– Well, American, tell me what is power? Is it money? My brother also says it’s money. You’ve got a lot of money, and what? I think power is truth. The one who’s got the truth is stronger. You have deceived someone, made some money. And what, have you become stronger? No, you haven’t. For you have no truth behind you. And the one whom you deceived, he’s got the truth behind him, so he’s stronger.
Danila Bagrov’s monologue from the movie “Brother 2”.
The Virtual State(Сommunity) is based on copyright law of transferring the work on any reasonable terms. Such systems already exist in the form of the communities of Open Source and Free software. They are often accused of trying to build communism. Indeed, knowledge and information have the property of indivisibility. If we divide them between the people, there won’t be less of knowledge and information. The usefulness of knowledge and information increases at each division, and at the universal access to knowledge and information we can achieve maximum productivity effect from them. I think that achieving maximum productivity effect from knowledge and information can be called communism.
Modern society is reproduced through the control of access to information and knowledge. Can we overcome this control and reach communism using the technologies of Free and Open Source software? In its current form – no.
I’ll try to convince you of that on three examples I know.
The first example is a story about the life of a Russian author of a very popular open source software. According to his words, his life is a total hell. He spends all his free time fixing bugs, developing, communicating with the users, feeding his wife with the promises that he’ll make a lot of money on his product one day. But nothing happens yet. The code of his product is open and there are no mechanisms to protect the financial interests of the author. Agree that there are few authors ready for such a sacrifice. The second example I know is a visual framework. Its authors chose probably the standard way. They divided their product into two parts. The first one is Free, and the second, on which they earn money, is commercial. So, the necessary condition of the existence of Free piece of software is the availability of the commercial part. It’s clear that this condition doesn’t allow achieving communism ever. The third example is similar to the previous one. It’s an example of an open development tool funded by a large commercial corporation, the profit of which is based on unopened products.
To achieve communism economical reproduction of new type of relations is necessary. Classics named them socialistic relations. Such relations comply with the principle stated by them – to take from each according to his abilities, to give each according to his work.
Because of the muddled history of socialism and communism we’ll try to understand it and, as they say, to separate gods from fleas.
Just recently I got acquainted with the text about Marx’s error, the provisions of which I want to introduce to you in the next paragraph.
Marx developed the theory of change of social formations, according to which change of social formations takes place in the following order: primitive communism, slaveholding society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. Fascinated by the rise of the labor movement the mid-19th century, Marx thought that the transition from capitalism to communism will take place in the form of the uprising and the seizure of power by the class oppressed by capitalism – the proletariat. Is this provision consistent with Marx’s theory of changes of the formations? Obviously, it isn’t. The oppressed class, being a product of the old formation, is undeniably the carrier of all its stereotypes. Therefore, the oppressed class fights not for new product relations and, accordingly, a new, more progressive formation, but for the redistribution of social income in their favor in the frames of the old formation. he transition from feudalism to capitalism wad provided not by the classes oppressed during feudalism, but by a new class, alien to feudalism – the bourgeoisie. The new bourgeois class has arisen under the old feudal system and gradually developed, despite the opposition of the old ruling feudal class, due to the greater efficiency of the new bourgeois relations in comparison with the feudal ones.
So, Marxism initially contained an error and had tremendous destructive potential in the form of propaganda of the revolution and subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat. Some researchers of Marxism find evidence that Marxism was originally a political project financed by European and American bankers and aimed at the destruction of the Russian Empire. Anyway, it’s a well-known fact that the Bolsheviks received funding of the socialist revolution from Kaiser Germany.
Uncorrected error in the ideology makes it dead. Each new generation of Soviet party members see its unviability more and more clearly, and, in the end, populist Yeltsin gets the right to destroy the system which seemed to be unshakable like it’s a house of cards.
However, the desire of the people of the Soviet Union for justice was sincere and their achievements were impressive. These include the expulsion of foreign intervention in the civil war performed by Germany, Austria-Hungary, the UK, the US, the Ottoman Empire, France, Italy, Greece, Romania, Poland, Canada, Australia and Japan;8-hour workday (despot Stalin suggested to make it a 6-hour one), the equality of men and women, people of different races and nationalities, a model system of education, industrialization of the country, a decisive contribution to the victory in World War II, the first manned space flight, the first missions to the Moon, unsurpassed space and military technologies. And, most importantly, there was created the nation of the Soviet people, who remember the achievements of the USSR, its role in the world, and still believe in justice. The collapse of the Soviet Union dealt a powerful blow on it, but it continues to exist as a carrier of the fundamental values without which the achievements of the Soviet people would have been impossible.
