Jaga_lux, Natalia in real life. The text was first published on Vladimir Matskevich's Facebook blog
LIBERTE Does anyone in this country need freedom? Just imagine, a hero comes to us and says - you are free! Hooray! So what? Who will be happy? As the practice of our statehood has shown, no one wants out of the cage - and back to the pampas, to freedom. There, in the cage, it was good, they fed, treated, though they could beat - but after all, for the cause. And this was understood and accepted. For example, the advice of the prisoners Soviet power, Khmara, Goryn, etc. - they recommended Mr. Kozhemyakin for the post of head of the SBU, who, during the union, headed the ideology department. Actually, he imprisoned all of them, and killed some - but they love good overseers, and after all, a good one is better than an evil one, isn't it, comrades? The main thing is that he is a professional, and the fact that this overseer does not need to be let close to the security service of Ukraine at all does not occur to them. In general, whoever they know is recommended.
EGALITE Equality - who said that nasty word? I remember that at the semi-forbidden celebration of the 70th anniversary of Nikolai Amosov, he expressed a very seditious thought at that time - there is no biological equality and cannot be by definition, otherwise life will stop in its development, everyone is born the way they are born, and you can only change here 0.5% through good nutrition and proper lifestyle (his forte). It follows that all communist calls are false and even harmful. I immediately agreed with him and see manifestations of this false idea of equality at every turn. We have it just called a toad. And why does he have (you can list everything), but I don’t? For example, I can write with my left hand in a mirror image, and in all the languages that I know, and with my right hand, as usual, I'm right-handed. This innate skill has not been figured out by science so far. There are no such people in my environment, but they actually exist , ambidexters are called. And you, someone, have your own phenomenal quality, but these abilities of ours are interesting precisely because they are not interchangeable, and in all manifestations of life this is the only way. So to hell, we gave up this equality, something like cloning. I don't like this, we are against clones on the assembly line.
FRATERNITE Brotherhood. This is my favorite word - and the most interesting thing is that this very brotherhood is most manifested in extreme circumstances, but in an extremely small part of people. And for the rest, of course, their own shirt is closer to the body, and their own pimple is more important than someone else's deadly tumor. Such manifestations of "humanity" are described well, in detail and with justification in the Bible - there are a lot of examples, let's recall at least Job. And in Everyday life- everything is fine until it touches money, or infringement of one's needs. The one who shares the last - great person, but such a person usually only has what is the last. And whoever tried to fraternize with the rich and strong, he himself understood everything long ago.
As you can see, the great slogans of the Great Revolution are nothing more than a golden dream inspired by humanity. The last thing left is to try to be just happy. And here you can remember the parable - "how the king was looking for a happy person in his whole kingdom, because his terminally ill daughter could recover only if she put on the shirt of a truly happy person. He asked the chief vizier - but he refused - the intrigues tortured and fear of assassination attempts. He asked the first minister - he refused, big concern with taxes, the treasury is emptying, people are revolting - not to happiness. They searched for a long time and, having not found, they go home sad. Suddenly they hear a song and see a man who bakes potatoes on a twig at roads, they rushed to him with the question: And you happy man? “Of course,” he answers, “very happy.” “Give us your shirt,” they ask, “and the king will pay you generously.” The man laughed and said, “I don’t have a shirt and never had one.”
That's so happy
Then am I
A happy fly.
If I live
Or if I die.
W Blake
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE * liberté, egalite, fraternite. WITH freedom, equality, brotherhood. Motto of the French Republic. trans. emigrant The number of Russian Soviet emigrants can be roughly divided into two antagonistic groups: those who, once abroad, continue to call ham "ham", and those who begin to call it "jambon". The diminutive caressing vibes of the native language make themselves felt here too, and "jambon" immediately turns into a jambon. In general, écoute-moi, you take a baguette, jambonchik and butter .. "This is our emigrant "égalité, fraternité, liberté" and the fourth musketeer of the efficient triad is, of course, the "red cat" (from the most popular brand of wine "Cote du Rhone" "Further there are cases that are already directly naturalistic. My friend, in fear of not being able to make it to a close friendly circle: "Well, who will give me mushuir"? // Zvezda 1998 1 196.
- - Louis Philippe Joseph - French. political figure. Representative of the junior line of the Bourbons, Duke of Orleans. During Vel. French revolution was elected to the States General in 1789 and joined the deputies of the third estate ...
- - see Philippe Egalite...
Soviet historical encyclopedia
- - Louis Philippe Joseph, French politician. Representative of the junior line of the Bourbons, Duke of Orleans ...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - EN PRESENCE DE LA LIBERTE * en présence de la liberté. Free, independent. She now lives in the face and in the presence of freedom. I. Aksakov 4 29...
- - DIEU ET LIBERTE * Dieu et liberté. God and freedom. Montalembert resigned himself and fell silent, leaving the publication in which he had previously defended with such pride the double motto of his Dieu et liberté. Dobrolyubov Regarding one very common. stories...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - I. LIBERTE I * liberté f. Liberty. The word "liberalism" at this time was just beginning to come into use, what did it mean? In the real sense, generosity; only it stemmed from another word: liberté, that is, freedom ...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE ANTIERE * liberté entière. Absolute freedom...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE GRAND * la liberté grande. Great freedom. Seeing. that he was not in a hurry to fulfill my request, I began to undress in front of him, asking for forgiveness de la liberté grande ...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE DESOPIGNON * la liberté des opinions. Freedom of opinion. The ancient veche, the prototype of popular government, was broken by the despot, who henceforth had the right of life and death over the citizens of the great republic...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE CONPLET * liberté complète. Absolute freedom. marriage without mutual love- double absurdity. And then liberté complète. May 9, 1967. Hertz. - N.A. and A.A. Herzen...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE, EGALITE, SOLIDARITE * liberté, égalité, solidarité. Freedom, equality, community of interests. The motto of the international association of workers - International...
Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- - LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE AT LA MORE * liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort. Liberty, equality, brotherhood or death. The slogan fr. bourgeois revolution of the 18th century ....
Meaning of LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE in the Dictionary of Foreign Expressions
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE
[liberte, egalite, fraternite]
(the slogan of the great French revolution of 1789-1794).
