Does the modern Russian Federation have an ideology? Liberalism is the state ideology of Russia.
There is an opinion that ideologies are a relic of the past, attributes of the 20th century, when they were seemingly indestructible rocks. Ideology today is presented as something artificial, introduced from the outside, imposed on a person "contrary to his nature."
Bourgeois Russia is not an exception in this assessment, which at the legislative level fixes its attitude towards this phenomenon. Thus, Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation prohibits the establishment of a state or mandatory ideology. This provision of the law is allegedly a "vaccine against the diseases of the past", designed to prevent the repetition of "totalitarianism", the consolidation of an "ideology hostile to man" .
However, even the ruling class and its servants admit that everything in the country is not as good as we would like: either the West puts spokes in the wheels, or it turns out that a large proportion of the Russians themselves are “unsuccessful people” and they should be replaced by foreigners, who certainly will not lie on the stove, but will rush to raise the withering economy of Russia from their knees.
And the whole world of bourgeois social thought is racking their brains: how can the economy and society generally get out of the swamp in which they are bogged down? The situation is so critical that, surprisingly, from time to time the federal media even raise the topic of the urgent need to create a "new state ideology" for the country. Such an ideology should allegedly unite the people, rally them into a powerful fist to oppose Western civilization. After all, the Soviet Union was guided by ideology (as we know, communist, which bourgeois propagandists prefer to keep silent about) and was a superpower that controlled half of the globe. Therefore, the presence of a state ideology is quite justified for the "return of former greatness."
The eloquent lackeys of capital offer a variety of options, ranging from Orthodoxy to the idea of the so-called. "Russian world". Such a statement of the question sets the addressee of the information flow to the idea that there really is no ideology in Russia - otherwise why should it be “created” and “chosen”?
According to the definition given by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, ideology is belief system and ideas that recognize and evaluate people's attitudes to reality and to each other, social problems and conflicts, and also contain the goals (programs) of social activities aimed at consolidating or changing (development) these social relations. In a class society, ideology always has a class character, reflecting the position of a given class, its interests.
Based on the above, it becomes clear that in any society there is an ideology, since it consists of people who are forced to interact with the reality around them and with each other (for the purpose of survival, procreation, technological development, etc.). And any ideology in a class society expresses the interests of a certain class and is aimed at satisfying them.
The current Russian society is a society class, dominated in which the bourgeoisie, the state in which belongs to the bourgeoisie. Consequently, the dominant ideology here also wears class character reflects the interests of the ruling class. The views and ideas of this society are aimed at strengthening the existing socio-economic formation. The bourgeoisie trains specially trained people who professionally indoctrinate the population. It builds public educational programs in terms of obtaining a narrow set of skills necessary to perform a specific, strictly limited job function. Education no longer truly teaches the methods of scientific knowledge, does not provide a system of knowledge. This makes any formally educated person an easy object of control, allows him to manipulate his consciousness through informational influence, which he himself is not able to filter and analyze, is not able to reveal its essence and detect its influence on himself. Education prepares the human function that employers need so much.
V. I. Lenin in his work “What is to be done?” distinguished two ideological directions in capitalist society: bourgeois and socialist. There is no "third way", "golden mean", because in a class society it is impossible to have a supra-class ideology. "That's why any belittling of socialist ideology, any suspension from it means thereby the strengthening of the ideology of the bourgeois ".
Consequently, behind the talk about the viciousness of the socialist ideology, shifting all the current problems of the Russian Federation to the Soviet Union and its “totalitarian” ideology, there is a strengthening of bourgeois ideology in its various forms that are convenient for the ruling class.
As early as the beginning of the 20th century, I. V. Stalin, giving an assessment of the political horizon of the Russian Empire, in his work “Anarchism or socialism?” wrote that ideology exists not only among the proletariat in the form of socialism. This also exists for the antagonist class. Its name is liberalism.
1) About ideology in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.The Constitution of the Russian Federation defines "a person, his rights and freedoms" as the highest value. In this definition, there is no place either for the existence of Russia itself, or for the sovereignty of the Russian state, family, national historical traditions. According to the logic of the adopted definition, the sacrifice of the defenders of the Fatherland is unacceptable, since priority is given not to the Fatherland, but to the person, with his rights and freedoms.
Ideologies, as you know, differ precisely in the priority of certain values. The ideology that declares the highest value of human rights and freedoms is the ideology of liberalism. This is how liberalism is defined in most textbooks and reference books. Article 2 of the RF Constitution thus establishes a liberal state ideology in Russia.
There is a conflict between Article 13, which prohibits the state ideology, and Article 2, which approves it.
The ban on the state ideology while establishing the de facto ideology of liberalism means that the liberal choice is not revisionable. This choice is declared not as a certain ideology, but as a given. In fact, the ban on the state ideology in Russia means a ban on the revision of the ideology of liberalism. Liberalism, on the other hand, appears as following "generally recognized principles and norms", i.e. as a matter of course for all mankind. The Constitution establishes, in fact, a model of external administration. Above the entire pyramid of value-based goal-setting of the Russian state, the position is "generally recognized principles and norms of international law." From them, as the highest value, the value of "human rights and freedoms" is projected. And in order to prevent possible attempts to revise the external ideological project, a ban on the promotion of one's own identical ideology is established.
2) About religion in the Constitution.
Many constitutions declare priority positions in the state of a particular religion. This priority can be expressed by defining it as a state, official, dominant, traditional or majority religion. For example, the positions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the constitutions of the Scandinavian states are enshrined in the status of the official or state religion. Another way of declaring the state's reliance on a certain religious tradition is to indicate its special role for the respective community.
The king in Denmark, Sweden and Norway must, according to the constitutional texts, necessarily belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church. In Greece, the Eastern Orthodox Church is defined as dominant, in Bulgaria it is traditional. For example, the constitution of Argentina declares special support for the Roman Catholic Church by the state. The Constitution of Malta establishes the Church's preference for interpreting "what is right and what is wrong". Christian religious doctrine is prescribed for compulsory teaching in Maltese schools. The Peruvian constitution emphasizes the special role of the Catholic Church as an important element in the historical, cultural and moral formation of Peru. The constitutions of Georgia and South Ossetia point to the special historical role of Orthodoxy. The Spanish constitution, stating on the one hand that no belief can have the character of a state religion, on the other hand, instructs public authorities "to take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and maintain the resulting relations of cooperation with the Catholic Church and other confessions (i.e. maintain Catholicism as the religion of the majority).
A special type of constitutions are the constitutions of Islamic states. Certain provisions of the Islamic religion are directly incorporated into their constitutional texts. The main bottom of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is directly that the real constitution of the country is "The Book of Allah Almighty and the Sunnah of His Prophet." Earthly laws are seen as derived from divine institutions. The derivation of legislation from Sharia is a common feature of Islamic constitutions.
The commitment of the respective states to Buddhism is declared by the constitutions of Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. The Constitution of Sri Lanka obliges the state to ensure the protection and study of the people of the teachings of the Buddha.
3) Where is ideology banned?
The reduction of the highest values of the state to human rights and freedoms (liberal positioning) is also a specific feature of the constitutions of the countries of the post-Soviet cluster. In this formulation, in addition to the Russian constitution, the highest values are defined only in the constitutions of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine. The Moldovan constitution adds to human rights and freedoms the values of civil peace, democracy and justice. It was the constitutions of the post-Soviet states that turned out to be the most liberal in terms of declared values against the backdrop of the entire world ensemble of countries. The question arises - why?
The answer to it may again be related to the context of the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War. Liberalism was used in this case not as a life-building platform, but as a tool for destroying the potentials of statehood. Indeed, it is impossible to build national statehood solely on the basis of ascertaining the rights and freedoms of an individual. This requires certain solidarization values. But none of them is classified as the highest values in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
The category of "highest values" is present not only in the constitutions of the post-Soviet states. But they are declared in them in a wide list. Freedoms and human rights are not denied, but turn out to be one of the items on the list of values. So, for example, in the Brazilian constitution, in addition to personal rights and freedoms, it includes social rights, security, welfare, development, equality and justice.