I am sure that the carriers of these values are not only common people, but also all those who were washed up on the top of the post-Soviet society – from Putin to Khodorkovsky and Kolomoiskiy. And when some representatives of the elite will be judged for their crimes I don’t think that the word “betrayal” will occupy the last place in their minds. Betrayal of the ideals which they gave the oath to serve once… We all remember it: before my comrades, I solemnly swear to dearly love my Soviet homeland … It’s funny, huh? Is this possible? To understand it I offer to refer to the events of the past year. Afterwards I will write about the possible ways of development of the Community.
Impressions about 2014
The past year gave me a lot of surprises and discoveries. It all started with the Winter Olympics in Sochi. I suddenly discovered that there was no independent and objective Western media. Western media were literally competing in the publication of fake and unverified information only to discredit the Sochi Olympics. Subsequent events in Ukraine only confirmed my opinion about the Western media. The surprise for me was removing of a video from YouTube which contained the record of the conversation of the medics who were helping people wounded at the Maidan. From that conversation it was obvious that the representatives of the Right sector, who in theory should have been ahead of everyone, knew about the impending executions of people and got off the positions of the protesters. Then there was Odessa on May 2, where in the house of trade unions nearly 200 people were burned and killed, according to unofficial data. And it was followed by the applause of pro-European part of Ukraine’s population. After that, it became clear that the Ukrainian Nazis were not a figure of speech denoting people who worship Bandera. They are real fascists from whom you can expect any atrocities.
How was it possible in a civilized European country that has experienced the horrors of the Second World War and where even 23 years ago it seemed that fascism wasn’t possible under any circumstances? Pro-European part of the population of Ukraine won the right to seize power in the cities. That right was supported by the EU and the US. But if one group of the population is entitled to seize power, the other group of people, in this case, the pro-Russian, gets the same right. What way chooses the pro-Western part of Ukraine’s population in this situation? After gaining control of the security forces, with the acquiescence of the United States and the EU, it announces pro-Russian part of the population nonhumans, padded jackets and slaves who deserve any death! It shouts at them: “Suitcase! Railway station! Russia!” But excuse me, gentlemen, if you had made your European selection leaving your country, then you would have the right to shout such things at your opponents. But this way – sorry, move over! The only freedom which Ukrainians received as a result of the coup is the freedom to kill each other. When pro-Western part of the population thought that freedom belonged only to it, it got embraced by euphoria, in a burst of which the tragedy occurred in Odessa on 2 May. To date the pro-Russian fighters of Donbass cooled it with their military success, but then the EU and the US messed into the case by introducing economic sanctions against Russia to return their protégé their favourite toy – the freedom to kill their opponents, but this time quietly, without fanfare. In order to persuade the EU to impose sanctions against Russia the USA organized a provocation with Boeing-777, but more on that below.
Later there was a shooting in Mariupol, where people wanted to stop armored vehicles with bare hands, referring to the soldier’s conscience, reminding them of the oath, in which they swore to protect the people. Later the information from Slavyansk came, where Ukrainian artillery began firing methodically at the areas where there were no pro-Russian fighters. There was the hypothesis that it was done by US regulations aimed at setting up the population against the pro-Russian fighters. I was knocked out when Google deleted the prompt on the tag SaveDonbassPeople. Now it exists, but at the very beginning, when the search for that tag was particularly important, the prompt was disabled. Then there was the story about the way the events were covered in Switzerland. It’s very short and it’s worth to cite it completely.
Quiet peaceful Switzerland. A respectable office of a financial institution.
During morning coffee news from Ukraine is shown on TV. A correspondent of European TV interviews a woman whose family suffered from the fire. The woman laments: “What is it! How can it be that our own army shoots and bombs us like we are the enemies!” Voice-over says: “Putin kicks us out of our houses, destroys our country and kills our boys! Save us from Putin!..”
A woman from Riga boils over:
– That’s not true! She’s saying quite another thing!
– How can you know that? – her chief asks in annoyed voice.
– I just understand what she’s saying…
There’s a pause, and then the chief’s phrase comes… (Are you ready?)