Dictionary of foreign expressions. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what is LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- LIBERTE, FRATERNITE, EGALITE
("freedom, brotherhood, equality") - the motto put up by the republicans on their banner in the revolution of 1789; the official motto of the modern French. … - LIBERTE, FRATERNITE, EGALITE
("freedom, brotherhood, equality")? the motto put up by the republicans on their banner in the revolution of 1789; the official motto of the modern French ... - SAVONAROLA in the Newest Philosophical Dictionary.
- WORKS OF K. MARX AND F. ENGELS
K. Marx and F. Engels. The collection, publication, dissemination and study of the literary heritage of the founders of scientific communism is one of the most important conditions ... - TREE OF FREEDOM in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
(arbre de la liberte, Freiheitsbaum) ? originates from the custom common among many European peoples to meet the onset of spring, and ... - EGALITARISM in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
(from French egalite - equality) - a utopian theory expressing the desire for an equal distribution of resources and benefits as the main way to eliminate ... - THEODYCEA
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". This article contains incomplete markup. Theodicy, or justification of God, is the title of one of Leibniz's writings ("Essai... - VINE ALEXANDER RUDOLF in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox Encyclopedia "TREE". Vinet Alexander Rudolf (1797 - 1847), Swiss theologian and literary historian. Was a pastor... - MALAN
Benois (1841 - 1893) - French socialist and publicist, member of the First International. In 1870 Malan was a member of the central committee... - LAFARG in 1000 biographies of famous people:
Paul (1842 - 1911) - son-in-law of K. Marx, an outstanding French socialist. In his youth he was a Proudhonist. After meeting K. Marx ... - RAFALOVICH ARTUR GERMANOVYCH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Rafalovich (Arthur Germanovich) - economist; was born in Russia in 1853. Living permanently abroad, he is mainly engaged in the study of … - 1909.09.25 in Pages of History What, where, when:
The French battleship Liberte explodes in the harbor of Toulon, 226... - EGALITARISM
(French egalitarisme from egalite - equality), the concept of universal equalization as a principle of organization public life. Adherents of egalitarianism - Jean Jacques Rousseau, ... - PHILIP EGALITE in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(Philippe Egalite) Louis Philippe Joseph (1747-93), representative of the younger branch of the Bourbons, Duke of Orleans. During the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. refused... - EGALITARISM in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(French egalitarisme, from egalite - equality), a petty-bourgeois utopia that preaches universal equalization as the principle of organizing societies. life. In its original form... - SHARKAWI ASH-SHARQAWI ABDARRAHMAN in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
ash-Sharqawi, ash-Sharqawi Abdarrahman (b. 11/10/1921, Minufiya province), Egyptian writer. Born into a peasant family. He studied at the Faculty of Law at Cairo University (1938-43). … - PHILIP EGALITE LOUIS PHILIPPE JOSEPH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Egalite (Philippe Egalite) Louis Philippe Joseph (13.4.1747, Saint-Cloud - 6.11.1793, Paris), French politician. Representative of the junior line of the Bourbons, Duke of Orleans. V … - UTIN NIKOLAI ISAAKOVYCH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Nikolai Isaakovich, Russian revolutionary. Born into the family of a millionaire merchant. From 1858 he studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. … - SUAREZ FRANCISCO in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Suarez) Francisco (January 5, 1548, Granada - September 25, 1617, Lisbon), Spanish theologian and philosopher, representative of the late (so-called second) scholasticism; Jesuit. Graduated… - SECRETAN CHARLES in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Secretan) Charles (January 19, 1815, Lausanne - January 21, 1895, ibid.), Swiss idealist philosopher. A student of F. W. Schelling; was influenced by I. Kant. Professor at... - FREEDOM (SOCIAL) in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
the ability of a person to act in accordance with his interests and goals, based on the knowledge of objective necessity. In the history of social thought, the problem ... - FRANCOIS PERRUS in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Perroux) François (born December 19, 1903, Lyon), French economist, representative of the sociological school in bourgeois political economy. Since 1928 prof. political economy... - MERCIER DE LA RIVIERE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
de La Riviere Paul Pierre (1720, Saumur - 1793, Paris), French economist, theorist of the school ... - MARINETTI FILIPPO TOMMASSO in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Marinetti) Filippo Tommaso (12/22/1876, Alexandria, Egypt - 12/2/1944, Bellagio), Italian writer. Founder and theorist of Futurism in European literature and art. … - MARAN RENE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Maran) Rene (November 8, 1887, Fort-de-France, Martinique - May 9, 1960, Paris), African writer. Wrote in French. An Antillean Negro by origin, M. ... - MALONE BENOIS in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Malon) Benois (June 23, 1841, Pressier - September 13, 1893, Asnières), French petty-bourgeois socialist. He was a laborer and a dyer. In 1865 he joined the 1st International. Attracted… - LOUIS PHILIPPE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Philip (Louis-Philippe) (October 6, 1773, Paris - August 26, 1850, Claremont, Great Britain), French king in 1830-48. From the younger (Orleans) branch of the Bourbon dynasty. In time … - LEROUX PIERRE in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Leroux) Pierre (April 17, 1797, Bercy, near Paris - April 11, 1871, Paris), French philosopher and utopian socialist, one of the founders of Christian socialism. Happened… - INTERNATIONAL 1st in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
1st, International Association of Workers (1864-76), the first mass international organization of the proletariat, the founders and leaders of which were K. Marx and F. Engels. … - DUNANT HENRI JEAN in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Dunant) Henri Jean (8.5.1828, Geneva - 30.10.1910, Heiden, Canton of Appenzell), Swiss public figure and writer, founder international society"Red Cross"... - DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF GUINEA in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Party of Guinea (DPG), a national democratic party that unites workers, peasants, employees, and the intelligentsia of the country. Founded in May 1947 as a local section of the African … - GURVICH GEORGY DAVYDOVICH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Gurvitch) Georgy Davydovich (November 2, 1894, Novorossiysk, - December 10, 1965, Paris), a positivist sociologist. Professor of Tomsk and Petrograd Universities (1915-21). Supporter of Menshevism, emigrated in 1921. … - Guess Jules
- BRUSSE PAUL LOUIS in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Brousse) Paul Louis (January 23, 1844, Montpellier - April 1912, Paris), French petty-bourgeois socialist, one of the leaders of the possibilists. Doctor by profession. … - IVORY COAST in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Ivory, Republic of the Ivory Coast (French Republique de Côte d "lvoire), a state in West Africa. It borders on the west with Liberia ... - BELGIUM in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB.
