide democracy, or genuine one, and so on, are simply the regular catches of those in power (i.e. bathing in money), these are not essential novelties, which must occur in the democracy, and the improvement measures must be complex, as I have hinted. June 2015 — — —
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/ |