– You can’t understand her as you are from Latvia…
All right, the debate is over…
After that Western politicians dare to speak about the Russian media’s propaganda and resent that they can’t oppose anything? Yes, it’s very hard to do it, when Russian media base their messages on truth and Western ones lie.
Then Ukraine, performing the operation planned in the USA, shot down Boeing 777. To date even without the results of the “independent” investigation carried out in Netherlands, which it would be better to call an operation of hiding the evidence, facts in favour of the version I mentioned have been gathered. I don’t have the task to list them, but I will share the most stunning and irrefutable. The salvo which struck out of all the guns of Western media, who were accusing pro-Russian fighters in the crash of Boeing, was also striking and made a lasting impression on me.
When I first looked at the footage from the wreck of Boeing-777, I paid attention to the artificiality of corpses. By this time over a long period I’ve been observing the results of the strikes of Ukrainian army against Donbass on Russian TV – the corpses of children, old men and women. So, it was conspicuous that dead bodies looked like porcelain ones. After a while there came a message from the people working at the crash site which stated that the downed aircraft, most likely still on the rise, was packed with the bodies of people dressed carelessly and dumped in a pile into the plane. Channel One of the Russian television dared to tell about it. Immediate reaction of perturbed Dutch relatives of the victims of the accident about such a blasphemous version insolently issued by Russian media, made me forget about it. But on August 30 I saw an author’s shooting by Alena Kochkina, where a witness of the catastrophe, who arrived on site arrived 20 minutes after the crash, says about what she saw and felt. I warn you that the link where I watched the video on August 30 is no longer valid. To find the specified link now I had to use the search by keywords: Авторская съёмка Алёны Кочкиной. На фотографиях с места крушения малазийского Боинга 777 видны обломки частей сбитого самолета, а также, вызывающие ужас, изуродованные тела пассажиров(dont use for searching google!). I specify them in case the link I mentioned is not valid as well.
So, the witness says that strong smell of formalin was going from the corpses, that there was no blood on them. She compares the corpses of people with the ones of the birds who died in that crash – there was blood on them. She says that almost all the bodies were concentrated in one place, that her eyes didn’t see any corpses with European appearance, though according to the list of passengers there had to be 68% of Dutch, that all the corpses belonged to Asians; that all the suitcases were full of winter clothes, and there were no ones for summer; there had to be 80 children, but the witness saw only 6 or 7 ones; when they were viewing photos on the found phones, there was not a single photo from 2014, the last photos were dated 2013; only 20 people had fragments of clothing on their bodies, all the others were naked. There were no traces of clothing on the corpses, not even traces of the underwear’s elastic bands.
From this story it follows that people listed as passenger of the aircraft at number 9M-MRD most likely are still alive, otherwise it would be difficult to explain the sense of packing that plane with corpses, which appeared from some unknown place. What relationship with the citizens who were declared officially dead are supported by the countries – that’s a big question. Let me remind you that among these countries there is the Netherlands, where an “independent” investigation of the Boeing’s crash over Ukraine is being held. The decryption the black boxes hasn’t been published yet.
From the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, I naively thought that the EU had a neutral position, and I looked for signs of its change on Euronews. There were rare reports of bombing of civilians quarters through the demonstration of the destroyed houses, but without showing corpses, without interviewing the residents of these destroyed houses, without yelling and crying of women at the funeral. For example, translations about the Palestinian conflict with Israel which broke out at the same time were similar to the way we could see the conflict in Donbass via the reports of Russian television channels. One time it seemed to me that Euronews had taken a very comfortable position. The EU recognized the Ukrainian revolution and could officially rebroadcast any lie of Ukrainian media, ignoring the position of the unrecognized republics. But I stopped watching Euronews after the report of shooting a bus with civilians by the pro-Russian fighters with reference to an official representative of Ukraine and with an addition that a representative of the volunteer corps denied it on the grounds that they didn’t have the necessary funds, without any reference to that representative. This idea was not like the passive retransmission of the lie of Ukrainian media, there could be seen creativity via an obvious allusion to the volunteer corps’ position concerning the charges that they were those ones who shot down Boeing using Buck. In any case, I think that Euronews knows that volunteers wouldn’t shoot at their relatives and friends, that such shootings and provocations are distinguishing characteristics of Ukrainian fascists.