- BABOEF GRAKCH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
(Babeuf) Gracchus (real name François Noel) (11/23/1760, Saint-Quentin - 5/27/1797), French revolutionary utopian communist, leader of the movement "in the name of equality" during ... - THEODY v encyclopedic dictionary Brockhaus and Euphron:
Theodicy or justification of God is the title of one of Leibniz's writings ("Essai de Theodicee sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberte ... - LIBERTY in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
personality or, which is the same, civil freedom - a legal concept (and at the same time a legal institution), partly similar to a legal one ... - MAZZINI in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Mazzini (Giuseppe Mazzini) - famous Italian revolutionary, b. in 1805. At the end of the course at the Genoese university, he studied in Genoa, then in ... - DUNAN in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Dunant (Jean Henri Dunant) porter. philanthropist and traveller. Genus. in 1828; is widely known as a zealous champion of an international agreement in the care of ... - BARARE DE VIEZAC in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
Bertrand (Barere de Vieuzac) is a member of the French. Convention, genus. 10 Sept. 1755 in Tarbes, main city of the depart. Upper Pyrenees. … - BABEEF in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
(Francois-Noel, Babeuf) - the head of the communist conspiracy during the Directory in France, nicknamed Kai Gracchus; genus. in S. Kantene in 1764 ... - EGALITARISM in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- EGALITARISM in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(French egalitarisme, from egalite - equality), the concept of universal equalization as the principle of organizing social life. Adherents of egalitarianism - J.J. Rousseau, Jacobins, ... - EGALITARISM
EGALITARISM (French egalitarisme, from egalite - equality), the concept of universal equality as a principle of organizing societies. … - PHILIP in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
Philippe Egalite (Philippe Egalite) Louis Philippe Joseph (1747-93), Duke of Orleans, representative of Jr. branches of the Bourbons. During the French period rev-tion con. eighteen …
Vladimir Matskevich, philosopher and methodologist
Communism as political movement, as a doctrine ("scientific communism"), as a mass movement appeared after the French Revolution and as a result of it.
Communism as a dream and ideal is much older than the French and all other bourgeois revolutions. And not only because since the 16th century Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella dreamed of communism, but also because the Levellers, Diggers, Münster Millenarians and various medieval heretical movements were inspired by this ideal.
Political and "scientific" communism was formed under the strongest impression of the French Revolution. Marx and all subsequent communists most carefully studied the history of the French Revolution, the reasons for its successes and failures, including PR, agitation and propaganda methods.
The main slogan of the French Revolution was: "Liberty, equality, fraternity." Calls for "equality and fraternity" partly link the propaganda of the French Jacobins and other revolutionaries with the communists and radical thinkers and revolutionaries of the past. But only in part.
"Equality" in the bourgeois ethos is accepted only conditionally - as equality before the law and equality of starting conditions - while the communists demand unconditional equality.
"Brotherhood" in the bourgeois slogan is most likely a vestige of heretical movements and radical Protestant churches, and not so radical ones, such as the French Huguenots. In part, the demand for "brotherhood" penetrated into the slogan of the revolution from the Freemasons, Rosicrucians and other secret societies, whose members were many among the revolutionaries themselves and among those who were the forerunners of the revolution. In society as a whole, no brotherhood is possible, but in small communities, church communities and secret societies, it serves to bind members closely together, achieve high responsibility to each other and achieve mutual trust. This is especially important and significant in critical periods: in times of revolutions, crises, wars and other trials. When the situation in society normalizes, the brotherhood is somehow quickly forgotten.
But the main word in the triad of the French Revolution is "freedom". Chief and first.
The ideal of freedom was not invented by the French revolutionaries; it is as old as the ideal of equality. But if in ancient Greece and Rome the ideal of freedom was filled with one content and meaning, then the ideal that guided the French revolutionaries was formed in the Enlightenment and could become the main and first only in this era. Freedom is the main condition for the development of man and society, as the substance of a reasonable person. Freedom to believe, freedom to think, freedom to feel, freedom to act. And only in action can freedom be limited: “My freedom of action ends at your nose!” But the freedom to think does not end anywhere and never.
Each is free to act in his own interests as long as his interests do not interfere with those of another. Here individual freedom turns into freedom to agree on joint actions in the interests of everyone. From this joint freedom come freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. At these meetings, participants can believe in anything, uphold any views, but they cannot cross the line of the individual freedom of another, the freedom to believe in something else, to defend something else in words.
In short, freedom is freedom.
But for communists, of all these words, "equality" is the most important. And freedom can interfere with the achievement of equality.
If freedom is in the first place, then equality is possible to the extent and only to the extent that free people agree on.
If equality is primary, then people are free to the extent and only to the extent that does not violate equality.
Thus, in the triad Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite the first two words come into conflict with each other, and the third is designed to reconcile this contradiction on the basis of humanism or the affinity of people to each other.
For dialectics, such contradictions do not interfere with anything, but for practical implementation, some clarifications are required. Marx understood this very well at a young age. If we make the achievement of equality the main goal of the political and class struggle, then freedom will be the main obstacle to achieving this goal. This very freedom must somehow be limited.
The communists could not afford to abandon the value and ideal of freedom; in the 19th century, no one would have understood or approved of this. The Enlightenment restriction of freedom by the tip of another person's nose did not at all satisfy the communists.
After all, it is obvious that people are not equal among themselves, and those who are superior in some way to others may voluntarily disagree with equalization - for example, equalization of property. If the owner is free, then his desire or unwillingness is a restriction on the division of property equally among all those in need. So, it will not work "for everyone according to their needs." And if you can’t voluntarily divide everything according to needs, you will have to expropriate. Expropriation is a clear violation and violation of freedom.
The peasants who rebelled against the feudal lord were not very bothered by logical paradoxes. If they decided to take away the landlord's land, then the landowner himself was simply killed. The red sailors and soldiers did the same with the manufacturers and other bourgeois. Having freed themselves from the owner in such a simple way, the rebellious proletarians and peasants simply divided the property. But as soon as it was divided, it ceased to be a means of production.
Marx and other theorists of communism were not so naive at all. They studied not only the history of the French Revolution, but also the history of Peasants' War in Germany, all other revolutions in Europe and America too.
They needed a principled and theoretical solution to the issue, and not just "take away and divide."
And for this the principle was invented: “Freedom is perceived need».