The definition of Russia's place in the world is exhausted in the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the following statement: "realizing itself as part of the world community." There are no claims for any special role. There is not even an indication of national interests. The main designated landmark is international integration. And this is a direct consequence of the abandonment of their own project. For a non-sovereign state, external positioning can only be limited to a declaration of belonging to the international community, i.e. consistency with respect to the world's dominant forces.
4) What is the most actively promoted by the Constitution of the Russian Federation?
When minimizing the value of some values, others come to the fore. What are these values in relation to the Constitution of the Russian Federation? The Russian constitution turns out to be the world leader in the use of the term "freedom". Ahead of her in terms of the indicator under consideration is, again, only the Basic Law of Germany. Freedom is, as you know, the basic value of the liberal ideology. The Russian constitution turns out to be not just liberal, but, along with the German one, the most liberal.
5) What is the uniqueness of the Constitution of the Russian Federation?
Most constitutions of the Stiran of the World state that natural resources are the property of the state, or of the whole people. Fewer constitutions sidestep the issue of ownership of natural resources. But only the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 is the only one in the world that declares the admissibility of private ownership of natural resources.
Based on materials
There you will not only understand all these political ideologies, but also improve geography and history.
Well, if you are too lazy or not able to play, then read on.
But stop, don't just read, you can also look at the picture I just drew, which shows how in my understanding the main ideologies are located.
Infographic - main political ideologies
Left and right are, as it were, directions and groups of ideologies. For example, nationalism is an ultra-right ideologue (to the right of all the others). Means that it is closest to the right edge. But in fact, there is even further - fascism, Nazism and racism.
The one on the left is communism.
Liberalism, for example, although a leftist ideology, is the softest of the left. Equality - yes, freedom - yes, capitalism - sort of yes, but the state can interfere.
Conservatism is also a rather soft right-wing ideology. There is somewhere a balance point between liberalism and conservatism, and many countries ideologically revolve somewhere around it.
Now I will sketch the countries in the picture, how they in my opinion located right here in terms of ideology. This is how it seems to me personally:
Here, mind you, there is no question at all about the regime, form of government or wealth in the country.
That is, a regime can be both totalitarian, and democratic, and authoritarian, this does not apply to ideology, in my understanding, directly.
Ideology is, first of all, a position on equality and on the distribution of benefits.
At the same time, it is a rather difficult moment. For example, communism (socialism) assumes universal equality. Well, here you go, sign it, there is universal equality in North Korea. Everyone is equal - no one has anything.
At the same time, socialism does not imply a 100% planned administrative economic system, and socialism can be well combined with capitalism, which China shows us. France, Germany and Sweden now, in my opinion, are already more socialist countries. High taxes, and good perks for those who need them. Here, again, mind you, it is not necessary that the socialist country will be poor.
Whether a country will be poor or rich depends on many factors, but almost all European socialist countries (ok, with elements of socialism) have quite a capitalist economy.
Or take Belarus. It also seems like there is some type of socialism, sort of. But freedom still remains (many bloggers on YouTube from there), and in general, it seems like there is not a totalitarian regime, but an authoritarian one. At the same time, the spirit of the scoop is just sitting there.
But the country is poor at the same time. Because it is necessary to take into account not only ideology, but also form of government. Ideology and form of government are two different things. And the economic system in general needs to be disassembled separately from all this. As well as, by the way, the legislative system, etc.
Briefly, the main political ideologies are:
- Nationalism - the nation as the highest value. A nation is a people, people and ethnicity.
- Nazism is a form of fascism. Was in the Third Reich (National Socialism). In fact, one step to the right of nationalism. More emphasis on the racial element, the nation is already accurately understood as an ethnicity / race.
- Fascism is a generalized name for extreme right-wing ideologies. That's just Nazism, racism, etc.
- Conservatism - traditional values. The oldest understanding of the term is that conservatives are people who are against change. Value is order.
- Liberalism - I would like to say that these are those who are for change, but this is not so. Liberalism from the word "liberty" - freedom. The primary value is human rights and freedoms.
- Socialism is freedom, equality and justice, in a very general sense.
- Communism is the same as socialism, only in the absolute. Utopia.
- Anarchism - freedom is primary. Against any violence and coercion. Against any government as an institution in principle. The state is not recognized. Also a utopia.
- Libertarianism is a ban on violence. Close to anarchism, but not 100%. This is generally a complicated thing, you can read my article - Libertarianism. Utopia.
And where did I throw Russia in my picture? Why between nationalism and conservatism?
It seems strange ... But it doesn’t seem strange to me, it seems to me that there is a place for us, just next to the United Arab Emirates. I want, I want to joke here, rearrange the letters, but I won’t.
It does not seem to me that the political ideology in Russia is similar to any other.
It was thought to throw Russia in the same place as Belarus, to the left. But honestly... Well, not left-wing Russia, in fact, not left-wing for a long time. Although we have a bunch of all kinds of communists, parades, victory holidays and all that, in fact, judging by the real power (who really controls the country) and judging by ordinary people, in my opinion Russia is much closer to right-wing ideologies. Still not nationalism, but somewhere there.
Although Russia could be put even somewhere in the middle of the conservatives, and even a little closer to the liberals. Hell, I really can’t define the ideology for the Russian Federation, it’s difficult somehow everything.
Left or right ideology, as we have already found out, is determined by how wealth is distributed in the country. In Russia there are many people living below the poverty line, and many very rich people.
But there is also a big gap between the rich and the poor in the US. Why then do I not throw the US to the right? Well, by the way, that's where to throw the United States, I thought for a long time.
If Hillary had won, I would have left them exactly where they are now, but with Trump's victory, the US is shifting a little to the right. With Obama, the US was 100% moving towards socialism.
I call the United States close to the socialists because all the democratic propaganda and rhetoric of the left is just like that. And the left in the US has taken over most of the media and they rule Hollywood for the most part. At the same time, in terms of the economy, the Republicans do not let them relax and stand for basic pure capitalism.
By the way, since we are talking about the United States. Republicans are right. Democrats are on the left.
Although now everything is already mixed up and confused, but in general it is so.
Scattering countries according to ideology, this is how I did it, of course, not scientifically and not objectively. But for the sake of interest, it can be interesting to do this.
So, where is Russia, if on a scale of ideologies?
Who are we? Conservatives? Liberals? Or who?
What is the ideology in modern Russia? United Russia is the party of what ideology?
Yes, I'll tell you the hell. I will say this - none. In fact, there is no ideology in Russia, but I attribute it to the right, since all the same, judging by the rhetoric of the state media in the Russian Federation, well, after all, this is some kind of right-wing rhetoric.
Although it should be noted that the problem of racism and Nazism in Russia is absolutely and completely hushed up, right here by 100%. The authorities deal very cruelly with the Nazis and fascists for many reasons. And the second world war makes itself felt, and it also seems to me that in fact only the Nazis and fascists can seize power in Russia, only they.
Also, do not confuse, again, the same ideology and form of government. According to the form of government, Russia, formally, is presidential-parliamentary republic, but in fact, due to the dominance of one party in the parliament (Duma), this does not work.
The Russian Federation is now authoritarian, but not so completely authoritarian. And it is still far from totalitarianism, although we have been walking there for years since 2010-2013 and even earlier. Unwinding and tightening the screws - this is just this staggering to and from totalitarianism, but this does not apply to political ideology.
All conditional leftists in the Russian Federation (socialists, liberals, etc.) are under control. Yes, and far from communism, all the same, the people have already seen enough of it. Although, in general, pensions grew in 2000-2010, and Russia in this regard is also not so far from socialism. It's just that Russia as a whole is not rich (GDP per capita) and wealth is distributed very unevenly.
You can understand that the Russian Federation is a right-wing country, according to the laws against gays, etc.
As a standard for a country with a right-wing ideology - Nazi Germany. There they fought with Jehovah's Witnesses, with Gays, burned books, and also did some other things that are somewhat similar to something. I can’t write much here, otherwise they will put me in a corner. Do it yourself.
On the other hand, in the USSR there were Gulags, executions, censorship, and the list went on. As a result, extreme ideologies (far-right - fascists / Nazis and ultra-lefts - communists). Both of them are very dangerous guys, they brought a lot of troubles to mankind.