Later there was a report of the Russian Channel One about the execution of a boy, after which Channel One was accused of falsifying the facts. I have clarified that the report was from July 12, and the crash of Boeing-777 over Ukraine happened on July 16. It means the report was created before Boeing’s crash, and not after it. Does it mean that having written “later” I lied? The answer “yes” would be too rough. I know exactly I was wrong. Does it follow that everything I wrote is a lie? No. Most likely, the woman interviewed by Channel One wasn’t a witness of the execution herself, as evidenced by the inconsistencies in her story, but it doesn’t mean she lied. Some time later I read an interview of a sniper girl with the callsign “Thunderstorm”, who was fighting on the side of the volunteers. Here is an extract from that interview:
– Is it true that in Kramatorsk they crucified child in front of his mother, because after this resonant news Ukrainian media raised a fuss – they say, it’s all fiction and propaganda?
– Yes, it’s true. They took revenge – the father of that child is among the pro-Russian fighters. That’s daughter in law and grandson of one of my acquaintances, already an older woman.
On the threshold of the Big Twenty meeting in Australia Channel One of Russian TV once again headlined the news, telling about a photo which captured the moment of a missile launch of a Ukrainian fighter aircraft against Boeing-777. The feeling that the world will finally learn the truth quickly changed to disappointment when the next day at the top of the Russian blogosphere there was Ilya Varlamov’s post where he accused Channel One in another fraud. The next day there was an article which accused Ilya Varlamov in falsifying the facts. But the mission was already done. The news about the photo that captured the moment of Ukrainian fighter aircraft shooting a missile at Boeing-777 became blurry and didn’t become as sensational as it was intended by Channel One.
The last event which impressed me and influenced my further conclusions was the financial crisis in Russia at the end of the year. Euro exchange rate in the evening on December 18 rose above 100 rubles, and as a response the board of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in its night session raised the refinancing rate to 17% per annum.
I will begin to sum up what I saw and felt the last year.
The first thing that catches my eye is the necessity of having a supranational public institutionthat would regulate the issues of journalistic ethics. It could be established by the universities involved in the preparation of journalists. The institution should be financially independent, existing, for example, with a small tax collected from the media, not depending on the policy of any country. Its main function should be the issuance of journalistic licenses andassignment of penalty ratings for popular bloggers. The blogosphere, at least in Russia, is comparable with the media by the degree of its influence, but a blogger can write any lie if it isn’t against the law. Comments from other bloggers for him like water off a duck, but he must answer the questions of the journalistic ethics commission (Channel One of Russian TV must also answer the question of whether they knew that the famous picture is not real). If as a result it turns out to be a fact of falsification, such a blogger is given the rating of a forger.
To conduct investigations in various countries with different political situations, the representatives of this institution need the immunity status like the one the diplomats have. They should have the right to ask questions to any representative of the authorities of any country, to which he must respond. If as a result of the investigation a crime against humanity, the materials are transferred to an international court. The court’s decision shall be mandatory for all the countries. Thus, such provocations like the one with Boeing-777 shot down over Ukraine would become impossible. And the right to kill people without trial that was approved in Ukraine and that was supported by the US and the EU would become impossible.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that although the powers of the planned institute are very large, it’s not a world government, as it doesn’t determine the policy of the countries.
At the time of writing, January 7 in Paris in the building of the weekly Charlie Hebdo unidentified people started shooting which killed 12 people, including two policemen. As an answer thousands of Frenchmen took to the streets of French cities to honor the victims of the terrorist attack and to express their protest.
In connection with the caricatures that were published in Charlie Hebdo and which leading American media wisely refused to publish, I can say the following. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to insult. The truth can be said without offending anyone. Therefore, a public institution on journalistic ethics should address issues of admissible in conjunction with various religious denominations. I believe that a compromise can be found via the placement of warnings about the content contradicting one religion or another. The same applies to materials that are contrary to any laws. Thus, freedom of speech wouldn’t be compromised. Such publications should be sold in opaque bags so that only those who wish to see its content could do it.
The war with human victims is another matter. Then insults and information warfare become its small consequences. To prevent the real war would probably be the main aim of the planned public institution. In this regard, I will cite the opinion of a Russian political scientist Aleksey Martynov. He recalled that Islamic terrorism was in the hands of the country with the world’s intelligence agency – the United States. The US with enthusiasm and incredible perseverance are trying to organize an economic blockade of huge Russia, they have organized an economic blockade of Iran, at the same time LIH calmly trades oil. That’s why Martynov is confident that people behind the terrorist attack in Paris must be sought in the US. Caricatures don’t mean anything for Islamic terrorists, they are just the background used for distracting public from the true goal of the terroristic act, which is to make Europe a bargaining chip of American interests.
