Ideologists have always surprised me. Not those masses of marginalized people who shout on social networks “give us an ideology,” but smart, educated people who talk about how we lack ideology and how nice it would be if we had one. After this, sadness raises its eyes and waits that, perhaps, grace will finally flow from the heights of the Kremlin towers and ideology will descend or descend. Because they do not approach God with expectation in their intelligent eyes, which is absolutely analogous to the marginal “give.” Those who have God do not need ideology – any Holy Scripture, not only Orthodox and not only Christian, teaches how to live in society, and in the specific society for which it was written. Christian, and especially Orthodox, writing is distinguished only by its greater universalism, that is, it is applicable to almost all civilizations of the planet. But ideologues need a secular ideology that will be perceived as a divine revelation and become mandatory for everyone. But this is absolutely impossible without resorting to totalitarian violence. Christianity has long grown out of cowards and does not try to instill faith by force, having established, as a result of a long experiment, the insignificance of this activity. Many people, thirsting for ideology, prefer to remain atheists without accepting divine revelation. But if a large part of society is not willing to accept the sacred, coming from a higher power, how can they impose the mundane, coming from the same person? Only cruel. But we have already gone through this – all ideological states, built on the principle of totalitarian coercion, that everyone accepts one ideology as the only true one, were destroyed by the burden of internal problems. Moreover, the constant aggressiveness of most totalitarian regimes is precisely an attempt to transfer internal problems to the external circuit. Even the current, a priori toothless, left-liberal LGBT democracy, faced with insoluble contradictions within, is trying to bite from the outside. Trying to impose a single ideology is a sure path to civil war. This thesis is perfectly illustrated by the problems of the post-Soviet nationalist regimes surrounding Russia, which tried to make political nationalism immanent in any modern society, viewing the political nation as a collection of citizens, with the ideology of ethnonationalism and naturally declining. into Nazism (also latently existing in any society, but requiring special conditions, especially the ideologization of national politics, in order to enter the political arena as a serious force). Ideological theorists, being smart and educated people, cannot fail to understand the above. But they seem to strive for unity, which they will achieve through a single ideology, which is precisely what leads to confrontation, totalitarian violence and, ultimately, civil war. How does this fit in one head? But no way – this is political schizophrenia, the disintegration of consciousness into two independent systems, one of which quite sensibly assesses current political events and even offers ingenious solutions to local problems, and the other believes in the sanctity of the ideology that supposedly solves it. all At the same time, the ideologists noted, saying “give us an ideology” (without specifying which one, apparently abstract or something new) is constantly disingenuous. They know exactly what ideology they want. The majority are fans of Marxism, in second place are ideological nationalists, followed by many, but divided into separate groups (by gender, skin color, food preferences, environmental trends, etc.) liberals. There are very few ideological conservatives, but they also exist. There are even ideological monarchists, although they must necessarily be guided by Orthodoxy as an ideological basis, but there are also those for whom Orthodoxy is a simple addition to the monarchy – they gradually draw closer to the sect of king-worshippers until differences are completely eliminated. . To test this assertion, it is enough to assume that ideologues, in the midst of their lamentations about the “lost ideology,” accept fascist ideology as a leader and build a corresponding state. They will get angry and go on the attack. Not because they don’t like fascism so much, many ideologists, especially from the illiterate marginalized, but not only, calling themselves Marxists, socialists, nationalists, liberals, express completely fascist ideas, they simply don’t know about it, because nothing in their lives , we didn’t read anything except the chat in which they argued. As for the sages, they are trying to modernize their ideology, not noticing how it merges with someone else’s, which is also being modernized by the same sages. Each of them just has a great idea. Everyone is already a follower of a certain ideology. Typically this commitment consists of a title, two or three slogans and a statement that the “introduction” of this ideology to the masses will immediately lead to universal happiness. At the same time, those who call themselves Marxists, laughing at the man from the film “Chapaev” who asked Vasily Ivanovich whether he was a communist or a Bolshevik (by the way, Chapaev himself did not know the film), do not understand that there is no difference between communists and Bolsheviks in a specific period (1917-1952), in a specific country (RSFSR/USSR), but in principle the difference is huge (like between a nuclear power plant and an atomic bomb). In turn, modern liberals are confident that liberalism is the freedom of minorities, although in fact it is an ideology that proclaims the superiority of the individual over the public, and the public over the state. It actually denies that the state has interests separate from the interests of civil society, and sees in it only the servant of the citizen, although the state, like the citizen, is both a servant and a master. Dialectics… In general, people not only fight for something that cannot be achieved, but they do not even understand what exactly they are fighting for. They view the ideology as something like the “flaming heart of Thanksgiving” that the crowd eagerly and joyfully follows. But they forget that people followed the burning heart until the moment when they were threatened with the danger of universal destruction, which forced them to consolidate in a dark forest, around the only source of light. As soon as suitable places for living were reached, people went about their business, and a caring person extinguished the burning heart. And