But the point here is not only in ideology, and therefore eternal confusion arises.
For example China, by the way, read my article about China:
In China, it seems like socialism, almost communism. But Sweden also has socialism, only the Swedes are a million times freer and richer than the Chinese. However, at the same time in China, in terms of the economy, there is generally pure capitalism, even freer than in the United States.
This is how such mixes are obtained - when it seems like an authoritarian regime, sort of like socialism, but at the same time in terms of entrepreneurship - absolute freedom and complete capitalism. At least for foreigners.
Cuba is now trying to do something similar, but the mentality there is different.
So you see what a confusion, I didn’t manage to explain anything in the end ...
The only thing I will say is that anarchism and libertarianism are outside the system, these are already more philosophical currents, rather than political ideologies.
Well, ok, let's at least deal with something. They will ask you, what is your favorite ideology? What ideology do you follow? What to say and how to understand?
Look at the first picture again and keep in mind that:
- Right - social inequality, capitalism
- Left - social equality, socialism / communism
And now the philosophical question - Do you think that all people are equal or not?
Ask yourself. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal? Are they equal before the law?
a strange thing and is not included in the classic list of political ideologies. It can be left, right, whatever. Although, of course, patriotism is still more right-wing, this thing is not so different from nationalism. Patriotism is almost like nationalism, only we cross out the moment of race and do not touch it at all. In principle, there are plenty of patriots in the USA, and in many places.I'm not sure if this can be done as an ideology, but it's definitely an idea.
I want to note that patriotism, by definition, does not in any way imply love or devotion to the state and power. It's not even in the definition of the word.
Patriotism is love for the motherland, one's land, culture, language, etc. In the classical sense, patriotism is not so bad, there is something to love about Russian nature and the Russian language. As well as Russian music, literature, etc.
But, of course, the state wants to be loved by it, the political party, the president and the political system, but patriotism actually has nothing to do with power. You can be a patriot and hate the authorities, just in time because you are a patriot.
I'm not talking about myself, but in general.
Well, in Russia there is no ideology, as it seems to me. By the way, this is the problem. The Russians have already swallowed these ideologies so much over the centuries that they are very tired of them. And this is not so bad, ideology is something like faith and religion, dogma. Not very stimulating to think and does not develop the flexibility of thinking. And the country can well live without a state ideology, as Australia, Switzerland and a bunch of other countries live for themselves.
Although there is some kind of ideology and general ideas there.
In the end, the question is, what ideology is close to me, who are our econ dude? Really, the older I am, the more I agree with Churchill (in fact, he did not say this):
Who in his youth was not a radical (liberal) - he has no heart, who in his maturity did not become a conservative - he has no mind.
So now I'm hanging out between conservatives and liberals. I am definitely for freedom of enterprise, the rule of law, for private property as the highest value, for freedom of speech, I support the separation and replacement of powers. But at some points I’m generally strange and certainly a liberal, especially in the modern Russian sense, I can’t call myself by any means.
But in general, I like Libertarianism more and more, I want to read some serious book on this ideology as soon as I have time.
If you like my pi sanina, share a link to it on social networks or somewhere else, put pluses from Google, VK and thumbs up a little lower, well, look at it, there I collect my kind of good articles on various topics.
Thanks for reading, I hope it was interesting.
They say that there is no ideology in the Russian Federation, it is constitutionally prohibited, as the American advisers who advised the liberal thugs who seized power in 1991-93 conceived. and successfully held by her for the 28th year in a row, by any means and at any cost.
Is this thesis fair, if you look in depth, not believing the declarative statements of the usurpers and their propagandists about the absence of a state ideology in the country?
This question arises again and again, almost all serious authors turn to it, seeking to comprehend the modern Russian reality and predict the direction of development in which the post-Soviet government is leading the country, from Yeltsin to Putin and the forces behind them.
Here is an attempt to answer it by another caring author, who is trying to briefly analyze all the events of these three decades and the most recent time ...
The ideology of reforms is "Down with socialism!"
What state are we building in Russia? Is another political experiment being carried out on Russia, as was the case during the construction of communism in the USSR, invented in Europe? This issue is more and more on the agenda. Because with all the revolutionary changes in Russia, the entire domestic prehistory with its practice and sacrifices made in the name of former ideals and goals has always been denied, and new ideas require new sacrifices. In the name of what and for whom are new sacrifices being prepared?
Let's look at the Constitution and turn to the statements of President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on this issue. We will get the answer: we are building a democratic legal state with a social orientation and a digital market economy. But without ideology. Although the ideal of all aspirations is called an open civil society. According to the ideology of Soros, or what? Russia does not belong to itself in advance?
There are already the first results of thirty years of state building, which the authorities talk about only in a positive way, except for corruption, of course. The next directions of stage-by-stage reforms for the near and medium term are indicated.
The Soviet Gosplan, cursed by all democrats, was replaced by the Ministry of Economic Development. The ministry targets (an IMF term copied by the Central Bank) budgetary flows for the development of regions and targeted state programs, keeps a strict record of the taxable property of citizens and transactions with state property. Not without personal gain, as evidenced by the criminal case of the former minister Ulyukaev.
The president directs the activities of the government and local authorities with the help of his decrees and instructions, which was previously done by the Central Committee of the CPSU. Sometimes he switches to "manual control", that is, he himself does what, according to the law, ministers, heads of regions and other officials were supposed to do in accordance with his decrees and state programs. The high popular confidence in the president reflects the hope for the best in the future state. But the president is not elected forever. The replacement is on the rise.
Post-Soviet syndrome and the rule of law
For almost thirty years of grandiose changes in the Russian state, the Soviet perception of the world among the people has not faded. This is felt in the questions that are periodically asked to the president on direct lines on TV. People hope for a solution to their problems and for help from the state and its head personally, as was the case in Soviet times. And the president, using his power, acts as the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU would act, publicly responding to the voice of the people. This is one of the sides of the post-Soviet syndrome, which the ruling elite, grimacing, calls the prejudices of paternalism, and liberal pop music - a scoop.
The other side of the syndrome is the complete denial of Soviet practice as something vicious and unworthy according to the illusory world standards of civilized democracy. Here the political situation is manifested, the eternal imitation and servility to Europe and America, the game of catching up with their civilization. The denial of Soviet history is twofold. This is both frankly direct aggressive anti-Sovietism directed against Russia, and a hypocritical desire to show themselves to be no less democrats than the Americans and Europeans. Although every mature democracy has its own set of standards, including in the field of civil rights and their legal protection. Of course, theoretically, within state borders and taking into account international obligations, which in fact the main curator of changes in the post-Soviet space, the United States demonstratively ignores.
In Russia, there is an indisputable opinion at the level of the conceptual principle that the rule of law guarantees the observance of civil rights and freedoms. But the state, by definition, cannot be non-legal, because it exists solely on the basis of sovereign law, otherwise it is not a state. Dictatorship is a variant of the rule of law: such a right. There is even a common reformist slang "dictatorship of law" or "dictatorship of law". Almost an ideology!
Since the rights of citizens are unthinkable without civic duties and obligations, civil relations are governed by state law, that is, the norms of laws directed against arbitrariness or absolute freedom, including personal. Moreover, moral and ethical norms have no legal force if they are not defined by laws. The rights of citizens are determined by legal acts and laws. And the execution of laws in any state is always ensured by coercion, violence in case of their violation. This is not against democracy.
Nevertheless, the population believes in the promised justice of the rule of law with its civil liberties more than they believed in communism under Soviet rule. The meaning of two different concepts of law is associatively combined: law, as a system of laws, and law, as personal freedom or will. That is, in the Russian mind "freedom, equality and fraternity" from communism are introduced into the concept of a bourgeois legal state, although these concepts contradict the essence of bourgeois law in practice. So what is the meaning of the rule of law?
Undeclared ideology
There are no states without ideology. Ideology, as part of the political superstructure, serves the economic basis of the state or nation. In short, the ideology and the system of distribution of material goods received from the national wealth are closely linked and one determines the other. Formally, the ideology is canceled by Art. 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but by default it exists, because in politics ideology cannot but exist de facto.