In my opinion, the terrorist attack in Paris is like another Boeing-777, but this time shot down not over Ukraine. Intelligence agencies can keep on shooting down Boeings over France until they achieve their aims. I judge by the actions of the Right Sector in Ukraine last year. It, starting from shooting people at Maidan, was shooting in both directions, swinging the situation. It was shooting until the real war broke out.
Manipulation of public opinion is a very powerful weapon of intelligence agencies, and I’m afraid that without an independent international institution with broad investigatory powers we won’t manage either to disarm them of that weapon or to sort out the true purposes of the terrorist attack in the wording of the weekly Charlie Hebdo.
Now after the divagation about the terroristic attack in Paris I’ll go back to the original plan of the narrative.
Public institution of journalistic ethics is regarded by me as a Group of the Community. Economy of the Community is an economy of knowledge, so the next function of the described institution should be to establish training programs of the subjects under the authority of the institution, as well as to organize training on them in the Internet.
Media in the modern world are the main source of knowledge and information. The common practice is freedom of links, without any financial obligations. Sometimes successful commercial programmes are entirely built on the content posted in the Internet in the public domain. In addition, content authors don’t get anything from the commercial channels. The Community is called upon stopping this practice. I suppose that the rules for the formation of these financial obligations will form empirically. Arisen financial flows will cause the appearance of new information platforms. At present, the new information platforms are forced to look for sponsors to support their existence. The most well-known platform of this kind is Wikipedia.
The basis of the new economy, in my opinion, should be the differentiating service. The method of the proposed service is widely used by commercial enterprises to increase sales. It’s providing discounts for categories of the population with lower incomes. It’s interesting that in modern economic theory this method is called “price discrimination”. The word “discrimination” has got a clear political connotation, though modern economic theory announces its ethical neutrality. So whom does such a method discriminate? It brings discounts to the poor, therefore, discrimination of rich takes place. The unethical property of such a method is specified by its name. Thus, the modern economic theory is not ethically neutral. We will discuss its features below, when talking about the financial crisis which happened in Russia at the end of 2014.
I imagine the work of Differentiating Service in the following way. Those who wish to use its services provide information about themselves, about their social status and their income by signing an agreement with the Service for permission to check the provided information. The service itself is obliged to keep the provided information confidential. As a result users of the Service are able to get discounts on goods and services. After that it won’t be difficult to organize paid “likes” that users hand out in evaluation of content, and which won’t be financially straining for the users with low incomes. Thus, for the organizers of trading platforms, the consumers will be divided into two categories: those registered in the Service with low incomes and unregistered with higher incomes. The latter will serve as a signal for trading platforms to increase the base price (current base prices for common goods and services are designed for relatively low incomes, which the majority of consumers has). In turn, it will lead to the fact that it will be profitable for the consumers with higher and higher incomes to register in the Service.
I think it’s clear that the planned Service on one hand is entirely based on the desire of the companies to increase their profits, which is the heart of capitalism, and on the other hand, to some extent, it will lead to the destruction of money, because resulting from its work the value of the income becomes unimportant, al the people receive the same goods and services. In my opinion, the work of the Service will lead to the equalization of incomes in the world and the increase in the degree of intelligence of money. The degree of intelligence of money is a speculative index which takes the minimum value when all the money belongs to one person. It’s hard for him to cope with the problem of their distribution, to consider all of the millions of projects, and money loses its productive power. In this way the Differentiating Service compares favorably to the idea of financing Internet projects through taxes on Internet traffic, as after collecting taxes there appears the problem of their intellectual distribution.
I’m not an expert on international law, but I find it hard to imagine that in international law the legitimacy of an unconstitutional coup can be prescribed. Hence, after it, from the point of view of international law, a great degree of uncertainty takes place. But I think it’s possible to build rational logic. After the overthrow of the central government and the elimination of the state, power is transferred to local authorities. Alas, we can’t prevent the seizure of power at the local level, as its overthrow occurs on the same grounds as the overthrow of the central power – illegally. Further, a new central government and the new state appear as a result of the negotiations between the local authorities, and the local authorities have the right not to negotiate with other regions and make their own decisions. That’s a normal solution of the problem of a coup. Abnormal solution for one of the regions is to classify itself as a central one and to establish its power by the means of a civil war. Last year which scenario was supported by the US and the EU in the case of Ukraine? That’s right, they supported the scenario of a civil war.