That is, freedom is not unconditional, it is limited by necessity. So, a person is not free like a bird - he cannot fly. Can't even swim like a fish. He sinks in water according to the law of Archimedes, does not take off, but falls according to Newton's law. The laws of nature are the necessity that limits the freedom of man. And after all, it does not just limit, but even helps him sometimes, when he is aware of the laws of nature. Realizing, he can even use them to his own advantage, build ships and swim, inflate hot air balloons with warm air and fly. By the time of Marx and other theorists of communism, mankind had already conquered the energy of steam and had begun to use electricity.
It would be good to discover such laws in politics as well, which a person could obey with necessity and not abuse his freedom.
Friedrich Engels, a friend and colleague of Karl Marx, was a capitalist, owned the means of production, exploited the proletariat, pumped out surplus value from it, accumulated some kind of capital, from which he threw something to Karl Marx for life.
First, he proved that feudalism was being replaced by capitalism with iron necessity. And then he declared that capitalism, with the same iron necessity, would be replaced by communism. But this seemed unconvincing to Engels, as, indeed, to Marx himself. Here's how they reasoned.
You can give the factory to the workers, but they don't know how to manage it. They know how to work, but they do only what the authorities and the bourgeois Engels tell them. Therefore, if the factory is given over to the workers, it immediately loses its meaning as a means of production and ceases to be profitable, to produce surplus value. The workers must first be taught how to manage the factory. Excellent, Marx and Engels rejoiced, and engaged in the education and training of workers, continuing to exploit them at Engels' factory.
The workers were ready to learn, and learned. But not everything, but only what was considered necessary and useful - the realization of the need, the realization that communism is natural and inevitable. But other people in bourgeois society learned differently and insisted on their freedom to think.
These people considered unconvincing those laws of the development of society, which Marx declared open and as objective as the laws of nature.
In short, the bourgeois did not realize the need for what the communists considered necessary. And they defended their freedom to think so.
And then the communists came to the conclusion that the workers are already aware of everything, and they are conscious, their freedom is limited by their necessity, and not by the tip of the bourgeois nose. And Engels in 1871 coined a name for this necessity: "dictatorship of the proletariat"!
Actually, everything. After that, the communists no longer saw any value in freedom. Liberte- canceled Egalite- subordinated to the class principle, and about Fraternite Stalin remembered only in July 1941, when he came to his senses from the first fright.
Of course, the communists were politically correct and did not say that "freedom is slavery." No, they just said that freedom is the conscious necessity of dictatorship. Dictatorships of the proletariat.
And since not the entire proletariat is class-conscious and does not really like and wants to learn, then this is a dictatorship not of the entire proletariat, but only of the class-conscious proletariat, which is aware of this need for dictatorship.
The conscious from the unconscious must be separated, since only the conscious are suitable for dictators and hegemons, while the unconscious must be taught and educated. If they don't want to, force them. It's a dictatorship!
Particularly stubbornly unconscious - to teach and retrain, educate and force to be conscious. Dictatorship, after all, everything is possible here, and terror sometimes.
It is not given to everyone to realize the need for dictatorship and terror. The soft-bodied humanists do not realize this necessity, what is needed here is "a cold head, a warm heart and hands clean from work." Proletarians with corns are generally not suitable for such a thing.
I will end with just a thesis: terror, violence, dictatorship, expropriation—all this is a necessity recognized by the communists.
And they went and came to this need not by mistake, not because of the abuses of individual sadists and executioners who wormed their way into the party ranks, but out of IRON NEED.
This is not a law of nature. Since there is no feudalism, capitalism and communism in nature. This is what people came up with. And all the inventions of people obey the laws of logic.
Communists become expropriators, dictators, terrorists, executioners according to the LAWS OF LOGIC. This iron logic is embedded in the very idea of communism.
Ideas hostile to freedom.
The ideas of entropy embedded in the communist understanding of equality.
An idea that compels communists to stray into a flock hostile to the rest of society, and in this flock (party, or fraternity, according to Zinoviev) they form a special criminal brotherhood.
Never, under any circumstances, move freedom to second place!
Subscribe to our Telegram channel
"Think Belarus"!
The text was first published on Vladimir Matskevich's Facebook blog:
(from encyclopedists to exhibitionists)
It all started with the statement of one of my friends - "the state is an instrument for suppressing the freedom of the individual." My disagreement took the form of this note about the history of the issue and its current state.
In the history of mankind, ideas about freedom are constantly changing. Today, freedom is understood as a phenomenon of independence from natural elements, arbitrariness of the authorities, freedom of creativity and self-realization of the individual. Trying to comprehend the very word "freedom", great thinkers often came to a completely different conclusions. In ancient Greek philosophy, freedom was understood as the position of a person who does not have personal dependence on other people. Socrates and Plato spoke of a free man, contrasting him with a slave. Similarly, freedom was understood in Ancient Rome. This is the "external" social aspect of freedom. In the Jewish tradition (and then in the Christian) for the first time there is an understanding of freedom as “freedom of conscience”. The fact is that traditionally a citizen of the state or his guest were obliged to honor the state gods. Both Jews and Christians refused to sacrifice to pagan idols and demanded for themselves the freedom to pray to their God anywhere and anytime. This "internal" aspect of freedom was developed in Roman-Hellenistic philosophy and in Christianity. In modern times, interest in the concept of freedom is growing again. It is understood as “the absence of external obstacles, which can often deprive a person of part of his power to do what he would like” (T. Hobbes). Only the sovereign-monarch is truly free in society, while the freedom of the rest extends within the boundaries that the sovereign determines. In the XVIII century. freedom is seen as an opportunity to "do everything that is not prohibited by law" (C. Montesquieu). Rousseau and Voltaire declare that all people are free from birth. At the same time, Voltaire was the first to defend the right to freedom of speech. "I hate your beliefs, but I am ready to give my life for your right to express them."
Philosophers of the Enlightenment usually divide freedom into “negative” and “positive” ones: “negative” freedom means complete independence from any coercive conditions and circumstances of life, that is, arbitrariness, and “positive” means following those goals and interests which do not contradict the law of reason, i.e., the natural rights of man.