In the USSR, the communist ideology was officially not only party, but also nationwide. The ideological department of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the structures of party committees subordinate to it, the Higher Party School and the entire system of party education, the Institute of Scientific Marxism-Leninism, as well as state scientific institutes and departments of social sciences of educational institutions were engaged in it. Social science, the legal system were subordinated to ideology.
But communism has been abolished. And what came to replace it in the materialistic and ideological terms? How did science behave?
Against the people's will and reason, the USSR was destroyed by partocrats in civil strife for the redistribution of power and property, bringing down the economic, technological and cultural ties of the union republics, which became market competitors. All the former Soviet republics have a dream of a goldfish, but with nothing. The reason for the Ukrainian catastrophe is the same.
First of all, the socialist system of distribution of the national income was completely destroyed. The ideology and purpose of the changes were not the notorious general civil rights and freedoms, but the formation of a class of large owners who would not allow a return to socialism, as Anatoly Chubais told the world. The calculation was simple: if the basic sectors of the economy, and especially finance, were in private hands, then the state, with all the attributes of power, including the army, police, and judiciary, would be obliged to serve and protect predominantly private interests. Because the economy of the state becomes half private, and the other half is owned by the bureaucracy, as private.
Persons close to the new government from among the Soviet officials, dodgy shadow workers and party workers, who received the basic sectoral state-owned enterprises in private ownership under the hastily adopted laws on privatization, became large owners. Laws were issued in accordance with the new, anti-communist and anti-Soviet ideology. Instead of the revolutionary slogan from the past "Land to the peasants, factories to the workers!" The cry “Get rich!” was thrown to the country, which is more characteristic of marauders from the crowd than reformers. Criminal gangs actively participated in the privatization.
The criminalization of the economy and public administration or corruption did not bother the power of the reformers. "The descendants of criminals and slaves created an exemplary democracy in America, the market will regulate everything itself," Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar confidently reassured public opinion about the prospects for reforms, nodding at the United States. For some time, reforms under the influence of American consultants were left to chance, and the population saw many terrible grimaces of capitalism on their own example, and not from the lectures of agitators-propagandists.
The social sciences did not keep pace with the thoughts of the new elite, the old partocracy, which changed the ideological paradigm. The scientific world, like the whole society, split. The most intelligent specialists in the social sciences quickly "changed their shoes," as the people say, and became in the forefront of the intelligentsia, always advanced in all matters. They were assigned the national title of head of the laboratories of perestroika.
Since they did not accumulate their scientific experience of a market economy in Soviet times, the heads of the labs cheated on the ideas of reforming the Russian economy from their Western colleagues. They continue to do so today. These ideas became the scientific justification for the reforms of the Russian economy, in which, as it were, there is no political ideology. We constantly hear this scientific argumentation of reforms from the lips of the prime minister and ministers, and the president also uses it. The terms from the IMF cheat sheets are not even translated into Russian and they become fashionable slang.
However, these same ideas were introduced in the same way in other former Soviet republics. In some of them, de-Sovietization and decommunization even became the official political ideology, which degenerated into Russophobia. In Russia, they avoid naming the same processes by their proper names - changes should reassure and please, and not sow doubts and upset, political strategists say.
For 30 years, the leaders of the perestroika labs have prepared a new generation of theorists and specialists in the social sciences, free from "Soviet prejudices" because of their age.
A system of new scientific and educational institutions has been created, and the old faculties for the training of social scientists and political scientists, economists and sociologists, managers and lawyers have been reformed. Under the guise of optimizing costs and improving the efficiency of training, the system of general and special, vocational education has been changed.
Now scientific centers offer instead of Marxism-Leninism a monetarist approach to assessing the efficiency of the economy and a transition to a social order in the paradigm (a buzzword in science instead of the concept of ideology) of social Darwinism. That is, citizens survive as best they can, each according to his abilities and at his own expense. In the struggle for survival, a weak loner perishes, be it an individual, a state, or any other human community. Social Darwinism is inevitably accompanied by an exacerbation of social antagonism. This rule affected cities, villages, regions, states.
The state is already getting rid of spending on social and public needs if they do not generate income, and is minimizing its participation in the economy. Losses from natural disasters will have to be compensated by insurance. The current law deprives the state of the right to interfere in the economy of private enterprises. As the "open society" develops, it must die out. The borders will disappear and humanity as a result of globalization will turn into a "human colony", in the figurative apt expression of the Russian philosopher Alexander Zinoviev.
A kind of cult of effective managers or effemen has been created - managers in Russian, whose effectiveness is measured by the profit they bring to their owner, or by the benefits for the boss's career. The same criteria are used to evaluate the effectiveness of ordinary employees. Effemen have long been the ministers and officials of the state-corporation called the Russian Federation, which they diligently adapt to the world market, robbing the domestic market in favor of the external one (offshorization of capital, for example).
Politics serves the economy. Therefore, when discussing the nature of economic reforms, we inevitably speak of the political ideology that shapes the nature of these reforms.
Moreover, the IMF recommendations of recent years explicitly state what and how should be reformed in the Russian Federation in order to "facilitate the integration of the country (Russia) into global value chains." We are talking about cheapening labor resources by reducing social costs, or about the extent of exploitation of hired labor according to Marx. With the benefit of the hosts of the IMF.
Following the recommendations of the IMF, pension reform and healthcare reform are being carried out with the transition to sectoral self-sufficiency. Previously, the education system was reformed, turning the teacher, like the doctor, into an effemen, providing only an educational service according to the minimum standard - the school is now not engaged in the education of students by law.
Monetarism penetrates into all spheres of social life. Even in church parishes, according to deans and rectors of churches, more attention is paid to the profitable activities of the clergy than to spiritual service. Figuratively speaking, merchants return to the Temple after being driven out by Jesus Christ.
Thus, the communist idea at the level of conceptual consciousness has become obsolete. Frames are everything! Moreover, these are cadres who are deeply convinced at the level of teenage maximalism in the infallibility of the new ideology.
Frame portrait based on media materials
Russia is being pushed into Europe. Europeanism is an integral sign of civilization and a condition for career growth. Do we need Europe? Is the degradation of the so-called European values a civilizational progress? Whom or what are we catching up with, or are we "not catching up" with something? What is the use of Europe for us?
A certain propagandist writer believes that Russia is "behind" Europe by 150 years. Probably oyster consumption and same-sex marriage. At the same time, she condescendingly admits that "both in Russia and in Ukraine there are highly developed, civilized people who know languages, who are Europeans in their consciousness." They live next to people whose behavior is driven by "the most elementary and archaic motives." How! Straight expert civilized perfection, not a writer. Who are these archaic backward people? Are not miners and metallurgists with grain growers?
Let us cite as a typical personnel example, deserving the praise of the writer, the image of one of the leading scientists of the Russian Federation in the field of macroeconomics and finance. One of the analysts called him a prophet of the future world order. This is the director of the Research Financial Institute (NIFI) of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Economic Sciences Vladimir Nazarov, member of the Collegium of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, member of the Expert Council under the Government of the Russian Federation. He is also a member of the Committee for Civil Initiatives of Alexei Kudrin. He is 35 years old. Under the leadership of Vladimir Nazarov, NIFI is developing a strategy for the Ministry of Finance. And this is the same ideology of reforms that we are talking about.
A graduate of the Financial Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation with a degree in State and Municipal Administration, Mr. Nazarov has an enviable education. He studied public administration at the University of Western Ontario (Canada), after which he did an internship at the Canadian Ministry of Finance. Received a thorough training at the English Language Institute (Great Britain). As a student, he trained at the Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, worked there for several years as a researcher at the Laboratory of Problems of Fiscal Federalism and Subnational Finance, Deputy Head of the International Healthcare and Healthcare Reform Laboratory, and Head of the Laboratory of Budgetary Federalism. At present, he continues to remain there as a leading researcher and head of the laboratory of the scientific direction "Macroeconomics and Finance" in combination. Also, concurrently, he manages to be the Deputy Director for Science of the Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting of the RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation.