From all this it follows that the application of Western politicians that Russia violated the international law, annexing Crimea, is nothing more than a speculation in the informational war launched by the US and the EU against Russia. In turn, Russia’s announcement that it supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine is also a reciprocal speculation which has no relation to international law. Under these circumstances I think that the Community needs an independent group of experts in the international law which would make open conclusions and carry out the policy of changing the international law towards preventing the formation of local and global wars.
The group on international law could be established by the universities in which it is taught, and it could live on the same money as the group on journalistic ethics – on a small tax from media. That’s normal, because the activity of the group would be the source of the materials for the media. In addition, there would be the work on drawing up a common program of studying international law in different languages, and the management of training.
Economic theory and the financial crisis in late 2014 in Russia
To begin with, we’ll make one speculative transformation, namely calculate the total weight of money, cash and credit, per unit, and any number of them will be measured as a fraction of the total money stock. In this coordinate system money can be represented by an incompressible liquid and thus we’ll be able to see how it is flowing in the modern capitalist system. What will we see? We’ll see two hearts pumping this liquid. The first heart is the tax system. Collecting money, it pumps it further through large state-owned vessels: health care, pension system, culture, science, education and defense. The second heart is the Central Bank. Through the emission tax it pumps money further via commercial banks. The effect of other mechanisms of the Central Bank – regulation of the refinancing rate and the sizes of bank reserves – can be reduced to a change in the size of the heart managed by CB in relation to the heart managed by the tax system. In the development of the system the number of blood vessels would increase, the network of capillaries would extend, and the prices measured as a fraction of total money stock would decline steadily. You can see that the heart managed by CB can be easily transferred to the tax one. It can be done by establishing the emission tax as one of the variants of the tax system, combining them into a single control center of the economic system. Also from this model we can see that the Central Bank and the tax system are two central organs of the modern capitalist system, the viability of which depends on their work. By the way, in my opinion, from this model we can clearly see that it’s possible to build a gold-based monetary system which would be as effective as, for example, the modern dollar. Now let us see in what form they were organized for Russia by the American institutions, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union wrote the laws for it.
Let’s look at the rating of the tax burden according to the magazine Forbes, 2009.
We see that in Russia there are almost the lowest taxes in the world, lower than in the United States, much lower than in New York, i.e. some super-liberal policy is adopted, which the authorities of the US try to escape. But the most important thing is not the size of the taxes, but the fact that in Russia the Tax Inspectorate is a liberal institution. For example, currently the United States promote in the world Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – that’s a law under which foreign banks report to the IRS. So, the Russian Tax Inspectorate not only has no right to stick its nose into foreign banks, it can’t do it even in Russian banks. Thus, the Russian kleptocracy is allowed to plunder the country as long as its conscience sanctions it.
This policy, when promoted liberalism isn’t performed by the promoter himself, I call export of liberalism. Export of false liberalism. The purpose of this policy is to weaken the victim country. Kleptocracy is a consequence of the false idea that there is freedom without responsibility. The freedom to insult without consequences. Again, let me remind you that the leading US media formed a united front and refused to publish the caricatures of Charlie Hebdo. The American president, Barack Obama, gave European leaders an opportunity to walk shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainian murderer Peter Poroshenko on the march 01/11/2015 in Paris. People from the South-East of Ukraine, from the Donbass, from DNR and LNR, from Novorossiya, Odessa, Lugansk, Donetsk, Slavyansk, Mariupol, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye, looking at this march, wonder if European liberty, equality and fraternity to kill other people who don’t want to support the European choice isn’t fascism? Wasn’t this fascism being preached by Europeans or centuries, and then it was picked up by Americans? And isn’t the protection of freedom of speech after the European media’s coverage of the events in Ukraine and the European conspiracy to hide the results of the investigation of the crash ofBoeing-777 the height of hypocrisy and mockery of common sense? I hope that knowing all this, many French people took to the march 11/01/2015 only in sign of mourning for the victims of the terrorist attack and the inadmissibility of an interconfessional war.