V late XVIII v. I. Kant introduces the concept of "the law of freedom", which does not oppose "negative" and "positive" freedom, but connects them as successive moments in the development of the human personality and society as a whole. “The law of freedom” means: a person is able to set the boundaries of his own arbitrariness, recognizing other people as reasonable and worthy persons. I. Kant defines freedom as the right to “give the law to oneself”, thus linking freedom with obligations. Simply freedom without obligations, without debt, is called arbitrariness and is not considered freedom. Freedom begins with a personal arbitrary decision, with a personal “I want”, which allows you to reach the level of personal being, being for yourself. “Negative freedom” is the foundation of “positive freedom” when it comes to self-denial, to the understanding that “there are and will be other reasonable and worthy people besides me.” Reasonable causality, expressed in the moral law, brings a person to another level of existence, standing above natural necessity. If this reasonable causality is not recognized, then freedom turns into an illusion, and there is an appearance of universal determinism (geographical, economic or theological). A person who acts of his own free will in accordance with the laws that he has adopted with his own mind can prove the reality of freedom. If a person is not free, he is not responsible for his actions. IG Fichte understands freedom as self-sufficiency and independence. Only the one who provides for himself with everything himself and does not depend on anyone can be called free, therefore all masters are not free, since they have slaves on whom the masters depend materially.
J. Schelling and G. W. F. Hegel give very complex and detailed concepts of freedom. Thus, in Hegel, freedom develops up to the state, which itself is understood as the highest embodiment of freedom. A person is most free in the state, and without the state he is nothing, he has no rights. When it sounds - the state "suppresses freedom" - this is according to Hegel - on the contrary, the state suppresses arbitrariness in a person that harms freedom, "society forces the individual to be free, that is, to fulfill his obligations."
F. Nietzsche also said that freedom does not mean that you refuse someone else's law, but that you know how to make your will the law of others: "If you are free, show me the idea that can inspire me."
And yet, the practical side of the controversy about freedom in the 18th century was most clearly manifested. Oddly enough, it was the brightest fighters for freedom that turned out to be the most cruel persecutors of dissent. Enlighteners emphasized that freedom does not mean arbitrariness and anarchy. They dreamed of a society and a state in which freedom and order would not contradict each other and where the natural independence of the individual and the interests of the state would be harmoniously combined. But the specific ways of social reorganization proposed by the enlighteners diverged depending on what, from the point of view of a given thinker, was a fundamental value. Many proceeded from the priority of the natural rights and freedoms of the individual and the criterion for evaluating certain state and public institutions, norms and customs considered their ability to protect the individual and guarantee her freedom. Therefore, for Sh.-L. Montesquieu or encyclopedists D. Diderot and J.-L. d "Alembert, the political freedom of the state as a whole was determined by the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the freedom of an individual citizen was ensured if the laws allowed everyone not to be afraid of arbitrariness both from other citizens and from the state.
Another solution to the problem was proposed by J.-J. Rousseau and G. Mably, who put public and state interests at the forefront. They considered the ideal order in which the individual fully delegated his rights to society and the state. According to Rousseau, people, concluding among themselves a social contract and creating a state, endowed it with the right to express their collective will. As a result, the state received unlimited power over the individual, since it acted on behalf of all citizens and was the guarantor of their freedom. For those cases when the will of an individual came into conflict with the requirements of society and the state, Rousseau proposed a paradoxical solution: "If someone refuses to obey the general will, then he will be forced to do so by the whole Organism, and this means nothing more than that that he will be forced by force to be free, for such is the condition which, by subordinating every citizen to the fatherland, at the same time thereby protects him from all personal dependence. This theory subsequently found practical implementation during the Jacobin dictatorship.
Montesquieu noted the enthusiastic commitment of his contemporaries to the idea of freedom and at the same time the discord in the interpretation of this very concept. “There is no word,” he wrote in his treatise “On the Spirit of Laws,” “that would receive so many different meanings and produce such a different impression on the minds as the word“ freedom ”. others, the right to choose whom they should obey, still others, the right to bear arms and commit violence, still others see it in the privilege of being under the rule of a man of their nationality or subject to their own laws.Some people for a long time took freedom for the custom of wearing a long beard. Others associate this name with a certain form of government, to the exclusion of all others.
During the holidays of Freedom, she was depicted as the Deity of Liberty from Roman mythology: in the form of a young woman in white robes, holding a scepter in one hand and a cap in the other. The scepter meant that a free man was his own master, and the cap was considered by the ancient Romans as a symbol of setting the slave free. Next to the deity, they depicted a cat - an animal that does not tolerate coercion. Another common iconographic type was "Liberty won by valor": a woman holding a lance with a cap on the end and trampling on the yoke.
When did the most famous revolutionary slogan "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" appear? There is an opinion that this happened during the celebration of the Federation in Paris in honor of the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille - July 14, 1790. But the author of a special study on the revolutionary triad, the famous French historian A. Olar proved that in reality it was not so. At the Federation Day, the inhabitants of each district (district) of Paris came under a banner on which some motto was inscribed, for example: "Law, Consent, Liberty", "Union and Liberty", "Strength, Liberty, Peace", "Law, King, Freedom, Fatherland", "Freedom and a free king", "Legality, Freedom, Security, Loyalty", etc. But the motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was not among them. It was first heard in May 1791, and proposed to the French by the democratic political club of the Cordeliers when discussing the creation of a national army. The Cordeliers decided that the military should wear a badge with the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", since these are precisely the principles on which the national army was to be founded.
The deputy of the Convention, P.-J. Cambon, two days after the execution of the king, in January 1793, said: "We finally sailed to the island of Liberty, and we burned the ship that brought us there." The meaning of this remark is that at the beginning of the revolution, when hopes for the unity of the nation and the king were still strong, the Constituent Assembly solemnly proclaimed August 11, 1789, Louis XVI "the restorer of French freedom." The feeling of a break with the past, characteristic of the participants in the revolution, was manifested in the custom that spread in 1792 to date official papers with the "fourth year of Liberty." 1789, the year the revolution began, was thus the first year new era Freedom.
At the beginning of the revolution, the legislation was imbued with the spirit of political and economic liberalism. Adopted on August 26, 1789, the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" proclaimed all people "free and equal in rights", and after that - freedom of opinion, speech, press, religious beliefs and the principle of popular sovereignty, according to which all power comes from the nation .
The powers of the king were seriously limited. He remained the head of the executive branch, but his will no longer had the force of law. The Assembly carried out a reform of the penal legislation. The arrest of a citizen now required the sanction of a judge, after 24 hours after the arrest, the detainee received the right to consult with a lawyer, a jury trial was established, and public proceedings were introduced with adversarial participation of the parties. The new judicial system was based on the election and independence of judges. In accordance with the principle of religious tolerance, Protestants and Jews were granted civil rights. In the first years of the revolution, freedom of the press existed in its entirety. Elected bodies of local government received wide powers.