Vladimir Nazarov is included in the "first hundred" of the reserve of managerial personnel under the patronage of the President of the Russian Federation. Has awards.
In March 2016, in one of his keynote speeches, Nazarov outlined the model of the society of the future he had developed. According to Nazarov, institutions such as the family, the church, the pension system, which guaranteed the survival of a person, will now lose their relevance or change radically, if not disappear altogether. State borders will lose their meaning. There will be increased competition for capital and a creative class capable of increasing profits. Education will be paid, not patronized by the state. Instead of a distributive pension system, there will be a system of accumulating funds for old age and disability insurance at one's own expense. Ideally, Nazarov believes, it should be so that "the state does not guarantee workers any rights."
At the same time, in an interview with Novaya Gazeta, Nazarov, outlining the same theses, concludes that "capitalism and competition are the only engines of progress", "the welfare state is an unconditional brake on development in the post-industrial world." But what about "social orientation"?
Regarding the pension reform, Nazarov spoke not only against the pay-as-you-go pension system, but also against social pensions in general. In his scientific opinion, firstly, the pension system suppresses incentives to work, and raising pensions encourages idleness. Secondly, the population does not worry about the accumulation of funds to ensure their old age. Fourth, "elections are inevitably won by those who propose new increases in pensions through increased taxes and borrowing," which makes elections undemocratic. Fifth, the retirement age limits the use of a person's potential as a labor unit in the labor market. Parasitism - fight!
The feeling from reading is such that we are offered not to interfere in the process of swallowing rabbits by a boa constrictor, and rabbits are advised not to resist. What result is expected from such a science? And is it science or propaganda of a new world order commissioned by the financial oligarchy?
Digitized "human"
The concept of the digital economy is very vague. It has not yet been officially formulated. But we are not talking about statistics and planned indicators, but about digital management technologies, about the development of computer networks in relation to state management of the economy. The state itself will be different. Politics will be handled by political technologists and programmers. We are already witnessing the degeneration and destruction of the political system built on a party basis. And not only in Russia, but also, first of all, in the so-called civilized countries.
For Russia, the idea of automating control systems is not new. In the 1960s-1970s. in the USSR, a grandiose project was being developed at the state level to create a National Automated Control System for the Soviet Economy (OGAS). There was a need for the use of electronic computers in public administration and automated control systems (ACS) developed on its basis, which by that time had been successfully used in the army. The experience of the military was transferred to the planned economy.
But now another task is being set - the digital management of the market economy, that is, speculative financial flows. Such systems have already been created and are operating in the world. Russia should fit into them as one of the subsystems. At the same time, the main customers are banks and financial cartels such as the IMF and its main founder, the US Federal Reserve. Russia finds itself in the position of catching up.
The Russian digital economy project involves the unification of all databases of population accounting and the movement of money on personal and corporate bank accounts, as well as the biometric electronic passportization of each citizen from birth to death. Such work is already being carried out in practice. In fact, a detailed electronic dossier will be automatically maintained for each resident of the Russian Federation, in which data will be entered not only of a biometric nature, but also about his financial situation, labor and political activity, character traits and state of health. It will be an invisible special service worse than the tsarist gendarmerie or the OGPU-NKVD-KGB, which were criticized to the ground by anti-Soviet liberals during the years of perestroika.
If we combine the idea of a digital economy in an open society according to Soros and the ideology of social Darwinism according to Nazarov, then the end result will be a digitized "human life" under the control of the world financial empire. The manipulation of the consciousness of an individual and society, the right to life of an individual who does not bring income to the empire, will become a common digital process according to predetermined algorithms that will replace law.
Of course, we cannot but believe in the patriotism of the enthusiastic innovators of the digital economy in our government and assume that the rapid digitization of Russia in the coming years will be a pre-emptive measure to isolate its subsystem and protect it from the very dangerous informational sabotage of the West.
Money rules the world. The Russian ruble is out of this process for the time being.
On the power of money in the rule of law
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild banking clan, is credited with the following words: "Give me the opportunity to manage the money of the country, and I do not care who will establish laws there." The second creed of the Rothschilds is "Who owns the information, he owns the world." The third is served by the age-old principle "Divide and Conquer". In our time, these three principles are the strategy of the so-called world government or financial empire of the dollar, which came in the early twentieth century to replace the British world empire of the pound sterling, created by the British branch of the Rothschild bankers.
The Russian society is perplexed by the obedient compliance of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance to the IMF and the support of the dollar by buying US securities, placing foreign currency reserve funds on the accounts of American banks. It somehow turns out illogical - we keep money in the pockets of our main competitor.
However, there is logic and it lies in the fact that the main currency in the Russian economy since the 90s. the dollar is the world currency, and the weakened ruble has an intermediate, secondary function only in internal settlements in the consumer market. The budget and expenditures for its articles in public information are also presented in rubles, as if demonstrating the economic independence of the country. For clarity, publications also use the dollar equivalent. This situation is not exclusive to Russia. The dollar reigns even in the countries of the European Union, despite the replacement of national currencies with a more secure common currency, the euro, which competes with the dollar.
It all started back in the USSR in 1990 with the monetary reform of Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov. Its deplorable results for wallets and deposits of the population are still remembered. It was he who reformed the State Bank in advance into an independent Central Bank, not liable for the obligations of the state, in order to ensure the free conversion of the ruble for imports and exports. The CMEA gold and currency transferable ruble no longer existed. This is how we entered the world market. Then the real ruble immediately fell six times against the dollar and continued to fall in price.
After the collapse of the USSR, by Yeltsin's decree, the dollar was allowed into free circulation on the territory of the Russian Federation along with the ruble. The dollar immediately jumped 90 times. The power caught on. A new decree followed, banning the free circulation of the dollar in Russia, but prices in "c.u." ("conventional units") on the shelves and in the calculations remained for a long time, and continued to remain in the minds even after it was banned. Then came the default in 1998.
Scientists economists argue that the weakening of the dollar will lead to a massive global financial crisis on the verge of collapse. And the Russian economy will be the first to suffer from this. Because a huge capital of private Russian companies and their owners has been accumulated abroad in dollars. Raw materials and energy resources, which form the basis of budget revenues, are traded by Russian companies exclusively in dollars. So you have to maneuver between two evils, so as not to make yourself worse on a national and global scale. Well, the common people will endure under the explanatory speeches of full-time expert economists. There will be no return to socialism, they are convinced.
By the end of the 90s. both the government, the oligarchs, and the rest of the population realized that the Gorbachev-Yeltsin reforms, under the influence of Western democracy and American consultants, led the economy into such political jungle, from which there was no way out without a destructive social explosion. Society and the army were split, and separatist sentiments intensified.
Under mysterious circumstances, 20 years ago, on July 6, 1998, the leader of the military opposition, Lieutenant-General Lev Yakovlevich Rokhlin, died in his dacha. The military opposition was unable to carry out the plan it had prepared to change power and save the country from further collapse. This is now spoken and written openly. And in December 1999, power changed quietly and without tension, as they say, "with the president's resignation on TV." The country breathed a sigh of relief.
Over the past 17 years, much has been done to strengthen the state and the economy, but still capitalist. However, it has not yet been possible to get out of the dollar bondage and is unlikely to succeed with the current ideology. This is the price that Russia pays for leaving socialism for the coveted, as it were, free world market with its real, and not bookish, competition. Maybe the Chinese experience will help find the right solution to the problem?
based on materials 
---
In conclusion, I would like to ask just one question, agreeing right away that the Russian Federation, its elites, at least have a very good ideology.
It is expressed by a simple motto: “Get rich!”, from which the following consequences inevitably follow: “get rich at any cost”, “man is a wolf to man”, “forget about the chimera of conscience”, “you die today, and I tomorrow”, “he is right who stronger", and so on, quite fascist-sounding...
The question is - what is it, how to designate it in one word?
WHAT IS THE IDEOLOGY OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION?
Liberal fascism, in fact, is a pan-European and even global trend, but Russia has been chosen by the world elites, it seems, as a testing ground for its testing in the field, with the complete non-resistance of conditionally local elites. Ida. This misanthropic ideology is immanently alien to the Russian people, it is unnatural for them, contradicts all their historical experience, the memory of generations, and therefore, a significant part of them failed to instill it.