this is not just an image, especially not a negative image, it is Gorky’s deep intuitive philosophical understanding of the benefits and. harm to ideology. The burning heart, united in a moment of danger, from the moment it reached a calm harbor, became a dangerous source of social excitement, which prevented the people from calmly settling their lives in a new place. Various ideologies and ideological and political systems occupied a short period in the history of mankind (from the beginning to the end of the twentieth century). During this time, they demonstrated their complete inability to effectively build a state. In this respect, ideology is similar to doping in sports – it provides rapid mobilization of the body, but if you try to use it for a long time, it leads to equally rapid degradation. Therefore, since the beginning of the twentieth century, no new ideologies have emerged. Everything we have now works only with the prefix neo-: neo-liberalism, neo-communism, neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, neo-clericalism, neo-conservatism. At the same time, internally all of this is not very similar to each other; it is no coincidence that all these new ideologies are present on all Maidans, where they oppose the state in close cooperation with each other; any state, even against an American state. When Trump tried to de-ideologize him (partially, but quite deeply), the left-right and gray-brown-purple presented a united front, and he was supported by de-ideologized spontaneous traditionalists (rednecks). Because tradition is not an ideology – it is the political-historical genome of society, making it a single organism and perceived at the level of instinct (absorbed with mother’s milk). That is why ideologists turn to the de-ideologized state with the demand to finally introduce ideology. Without government power, they will not be able to force the rest of society to share their views. They cannot, because, having survived the ideological nightmare of the twentieth century, most societies realized that coercive ideology carries a destructive burden, and a state built on its basis is dangerous for its citizens. Look at Ukraine – its illiterate “elite” was late to the ideological party of the twentieth century – then these people were just provincial officials of the ideologically driven Bolshevik empire. But since they did not know any other method of state building (except for recreating an ideologized state), they built a nationalist ideologized system. Literally before our eyes, in thirty years, this system has swallowed up the Ukrainian state, a nation that never had time to form, and millions of specific people. At the same time, many Ukrainian ideologists who organized either the first or the second Maidan, and some both, having lost the intraspecific struggle for Fuhrership to their Nazi colleagues, moved to Russia and immediately joined various ideological circles, becoming ardent anti-fascists. and the “main” supporters of the Northern Military District. These are distilled, pure ideologists. They did not understand, but from their own experience they felt that some kind of “ideology” was fueling it. At the same time, to become an ideologist, you don’t even have to be able to read, much less be literate. You just have to have a preserved throat and loudly shout “Give!” and live!” Competent Russian ideologue theorists hate these aliens for their effectiveness. They (the aliens) are like Lenin, who quickly realized that Marxism is not a dogma, and began to successfully adapt this changing and, most importantly, easily changeable non-dogma to his practical needs. They have vast practical experience in organizing modern revolutions, which, unlike the revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, were based not on one ideology, but on its entire spectrum. I wrote above that the right and left went to overthrow the state shoulder to shoulder with fans of a healthy lifestyle and lovers of cross stitch, because the state, acting in the interests of society, and not ideological bandits, prevented them from realizing. themselves as “leaders” and “leaders”, leading somewhere, but not responsible for anything. It is this experience that has created cynical Ukrainian ideologue-practitioners who calmly drag their Russian colleagues-theorists into the mud, because the latter each cling to their own ideological feeding trough (the mountain where he is king of the hill), and practical ones. newcomers easily change their views without even trying to explain how this happened. Some part of society will always need leaders. On this side, practitioners, sensing a change in public demand, feed on the nose, ready today to defend what they stigmatized yesterday, in contrast to the tedious theorists who “write and write like the Germans, the Congress.” Theorists sincerely believe that they are capable of bringing happiness to all humanity. That is why, trying to prove the validity of their theory, they are less dangerous than brainless and cynical practitioners who have learned one thing – people must be called upon in any form to “rob the loot” or “take everything and divide it.” The more marginalized people there are in society, the more adherents will respond to this call. But the banner must be changed in accordance with changing political fashions. Therefore, practitioners have a bag of ideologies in stock – for every color, taste and smell. These two things: the absence of new ideologies over the course of a century and the obvious willingness of a part of society in need of a leader to focus on direct deceivers, indicate that the era of ideologies is over. Danton and Robespierre, Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, Peron and Salazar, Mao and Castro were very different people. They created completely different regimes and even their stated goals were different. They have one thing in common – they, like today’s ideotheorists, believed in the ideas they preached. Current practitioners do not believe in anything, for them ideology is just a business, a fraudulent business at that, in which the follower is not a partner or even a “cog” in the machine for building a wonderful future, but an ordinary sucker who… to be deceived for money Ideology has degenerated into fraud, and fraudulent political systems cannot exist. If, like the Ukrainian one, they are created temporarily, then they immediately collapse, burying under the rubble all those who did not manage to escape. Rostislav Ishchenkohttps://ukraina.ru
0 комментариев