Freedom triumphed in the economic sphere as well. Obstacles were removed that prevented entrepreneurs from freely producing, making a profit and disposing of it at their discretion. As a result of the abolition of handicraft and trading corporations, privileged manufactories and trading companies, the regulation of production and the market, freedom of enterprise and trade was established in France.
However, individuals proclaimed free from birth stood on different political positions and entered into a fierce struggle. During the years of the revolution, the problem of the relationship between individual freedom and the interests of society moved from the philosophical to the political plane, and here the French revolutionaries were in for a contradiction: in principle, they considered freedom to be the natural right of every person, but in practice they were not ready to recognize this right for their opponent.
The controversy showed how different the ideas of freedom were among the French revolutionaries. For some, it meant limited monarchy and separation of powers; for others, what is commonly called the "sacred principles of 1989", first of all, human rights proclaimed in the declaration of 1789. For some, freedom was unthinkable without a republic with universal suffrage, etc. To some, the motto "Liberty, Equality" seemed too radical, taken literally. In principle, having nothing against freedom or against equality, these people were afraid of the extremes to which, in their opinion, the literal adherence to these principles could lead. There is a known case when in 1793 the administration of the national House of Invalids ordered to correct the motto "Liberty, Equality" in the picture hanging in the hall above the fireplace, and write: "Freedom without permissiveness, Equality within the limits of decency." In response, the Cordeliers Club began to seek that the departmental authorities ordered the film to be removed and forbade changing or correcting the revolutionary motto.
After the Jacobins came to power, the Constitution adopted by them in June 1793 continued to proclaim freedom as the natural and inalienable right of all people.
The cult of Liberty acquired bizarre forms in the autumn of 1793, when the so-called de-Christianization movement unfolded in the country. In violation of religious freedom, churches were closed and attempts were made to forcibly abolish the Catholic cult, replacing it with the cult of Reason. In the view of the revolutionary intelligentsia, which initiated de-Christianization, reason and freedom were inseparable from each other. Cathedral Notre Dame at this time ceased to act as catholic church. The Commune of Paris (city municipality) decided to hold a celebration in honor of Freedom in his building. Subsequently, the Convention decided to transform the Cathedral of Notre Dame into a temple of Reason. In a few days, a wave of similar festivities swept through Paris. All the churches of the capital were turned into temples of Reason.
Along with the festivities in honor of Reason, in 1793 - 1794. the veneration of the "martyrs of freedom" also spread. There were three of them: killed by Charlotte Corday in July 1793, J.-P. Marat, M. Lepeletier, killed by a royalist in January 1793, and executed in rebellious Lyon in July of the same year, the head of the local Jacobins M.-J. Shalier. In churches that have become temples of Reason, images of Catholic saints have been replaced by busts of the revolutionary trinity of Marat, Lepeletier and Challier.
By the autumn of 1793, a regime of dictatorship, or, as it was then officially called, "evolutionary rule" gradually took shape in France. Thus, civil, political and economic freedoms were effectively reduced to nothing. This process began even before the Jacobins came to power. On March 10, 1793, an emergency criminal tribunal was established, subsequently, in the autumn of 1793, reorganized and called the revolutionary tribunal. The Tribunal has received very wide powers. Its members were not elected, but appointed by the Convention. The sentences passed were not subject to appeal. no cassation. On September 17, 1793, a decree was issued that ordered the immediate arrest of all persons declared "suspicious". The prisons filled with people, many of whom had committed no crime and were arrested for dissent, for being related to an emigrant, or on suspicion of unreliability. The presumption of innocence no longer existed. The organs of the Jacobin dictatorship began to pursue a policy of terror. At the moment of its climax, a decree appeared on 22 Prairial of the 2nd year (June 10, 1794) on the reorganization of the revolutionary tribunal. In accordance with this decree, the defendants were deprived of defenders, the mandatory call of witnesses was abolished, the moral conviction of the jury was sufficient instead of real evidence, and the death penalty was recognized as the only punishment. The authors of this decree, which legitimized utter arbitrariness, justified such a procedure for the work of a revolutionary tribunal by nothing more than the need to defend freedom. Along with the freedom of the individual, the freedom of the press was also destroyed. Proclaimed in the declaration of 1789, from the autumn of 1792 it began to be gradually limited. After the establishment of the republic, royalist newspapers were banned. Then, in December 1792, a decree appeared threatening the death penalty for advocating an egalitarian redistribution of land. Thus, already by the beginning of 1793, only the Girondins and the Montagnards could freely conduct a polemic. Their opponents, both on the right and on the left, were deprived of freedom of speech. After the Jacobins and the Girondins came to power, they lost the right to propagate their views. For this, an arrest was relied on on the basis of a decree on "suspicious". From now on, only the government's point of view could be openly expressed. It is noteworthy that the people who carried out all these and other similar measures did not see in them an encroachment on freedom. On the contrary, freedom was destroyed... in the name of freedom. In the autumn of 1793, L.-A. Saint-Just uttered the infamous phrase: "Freedom must win at any cost." “The revolution,” Robespierre said on December 25, 1793, “is the war of freedom against its enemies.” This speech became the official justification for the state terror carried out by the Jacobins.
Where did enlightened humanists and freedom fighters come from such a strange, at first glance, readiness to brutally crack down on their opponents? Here, the desire characteristic of the French revolutionaries (and not only the French, but also all subsequent ones) was manifested to start history anew, from themselves. Back in 1774, in the book "Chains of Slavery" Marat wrote: "Freedom always arises from the fire of indignation."
In the name of the triumph of freedom, the leaders of the revolution considered it necessary to overthrow and destroy the old world of despotism by force. At the same time, they were inclined to declare any political opponent an enemy of freedom and a defender of tyranny - this way it was more convenient to get rid of opponents. Freedom, elevated to the rank of a deity, has become for them both an end in itself and a means of struggle. This gave rise to calls - for freedom at any cost.
The influence of Rousseau, whose faithful disciples were the Jacobins, also had an effect. After all, it was he who in the "Social Contract" proved the need for complete subordination of the individual (for his own good, of course) to society and the state. It was he who argued that a person can and should be forced to be free against his will.