It did not succeed, despite the propaganda of social Darwinism and liberal fascism from all irons during the 28 years of the reign of the liberal compradors, in recent years and months especially, they finally dropped the mask and revealed their fascist and Nazi essence.
Social Darwinism, liberal fascism, or social Nazism, choose the term to taste, the essence is the same - bestial and cannibalistic, smelling like a concentration camp, blazing with torchlight processions, flashing with swastikas, clanging prison bolts.
No, you just won’t see all this classic set, so - instead of the Nazi concentration camp, you will be placed in a digital death camp, and the essentially fascist genocide will be in the guise of soft social genocide, however, with the same result - you just need to be able to see the true essence of events .
The gloomy and disgusting muzzle has ceased to be hidden behind beautiful words about getting up from your knees, addressed to those who were put on their knees by the liberal fascists 28 years ago, and now we are forcing them to crawl on their belly under clumsy propaganda, which has long left behind Goebbels's in its cynicism and grandiosity of lies.
The only and radical difference between the liberal fascism of the Russian government and Hitler's fascism is that it is directed not against foreign peoples, but against its own, and therefore it is especially disgusting, orders of magnitude more than even a terrible primary source - but the government is Russophobic and cosmopolitan, therefore it is natural for it .
The Russian modernized Mussolini and Hitlers, who are firmly seated in the power of the Russian Federation, consistently genocide and holocaust the Russian people, first of all, but also all the indigenous peoples of Russia, for the sake of their own prosperity and in the interests of the historical geopolitical opponents of the Russian state.
This sad and bitter, but more and more obvious fact must finally be realized by the majority of Russian citizens, and only then will the population of the territory of the Russian Federation, not the state that has long been privatized by the compradors, but precisely the country of Russia, have a chance to actively change the fate - according to fascism will not retreat.
For those who doubt precisely the fascist essence of the liberal regime that has been operating in the Russian Federation since 1991, three materials from the set, in a concentrated form, presenting the topic -
1.
1. De-ideologization in the Soviet way
Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation states: “Ideological diversity is recognized in the Russian Federation... No ideology can be established as a state or obligatory one.” It also recognizes the right to political diversity, multi-party system, equality of public associations. We admit that the political realities of the early 1990s put forward the demand for political demonopolization. But was there a need for an absolute de-ideologization of the state and society?
The Russian reforms of the 1990s tried to solve both the political tasks of changing the social system in the country and the tasks of the "new world order" dictated by the challenges of post-industrial civilization. However, the ideological justification for the “improvement” of socialism during the perestroika period, which ended in failure, was not replaced by the justification for “jumping over capitalism” into the modern information society. The state withdrew itself from the function of ideological support for the ongoing reforms, limiting itself to promises of a "heavenly life" in the community of European states. At the same time, in the conditions of massive criticism of the Soviet past, the idea of a return to the values and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russia was sung. The sphere of culture was at the mercy of the market, as well as education and the media. As a result, the society was seized by a state of spiritual collapse, and in the public consciousness a lot of distorted pictures and images arose that were absolutely unsuitable for the formation of goal-setting mindsets for the citizens of the new single, independent, independent state.
All existing civilizations, states and political regimes proves that there were no stable, developing communities without clearly defined goals, determining their place in the ecumene, value system, moral criteria as guarantors of the preservation of their “We-civilization”. They were fixed in religious beliefs, state acts, public consciousness, in the goals of upbringing and education. Thanks to this, from childhood, a person adequately identified himself in relation to “his own” and the world, was brought up on specific indicative elements of his society, adequately oriented himself in the political, social, confessional space. The society formed "ideal models" of people's behavior, interaction between power and society. The state zealously monitored the level of spiritual well-being of society, supported its citizens with optimistic goals and ideals.
The ideological background contains the commandments and prescriptions of all religious teachings without exception. Components of value ideas and stereotypes of attitudes in the East existed in the form of religious and philosophical teachings (remember "Confucianism"). In Europe, they were summarized in 1801 by Antoine Destut de Tracy in the doctrine of "ideologies" with answers to the question: "How and why does a certain set of ideas have a formative effect on society"?
It is well known that the Soviet ideology, as a systemic ideology, was based on a holistic “Marxist-Leninist doctrine” about building a new classless society of social justice. Of course, it is impossible not to agree that the realities of the administrative-state system were very far from the abstract attitudes of the state. But it is impossible not to agree that the Marxist ideology as a "certain set of ideas" was the most powerful cementing, goal-setting, motivating factor at all stages of Soviet history without exception.
Almost with the beginning of deep perestroika processes in our society, discussions began about the need for a certain national idea, as the most important condition for bringing Russia out of the crisis. However, with the failure of perestroika, and then the entire socio-political system, the collapse of the USSR, the spontaneously emerging Russian state did not find anything better than to proclaim a policy of complete de-ideologization. The power, which was completely controlled from the outside, which was busy with the goals of destroying the old, objectively did not set the goal of recreating a powerful and independent country. And until now, most of the points of view on the issue of the new ideology of Russia still chaotically reflect narrowly targeted political, corporate, ethnic, religious orders and interests. The second feature of these views is their unsystematic nature, the complete absence of the interconnection of processes. Thirdly, the general patterns of the country's development in the interrelationship of the entire history of Russia over the course of a millennium are ignored. Target ideas taken out of context are also taken as initial settings, reflecting mainly tactical transitional tasks but not strategic unifying goals for the entire Russian society as a whole and for an individual individual.
It can be quite confidently stated that modern Russia has not only revived its economic, military-political and socio-cultural potential, but aims to become one of the leading centers of power and influence in the multipolar world. As a result, the state, society and its citizens are faced with the acute question of a new ideology as a system of values, ideals, tasks that unite the "clamp", attitudes for the future. The questions to be answered are: Who are we? What is the new Russia? Where are we now? What are our national interests in a multipolar world?
2. Ideology of the future: a new understanding
In our opinion, the main factors and conditions for the formation of a new ideology for Russia are:
Refusal of the prevalence of the goals of political orientation and dependence in the concept and content. Defining ideology as a system of values, declared state attitudes that affect mentality, moral comfort, interpersonal relationships, spiritual health, positive attitudes in society;
Adoption of a system of value-targeted attitudes aimed at integrating society on the principle of "for" and not "against" regardless of political, confessional, ethno-cultural, stratal-class, gender differences and views on the prosperity of Russia;
The return of the invaluable historical experience of ensuring the relationship and development of the cultural identity of the indigenous Russian ethnic groups in the unity of the all-Russian culture;
Careful study and consideration of the traditional interests and global claims of the Russian civilization in a consistent chronological hierarchy in order to ensure national security and the country's leadership in the world (designing an ideology in dynamics);
Ensuring the continuity of the historical and cultural development of the state, ethnic and national self-identification of citizens in the preservation and development of the phenomenon of multi-ethnic Russia as a unique integral phenomenon in a multipolar world;
Active positioning of the "importance and necessity" of Russia for the world community as a reliable "bridge" between the West and the East.
National ideology in a new sense should become the basis of the National Doctrine of the country's development for the long term, which is being developed now. But first it is necessary to finally decide on the understanding of the place and role of Russia in the world community.
3. The essence of Russian civilization
The centuries-old dispute about the historical fate of Russia, about its place in the world community is far from being an idle question. This is a question about identity, about the chronological framework of the existence of Russian civilization, about understanding the cause-and-effect relationships in its history. The determination of long-term priorities in further development, the development of a national security strategy and foreign policy issues depend on its decision. Unfortunately, many political decisions in the last decade have been made without due regard for the specific features of Russia and its role in world history. In assessing the ongoing changes and events, an important role is played by the methodological basis for adequate analytical studies. And here we see the most significant shortcoming in ignoring the civilizational approach.