AS I have already written, the modern economic theory has proclaimed itself an ethically neutral science. This means that it doesn’t have normative goals. But reading, for example, the articles of the economic observer ”Novaya Gazeta” (a Russian pseudoliberal newspaper), we’ll consistently meet the setting of normative goals: we need this, we don’t need that. Where do they come from? The fact is that any economic model is accompanied by a number of conditions. Within the framework of the ideology promoted by “Novaya Gazeta” there is a belief that certain conditions are met unconditionally, hence pieces of advice are born concerning what to do and how to do it. Thus, the prerequisite for the use of economic models is the presence of an ideology, within the framework of which the risk is taken that the model works one way and not another. And the opposite model which has the opposite normative goals doesn’t have any relation to the situation and in general is funny and wrong.
It’s interesting that according to the Constitution of 1993 г., Article 13, Paragraph 2, Russia can’t have its own ideology. Under those circumstances, what do the Central Bank and the Government of the Russian Federation do? That’s right, they hire American experts who are ready to take on the model’s risks. The question arises, what ideology do the hired American experts follow? The hypothesis is that this ideology is the world’s reserve currency (export of inflation), for which the US Federal Reserve was established in 1913. The ideology in the context of two world wars in the XX century was more than successful. During more than 100 years of its development the US Federal Reserve formed a network of expert offices and institutions working for it, consulting the governments around the world and enforcing its policy to them. If a country refuses the consultations, a coup is organized there. The right to print world money must be protected very carefully.
Let’s check our hypothesis. Let’s compare the ruble monetary indicators in the Russian economy with the dollar ones. On 01.12.2014 the money stock is 30 625,6 bln rubles. Total debt of the Russian Federation on 01.07.2014 is 731 204 mln dollars. According to the current exchange rate on 11.01.2015 of the CB of RF 56,2376 total debt is equivalent to 41 121 bln rubles. Thus, the dollar in the Russian economy has more weight than the ruble. I think that any significant fraction of the mass of dollars in the Russian economy would be a proof of performing the interests of the US Federal Reserve there, not talking about such an overwhelming majority. In some ways I feel like an idiot proving that oil is oily. For, how could it be otherwise, if the US dollar is the world reserve currency?
So, what does Russia have by the end of 2014 as a result of the lack of national economic policy? Funds acquired on the cheap dollar loans lost so much in their price because of the fall of the ruble and increase in refinancing that they are now than the undertaken loans several times less, so it’s physically possible to return the loans. Payments on loans should be given in dollars, and because of the low rate of the ruble they become very expensive. Investing stopped because of high interest rates. Borders for the capital flight are open wide. Theoretically, the country should come to default and bankruptcy of the financial system.
To me the modern world seems like the Middle Ages, with the control center at the Vatican. Only the head of the modern world is the US Federal Reserve. Through the universities it spreads the doctrine convenient for it, economics (in Russian universities this name was changed to “economic theory”), that makes hints at the truth, but without the keys given by the US Federal Reserve is closed to all the outsiders. Coupled with the only ethics studied in the universities – the Protestant ethic – via the work of Max Waber “Spirit of Capitalism”, according to which salvation is directly proportional to the wealth of money, at the output of the universities we get people ready at any moment to become adepts of the US Federal Reserve and ready at any time to ask the perennial question: how can it be otherwise if the US dollar is the world reserve currency?
At one forum a joke was born: there are natural sciences, there are unnatural sciences, and there are sciences against nature. The last remark is no doubt related to economics, into the base of which positive methodology is put, which denies the normative approach. Utopian nature of the positive approach to social sciences is clearly visible at the household level. Imagine that men and women will cease to indicate to each other what to do (the common practice – normative approach)and will act on the basis of “the established laws of nature” (and it’s our imaginary positive approach). Arguing and conflicts between them will stop, and, possibly, paradise on Earth will be established! It’s a pity that these men and women would have to pass through lobotomy, that it would be necessary to turn them in some asexual creatures controlled by someone else, because they would no longer have brains.
I came to this conclusion from perennial disputes with my wife. I remember how eagerly I was explaining to her how to do certain things logically and in a right way. It would seem I explained everything to her, said everything and brought up to the obvious. Everything had to be clear! But the next day she would still do everything in her own way, on the basis of some principles unknown to me. Now I see that everything I was trying to pass off as objectivity (remember the vaunted male logic) was just my point of view. So modern economics is an attempt to consolidate the pseudo-scientific view of the world of merchants and capitalists as the only possible one.