Idealizing the "natural" state, Rousseau sees no other way to return to the origins (to Nature) than to rely on the power of the state. Only the state, according to Rousseau, can realize the ideals of the "natural" state, which he considers the ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. But the state capable of realizing these ideals, Rousseau can only have a republic, which appeared in ancient Rome. Republic, if translated literally from Latin, means "common cause." The state, according to Rousseau, is indeed the common cause of citizens, and not the prey of the bureaucracy or the reigning dynasty, as was the case in France during the time of Louis XIV, who declared: "The state is I." For all their dislike of official church Rousseau believed that moral sense, which lies at the basis of the human personality, is, in essence, religious feeling. And without the cult of the Supreme Being, it is invalid. And since organic morality appears in Rousseau hallmark people's democracy, as opposed to immoral aristocracy, he perceives atheism as a purely aristocratic phenomenon. Rousseau's divergence from liberalism manifested itself first and foremost in the treatment of the problem of equality. Rousseau distinguishes between legal or formal equality and actual equality. And juridical equality, equality before the law, for which the enlighteners mainly advocated, does not yet entail actual equality, by which Rousseau means, first of all, property, economic equality. This is the difference between democracy and liberalism. Liberalism recognizes only legal equality. And the democratic equality of people is the equality of the conditions for their management. And Rousseau goes even further. The usual liberal sophism is that there can be no actual equality between people, because people are actually not equal: one is short - another is tall, one is strong - another is weak, one is red - another is black, one is smart - another is a fool, etc. . And it would be unfair, say the ideologists of liberalism, if both the fool and the smart were equal. The democrat Rousseau, for all his "naturalism", argues differently. By nature, says Rousseau, all people are equal. This does not mean that the strong and the weak are equal in strength. Physically they are not equal. But they are equal with respect to the right to life. And if such equality is recognized, then the strong help the weak to survive. And then the weak feel equal to the strong. But the strong can offend the weak. And he can take advantage of the weakness of another in order to subjugate him to himself, to force him to work for himself, to enrich himself at the expense of him. In the same way, a stupid person can be dealt with in different ways: you can sympathize with his stupidity, or you can, using this stupidity, deceive him for your own selfish purposes. As Rousseau shows, natural inequality is exacerbated by inequality in the social conditions of life. And the real inequality of people is manifested primarily in the inequality of these social conditions. Therefore, the humanism of modern society should be to create equal conditions for healthy people and the most hopeless invalids. Although it would be possible, referring to their "inferiority", simply to reject physically handicapped people or to imprison them in special reservations.
The reigning "despotism of freedom" led to a rethinking of some of the mottos of the revolution. In the summer of 1793, the directorate of the Paris department called on all residents during the month of July to write on the facades of their houses: "Unity, Indivisibility of the Republic, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death." During the reign of terror, these words took on a menacing meaning. They began to be interpreted as a promise to execute all "enemies of freedom".
After the coup d'état on 9 Thermidor II (July 27, 1794) and the overthrow of the Robespierists, the inscriptions inscribed or embossed on the walls of houses began to be destroyed. Their ending was declared inhumane. The motto was reduced to the first words: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" or "Liberty, Equality". In this form, it was still very widely used after 9 Thermidor. Celebrations in honor of freedom continued, but their content changed. The Liberty Day began to be celebrated annually on 9 Thermidor. The custom to accompany official papers with the motto "Liberty, Equality" was preserved under the Napoleonic regime of the Consulate, and in the early years of the Empire. It finally disappeared after about 1808.
So, the image of freedom remained in the memory of the French as a symbol of the revolution. He merged with the image of Marianne, an allegory of the French Republic. A striking example is the famous painting by E. Delacroix "Liberty Leading the People", or, as it is also called, "Freedom on the Barricades", written under the fresh impression of the July Revolution of 1830. In 1848, the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" first became the official motto of the French Republic.
I don't want to overwhelm a potential reader with endless information. 20th century brought a large number of variants of "freedom" and "unfreedom". The advent of the Internet made it possible to move away from direct connection with society, from socialization and dependence on society. Friends are not needed, a social circle is not needed, a person is free to auto-show himself in the capacity in which he wants. V real life collapsed, seemingly unshakable, the bastions of morality - purity human relations, the concept of the family, shifting the boundaries of permissibility in human relations, maintaining internal boundaries in the intimate sphere. The sexual revolution, based on advances in chemistry, which is guaranteed to prevent unwanted pregnancy, has also led to “freedom”. "Nudism", which was previously regarded as a psychopathology - exhibitionism, has become a fashionable fad of "freedom from morality." Perhaps it develops the world for the better - I don't know. But the path to "freedom" from geniuses to psychopathological mediocrities is widely trodden. It is difficult to become a genius - you need to know and be able to do a lot. Organizing a flash mob without pants is much easier. Modern liberal interpretations of freedom are based on the thesis that the general welfare and the progress of individual freedom depend on limiting the activities of the state in the socio-economic relations of citizens, as well as on people's independent disposal of their property and the pursuit of their own interests within the framework of existing law. But it is not clear who or what, in the absence of a state, can generally guarantee at least some rights or save from lawlessness? In the XIX-XX centuries. philosophers have spent a lot of time thinking about the paradoxes of freedom, but so far there is not even an unambiguous definition acceptable to everyone.
Discussions have been going on for thousands of years, there are no unambiguous answers here and probably cannot be, both because of the complexity of the subject under discussion and because of the many subjective opinions, often expressed solely to confirm the originality of the author's thinking. In addition, calls for freedom are often the ploys of enslaving manipulators, rather than seeking the true liberation of everyone. Whom do you follow, the majority or the minority? The nature of minority influence is still a matter of debate (Clark & Maass, 1990; Levine & Russo, 1987). Moskovich believes that the following of the minority by the majority reflects simply subordination to society, and the following of the majority by the minority reflects the true recognition of the correctness of the minority. At the origins of almost all social movements stood a minority, which, influencing others, often eventually became the majority. “All history,” writes Ralph Waldo Emerson, “is a record of the power of a minority, sometimes consisting of just one person.” The American Negro civil rights movement was sparked by the refusal of an African-American woman, Rosa Parks, of Montgomery, Alabama, to give up her seat on a bus.
Freedom, Equality, Fraternity - still remain mysterious and diverse concepts that everyone who reflects on this topic can interpret in their own way.