The typology of the modern concept of civilizations, along with the recognition of a series of local civilizations as system units, identifies vectors (types) of civilizational development in the history of mankind. This is the vector of development of traditional Eastern civilizations of a cyclic type and the vector of linear dynamic development of Western civilization. We do not set here the task of presenting detailed characteristics of both specific civilizations and vectors of civilizational development. Note that the origins of modern European civilization go back to the period of the "axial time" of Ancient Hellas. Further, having passed through the history of Ancient Rome, this type of civilizational development finally took shape in the countries of Western Europe of modern times. The leadership of Eurocentrism as a "leading", "progressive" type was largely ensured by the dictates of industrial civilization (capitalism "according to Marx") for three centuries. However, even A. Toynbee criticized the thesis of the unification of the world on the basis of the Western system of sociocultural values. The value characteristics of the East originate in the civilizations of Sumer, Ancient Egypt, India and China, and further in the history of the Arab Caliphate.
If everything is clear with the systematization of many and many countries in their correlation to the West or East, then what about those who are at the crossroads of civilizations? So in relation to Russia, there are many points of view, as a civilization of the local, peripheral, eclectic, atypical. However, the specifics of the existence of such territorial and cultural formations in world history is quite natural. History has constantly reproduced stable systemic communities of an integrative nature on the vast territory of interpenetration and interaction between the West and the East. These territories of "imposition" of spheres of influence and interaction of civilizations are called limitrophes. The main condition for the sustainable existence of states and cultures on the limitrophs is the civilizational balance "East - West".
In the past, the Hellenistic countries of Asia Minor, then Byzantium, and from the end of the 15th-16th centuries, were states on intercivilizational limitrophes. - its successor Russia. All attempts at pro-Western modernization set themselves a completely pragmatic role of strengthening the state and its institutions. Seemingly alien and unacceptable to the Russian civilization "other" innovations were partially neutralized, mostly "mastered" by natural and historically justified counter-reforms. Outwardly, the impression was created of constant maneuvering of Russia between the West and the East, but this is not so. Here, rather, a continuous process of regulating contradictions between the processes of constant external modernization and innovative “throw-in” and internal stabilization mechanisms of the eastern type was manifested.
It is time to perceive the Russian civilization as an independent, third type of world civilizations. This civilization, due to its position between the West and the East, developed under continuous systematic socio-cultural influence from the flanks, reflecting, accepting, coordinating and mastering certain values and ideals. Ethnic cultures of the Russian civilization are characterized by the presence of a stable traditionally conservative core. This most important feature is inherent in all Eastern civilizations, as well as the presence of a patrimonial state with pronounced authoritarianism and distributive and regulatory mechanisms. It is also characterized by the presence of a wide and flexible protective space of a transforming culture, open to external innovations, ideas, and especially, people of a different ethnicity. Innovative taxonomic components have long been characterized by pronounced liberalism, which made it necessary to constantly solve the problem of introducing, "digesting" the new. Since society for the most part had a traditional wary attitude towards innovations, the state was constantly forced to “push through” reforms “from above”. Therefore, civilization on the limitrophe will constantly solve the problem of "impulse" development in the struggle between conservative and liberal components ("traditions" and "innovations").
The dynamics of modern post-industrial civilization in the future creates the conditions for the formation of a new liberal patriotic elite. It seems to us that, unlike the former elite, it is capable not so much of external acquisitions, but of internal generation of progressive innovations and the creation of a system of internal balances and checks in relation to the external aggressive pressures of civilizational elites on the flanks of the West and East. But for this it is necessary to resolve the problem of "eternal" rejection by the liberal elite and agree with the "patrimonial" role of the Russian state.
Our vision is precisely that the national idea (ideology) should not be purely political, respond not only to internal political or changing geopolitical challenges, but correspond to the situation on the limitrophe, should become a national ideology Russian Eurasian civilization on the limitrofe between West and East. This is what most accurately reflects the geopolitical role of the country in the resurgent multipolar world.
It is time to recognize that Russia is not only a state, but also an independent subject of the modern civilizational structure of the world. At the center of the Russian model of the world order are: polyethnicity, polyconfessionality, the experience of integrating civilizational poles on a vast ethnocultural limitrophe, mutual agreement and voluntary forms of political organization of ethnic groups, society and sociopolitical elites.
4. National ideology of Russian civilization
The specifics of developing a model of national ideology must inevitably be built on the basis of a civilizational understanding of the modern world order. We deduce the source of the new Russian ideology (national idea) from the definition of the concept “civilization is a community of people united by fundamental spiritual values and ideals, having stable special features in social organization, culture, economy and psychological sense of belonging to this community” (L. Semennikova) .
The central core of the model of Russian civilization in the context is traditional spirituality, common ideals and values, multi-ethnic and poly-confessional Eurasian culture.
The four other components of the model act as conditions for the balance of innovation and tradition (liberalism and conservatism), the balance of sustainability and development. At the same time, they determine the ideology of the political and social structure, the balance of the state and society, building social relations in the relationship: personality-personality, power-personality. Naturally, the system of national ideology of the Russian Federation is in the field of balance of national and universal values and ideals, including the ideals of both the West and the East! It reasonably perceives everything acceptable and new, with subsequent internal "reworking" and integration into the structures of the civilizational core. This also determines the integration essence of Russia as a civilizational bridge between the West and the East.
Let us present our vision of the content of the components of the model (formula) of the national ideology.
Traditional multi-ethnic spirituality and culture- a complex of value systems, spiritual and religious views and beliefs, rituals, mentality and stereotypes of behavior, language, cultural achievements of representatives of all ethnic groups and sub-ethnoses, religious and cultural confessions and social groups of the Russian Federation without exception. The unifying principle is the national Russian history and culture, common Slavic-Turanian ethnic archetypes and traditional mental values. The space of interethnic unity and integration is provided by the Russian language. The core of the model provides stability in the dynamics of constant perception of innovations with their translation into traditions.
sovereignty as a Eurasian statehood. For the Russian multi-component civilization, the call for the weakening of statehood is a criminal attempt on the foundations of its existence. The decline of statehood has always ended in chaos and confusion, the devaluation of human life. The rejection of a strong state led to the tragedy of the individual. A power is not an empire, it is sovereignty, national priorities of greatness and dignity, strength and self-respect. This is a form of mutually agreed interests of the center and regions, the responsibility of the authorities in relation to the individual. The state ensures the rule of law in the traditional unity for Russia with the norms of public morality and personal conscience, in the balance of the dignity of power and the individual. Sovereignty implies the separation of powers with the legal regulation of the functions of its branches. At the same time, the specifics and history of Russia raise the question of traditional conditioning in the country and spiritual power. Without the “hoop” of sovereignty as a formalized structure that institutionally organizes and regulates hundreds and thousands of ethno-cultural elements on the limitrophe, the very existence of the Russian (Eurasian) civilization, its national security, is impossible.
citizenship- as a system of balances in the balance of power and society, power and personality. If sovereignty is a form of responsibility of power, then citizenship is the responsibility of the individual for Russia. Citizenship as a guarantee of curbing the tendency of the degeneration of democracy into despotism, ensuring the dignity of the individual. Citizenship is ensured by the fullness of constitutional rights, election, accountability, responsibility of the individual. The absolutely necessary components are local self-government, traditional for Russia, and a multi-level system of feedback from society and authorities. Powerfulness and citizenship are the two shoulders of the new Russia.
The formation of civil society in the Russian limitrophe is not based on reckless "westernization", but taking into account the historical specifics of the legal culture of the peoples of the Russian Federation on the basis of both the traditional spiritual internal "right of conscience" of the individual and the legal norms of the state in their unity. The time has come for the authorities to realize the peculiarity that in Russia the highest assessment was the moral assessment of the authorities, and the attitude towards the law always depended on the degree of respect or disrespect for the authorities. Maintaining a balance of sovereignty and citizenship in society and genuine democracy is ensured by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
catholicity- as a formalized social unity of citizens ("national unity"), regardless of ethnic, confessional, political, corporate and other interests, based on the recognition of the supremacy of the interests of Russian civilization, its preservation and development. balance of sovereignty and citizenship, ensuring equality of rights and obligations of the individual and government before the law. Sobornost in Russia has traditionally relied on spirituality, election and responsibility, a feedback system of the central government and self-government of the lands (local taxonomic components of civilization). Sobornost reflects the essence of community and collectivism, which is a semantic feature of both the traditional civilizations of the East and Russian civilization. At the same time, collective civil unity presupposes a balance with the individualism of the personality of a patriot of a country, region, region, and one's ethnic culture.
Patriotism- as an internal conscious need for active self-identification in relation to their community, history and culture of their country and its national interests. The upbringing of a Russian patriot begins with the formation of a patriot of one's region, region, "small Motherland". Patriotism is an activity to implement the installation of the implementation of the human factor in order to jointly overcome the civilizational crisis. Patriotism is the mental basis of an individual sense of citizenship, active work for the good of the "small Motherland" and the country as a whole in a stable balance with the catholicity of the whole nation (in the category of fellow citizens) throughout the Eurasian Slavic-Turanian space of Russia.
The development of the theory of modern national ideology in the context of the Eurasian national basis (in the understanding of the general civil one) makes it possible to more clearly present the prospects for the development of the country's economic and foreign policy priorities, the development of statehood, national culture, and education. Our model of the National Ideology of the Russian civilization reflects the centuries-old experience of integrating the two poles, allows us to smooth out the extremes of Western rationalism, individualism, and the erosion of the spiritual values of the family in integration with the spiritual values and ideals of Eastern civilization.
5.P.S. National idea and modern Russia (comments to the text of publications for 2000)
The above material was proposed by us back in 2000 as the author's version of solving the actively discussed problem of the formation of a new national idea of the Russian Federation. Nearly a decade and a half has passed. The country has undergone serious qualitative changes in all areas of life, the most momentous events and changes occurred during the first three months of 2014. And we considered it extremely important to recall our vision of the problem, which is becoming "central" in the conditions of Russia's entry into the position of one of the main poles of the resurgent multipolar world. The most amazing thing is that we did not have to rewrite the draft text. Some amendments and adjustments have been made, but the essence of our proposals has even been updated over the years.
Over the past decade and a half, there has been a serious change in the sociopolitical situation both in the world and in Russia. The turbulent waves of “perestroika” finally subsided, the shock reformist upheavals of B. Yeltsin, E. Gaidar, A. Chubais ended. At the time of the publication of our articles in 2000, a long period of political leadership of the "neo-reformers" V. Putin and D. Medvedev and their teams began. In a number of our forecasts on the dynamics and role of individual political parties and groups, we were absolutely right. First of all, this concerns the "right" as apologists for the Western-oriented vector of Russia's development.
By and large, by the early 2000s. Russian "rightists" have fulfilled their historic mission of leading the destruction of the administrative-state and creating the foundations of a market society. As we then assumed, the "right" parties will objectively come to a stable indicator of "electorality" from 20-25% of the decade of the late 1980s - early 2000s to the level of a stable 5-7% by 2010. That is exactly how much, by and large, now in the country of ideological supporters of complete dissolution "in the bowels" of Europe. It would seem that Russia has changed, but once again in the binary opposition "challenge-response" the previous answer was highlighted: Russia is not Europe. The discrepancy between the essence of Russian civilization and the basic foundations of the US and the EU, blind adherence to the abstract models of the market economy of a dying industrial civilization (capitalism) came into conflict with the goals of forming a post-industrial model of society. The “right-wing reformers” did not understand that the changes not only came into conflict with the ethno-cultural values and ideals of the Slavic-Turanian Eurasia, but also threatened the very essence of Russian civilization.
The positive results, perhaps, include the fact that, largely thanks to the "right" in the country, a model of society with a stable progressive (so-called "progressive", non-cyclical) type of development is being formed. A mentality is being formed that does not consider liberal-oriented values and ideals hostile, has accepted and supports the principles of the rule of law and the institutions of civil society.
The bewilderment of the "Westerners" and their foreign allies is clearly felt. It seemed that all the prerequisites and conditions for Russia's entry into the "advanced European community" had been created, but the pendulum of public sentiment swung sharply towards the center and further moved to the left, towards the values and ideals of "eastern" traditionalism. A powerful injection of innovations (reforms) puts Russia in front of the need for their implementation, "in-own", "digestion" in all spheres of the economy, politics, society, culture, public consciousness. Russia's national interests now require not so much a reckless pursuit of change as a stable balance of innovations and traditions, a determination of its true position in a multipolar world.
In the political structure of society, the formation of a "centrist" party, capable of ideologically substantiating the tasks of ensuring national security on the basis of a complete rejection of the integration of Russia and Europe, becomes the most important necessity. It is still difficult to say whether United Russia fits the role not of a political leader, but of the leader of civilization in the limitrophe space, interacting equally with the West and the East. On the left flank of "conservative-protective" traditionalism, "legitimate" is occupied by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party with a stable electorate of up to 20-25%. It is not surprising that further increased pressure on Russia, both market reforms and various kinds of Western sanctions, will lead up to a third or more of the entire population of the country into the ranks of the “left”.
Unlike Ukraine or Moldova, there is no clear border between East and West in Russia. Therefore, in the conditions of the "blurring" of civilizational confrontation in Russia, there will continue to be a movement towards further economic and social liberalization while strengthening the state, the principles of firm power and a personified authoritarian style of management in the political sphere. For a country on the limitrophe, these are quite natural processes.
We see that the industrial (capitalist) civilization is coming to the finish line. Post-industrial or rather intellectual-technological civilization, according to the law of negation of negation, rejects the Western "Samoyed" goal of a dead-end exponential progress with the goal of "innovation for the sake of innovation." A new civilization is moving to the East based on the "intellectual humanism" of Eastern civilizations. The “industrial” priorities of material production are being replaced by the primacy of “human production”, capable of making innovative breakthroughs, creating human-oriented intellectual products and technologies. If the former civilization changed the environment, then the new one is aimed at changing the person.
The objective processes of the formation of a new world post-industrial civilization are associated with the qualitative transformation of the civilizations of the East (Japan, India, China, Korea). On the territory of Eurasia, a qualitatively new, stable, non-pulsating civilization of uniformly progressive movement is being formed with an orderly balance of innovations and traditions, with a balance of values of the West and East. This allows Russia to avoid the impasse of exponential progress. And we are not alone in this. Similar processes, in our opinion, are currently taking place in the civilizational East and Southeast Asia, in the limitrophes of Kazakhstan, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, (Israel?), Latin American countries.
The civilization of an integrative type in a multipolar world embodies the right to its own path of development, its own system of values, a system of unifying ideas and goals in a single multi-ethnic, multi-cultural space of Eurasia. Further strengthening of the economy and institutions of the state, the awakening of civic activity is impossible further without relying on the "human factor", on national patriotic ideas. In addition, there are positive changes. Not only the country as a whole, but also the citizens are awakening a sense of dignity and self-respect, respect for the values and traditions of their civilization. Therefore, the solution of the problem of the institutionalization of the national ideology is more relevant than ever. It is vital that the authorities and society finally notice the depravity and disintegrating negative role of the wording of Article 13 and radically change it in the new version of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
- Burns, Robert - short biography
- The concept of common vocabulary and vocabulary of limited use
- Nancy Drew: The Captive Curse Walkthrough Nancy Drew Curse of Blackmoore Manor Walkthrough
- Deadpool - Troubleshooting
- Won't start How to Survive?
- What to do if bioshock infinite won't start
- Walkthrough Nancy Drew: Alibi in Ashes
- Spec Ops: The Line - game review, review Spec ops the line crashes on missions
- Room escape level 1 walkthrough
- Processing tomatoes with boric acid How much will 2 grams of boric acid
- Cucumber Grass (Borago)
- Bioinsecticide Lepidocid: purpose, properties and application procedure Lepidocide waiting period
- How to change the language to Russian in steam
- Dendrobium noble: room care
- Morphology of plants general concepts - document
- Planting, propagation and care of bamboo at home, photo Growing bamboo from seeds
- How to strengthen the cellular signal for the Internet in the country
- Sanskrit reveals the forgotten meaning of Russian words (2 photos)
- The oldest language Sanskrit programming language of the future Dead language Sanskrit
- Who has dominion over all the earth?