This is an excerpt from a letter to my friend, which turned out to be, as it were, a continuation of the theme raised in Liberte.
You demanded from me the impossible - to express my opinion about what I myself still do not understand. And I don't think I'm the only one. Indeed, in the manuscript that I sent you, there is a huge number of mutually exclusive definitions of freedom for a reason. I now recall the "Iliad" - the gods invest in the same person reckless courage and vile cowardice with an interval of a second; wisdom in choosing a behavior model and hopeless stupidity that follow each other without a break for a breath. Do people choose these states themselves? Consciousness of choice implies time for awareness ... And if there is no time to realize? A man catches a child that has fallen out of a window, the child remains alive and unharmed, the man suffers a spinal injury and remains a broken invalid for the rest of his life, along with his wife (who has to look after him) and his children (whom he could not provide a decent education and a start in life ). Does he make this choice consciously or not? Or is it karma? And the wife - her gods punished him with a choice? It is necessary to clarify what is incomprehensible to me: how does karma in Buddhism differ from posthumous punishment in Christianity? Hell for unrighteous deeds can be not only in Hades, but also in the subsequent reincarnation. What is the difference - you are fried by devils in a pan in Hell or you are reincarnated as next life fish and being fried by your wife's luckier impersonation in a frying pan?
In Judaism (please understand correctly - I am not an expert on Judaism and not a herald of it) there is the concept of free will. Actually, this is what monotheism (as I think) differs from paganism. In all monotheistic religions there is personal responsibility for the action. Here, it seems to me, is a worthy example: pork is prohibited and if you eat it consciously (ie, make a choice) - you will be punished. But here, a believer in a different way, feeds you with pig meat and does not talk about it - this is not your sin and you will not be punished. Those. there are laws (whatever you want, call them) God's, karmic, invented by other people or by you yourself for yourself and your family. As long as you keep them, life goes on the predicted track. You suddenly found yourself faced with a choice: either to comply with the law or to enter into deviation from the law - you took responsibility - bear this burden yourself and do not expect any help or reward.
But the question is - did you make this choice? Or did the gods nudge you under the elbow when you should have pointed to the plus, and something (someone?) made you point to the minus? Well, here is Kant, talking about a “moral law” that is incomprehensible (even for him). Is following this law our free choice? I do not know. The concept of conscience and "acts of conscience" are often to the detriment of one's interests - whose choice is this? Do not know.
Here is the phrase: "freedom is an attempt to fill the place of God with anthropocentrism." Today I am reading a book about Leonardo da Vinci. And today in America there are feminist rallies against Trump and for freedom of abortion. Leonardo was born illegitimate and grew up in his mother's village until the age of 5 without seeing his father. Then his father took him away and he never saw his mother again. Those. I'm talking about - Gd sent a soul to Earth, endowed with a talent greater than all other souls on Earth. Today's feminists want to be instead of G-d - taking contraceptives, they do not give place to sent souls. And if the unborn souls nevertheless nestled in their wombs, they want to have the right not to let them into this world. An uneducated peasant woman, Leonardo's mother, if she lived in the 21st century, of course, she would have had an abortion. And they do! And as a result, there are no such geniuses today. Replacing God with oneself leads to the "Black Square". I am not an expert in painting, but it seems to me that drawing transparent water in a transparent glass is a skill, and a child can draw the "Black Square" today. It is probably not for nothing that among the left-liberal public, which denies not only God, but also nature, this particular masterpiece is popular.
And so we go - from awareness of ourselves in the freedom of choice to act or not to act according to the laws (of nature, God, society) and be responsible for ourselves and our decisions. Or - there is no freedom - I am a toy in the hands of Fate (karma, gods or G-d) and I am not responsible for anything in my fate and in the fate of my loved ones.
Again - everyone chooses for himself.
And about karma... You know Buddhism - I don't know. There is one thing that confuses me: a person who has done something and for which she must be punished in the future - she (this person) - has disappeared. There is no awareness of guilt; no ordinary consciousness full of personal memories; no feelings for this remaining world; nor the body, who has enjoyed or suffered in the rest of the world - i.e. there is nothing. And then I am born and I carry a tangle of someone's (unknown to me!) relations with the world that had accumulated even before my birth. Let's say I was born without a leg. For what? And the explanation is simple - 30 generations ago, with this now missing foot, I (not me) stepped on a midge, which in fact was the expiation of some guilt of the previous incarnation of the great mogul. If it can be understood, it cannot be forgiven: punishment for something you have no idea about.
Somehow this is all strange.
And yet - what kind of karma did the first person have? What determined his fate, if we deny the freedom of personal will under karmic controls?
Awareness of the boundaries of freedom - these are the rules of human society. Or am I wrong? It seems to me that poets wrote about all these issues much more organically than philosophers, who, moreover, encrypted their thoughts with specific terminology. Therefore, I prefer to read poets. This is especially true for various social movements. And even more so in such a long-suffering society as Russia. It's just that poets are mirrors of the brightest, conspicuous. But their very life shows that not all the country lived and thought in the same way. Unfortunately, for some reason, it is in Russia that the power is not limited by any laws. As soon as the situation begins to change, the most impatient ones immediately jump out - they want to change everything immediately and right now, in their lifetime. Hence - riots, revolutions, pogroms, executions of everyone who dares to think differently at this moment. With the colossal size of the country - colossal victims. The poets you introduced are wonderful. It's just that I have a much smaller scale of associations - such, more homely, or something - Petersburg, New Year, champagne... And connection with world culture. After all, not only in Russia they killed, tortured, tortured and gave power to sadists. It's just that it is in it that "immortal power" (remember Ananiev's "Faces of Immortal Power"?) Always opposes the people and all attempts by the authorities to change something turn into failures. Or vice versa - the people oppose any power? For some reason, in Russia power is hated, while among other peoples, either as in Europe it is an organizing force and order, or as in Asia it is humility and submission. And in Russia they want WILL, FREEDOM, AN AUTHORITY. This is what the intelligentsia is constantly explaining to the people, and the people are destroying the intelligentsia for these explanations. But life goes on thanks to people who know how to somehow save themselves. Faith in G-d helps someone, Kant's moral law helps someone, disgust helps someone, respect for the person in oneself helps someone ...
And finally - after all, Georgy Ivanov
Well, yes - a little humanity,
A patch of unseen sleep.
And talk about eternity...
And who needs it!