So how to connect normative approach and scientific truth which is independent from ethics? In my opinion, everything is obvious. The quest for the truth is a natural norm in which the essence of science is concentrated. The essence of truth, of the acquired knowledge is the fact that it leads to the increase of the survivability of the system, to the improvement of its efficiency. But not like in the case of Russia, when purchased and donated knowledge lead to a disaster. Therefore, the declaration of purpose of the transition of the society to a more efficient state for social sciences is a natural ethical norm of any science.
I believe that using the described principle we should expect further development of economic theory, which the social formations will return to, as well as the theory of their changes. The ethics of different groups and classes of people will be taken into account as well. Economic theory must again become political economy instead of economics, combining the description of capitalism – economics – and correcting the error of Marxism.
Hereinafter I present some comments on history, as last year a lot of things fell into place for me – mainly they concern the Stalin era, natural sciences, because before the talk was only about the social sciences and religion as a part of the worldview. Then the final part is presented.
In the case with history, in my opinion, in contrast to the economic theory there is imbalance in another direction, as every history is very national. A new ruler comes to power and history is redrawn. Unlike any other science, history requires a supranational, independent foundation which would finance the development of a common history, available in all the world’s languages and with the recognized authority. In my view, the works of that foundation would be among the most popular ones. I’m sure they will gradually revolutionize our understanding of the history.
Thus, the essence of the Virtual State emerges – that’s the output of the institutions of knowledge and information to the supranational level, including judicial and investigative systems, and, looking ahead, the police as part of these systems.
I didn’t mention natural sciences. Their reproduction requires considerable capital assets controlled by the structures formed, let’s say so, by the ethics of the struggle for resources. The fundamental part of the natural sciences is traditionally open, but the application part is mostly closed. The situation reminds me a scene from the movie I rewatched recently, “Total Recall”. There the main character works at the factory which produces robots-policemen, who later force him to work at that factory. The same happens with natural scientists, who throughout history move the progress forwards and create technologies that are later used for constructing weapons used to compulsion them to work as well.
I think that the refusal of the countries from the ethics of struggle for resources and their transition to natural scientific ethics the situation will radically change.
There is no contradiction between religious and scientific ethics. From scientific point of view any faith can be considered as a hypothesis. On the other hand, no religion forbids to identify the facts and laws. In the world where false values are easily propagated the institutions that protect moral ideals have to exist.
The End of history
The public system based on ethics of struggle for the resources has got a very unpleasant reverse positive relationship that eats the resources of the system and makes it extremely unstable. Its extreme degree is expressed in wars emerging in the system. Last year was marked by the fact that the scenario of the Third World War was easily drawn before our imagination, and it looks like it’s being embodied before our eyes…
I didn’t expect to come to the following conclusion when I was writing the text above. That’s why the phrases came out to be not completely consistent. But I think the general logic can be traced, and it invariably leads to the following conclusion. Let’s imagine society the basis of which will be scientific ethics. The aim of the society – to survive through the search for truth. Potential criminals will be caught by the police. Society won’t need other power structures any more. To achieve this goal it is necessary to dissolve all the armies of the world, all the military units, and to organize international (global) militia. Why “militia”, and not “police”? Militia, in my opinion, protects people, while police protects power. It’s clear that its role will be catching criminals and transmitting them to the international corollary. Obviously, vast resources involved in military production and the maintenance of the army will be released.
This plan is very similar to Roosevelt’s plan to establish international police. Maybe if Roosevelt hadn’t died and his plan would be fully implemented, there would be no Cold War, and now we would live in a completely different world.
The next step should be the dissolution of all the security services and the organization of public access to all the restricted documents.
The implementation of these steps requires that among five members of the UN Security Council forces supporting the proposed plan have to come to power. I think Russia and China are ready to support it. My optimism sees no obstacles to the fact that during next elections in Britain, France and the United States those who support the plan will win. For people who decouple now the war and commit crimes, no matter what position in what country they occupy, it will mean only one thing – they will be brought to the international court. I understand that the society with such an institution and without it – those are two different worlds. Committed crimes can’t be prevented, but we can prevent future ones.
Here you may have doubts that the proposed plan will work. Let me tell you about another discovery that I made last year, talking with my compatriots head over ears in Maidan. When you talk with them at the level of the facts, their game which starts from recognizable words “you see, not everything is clear here” and ends up with a hysteria from their side turns out to be endless. It is quite another thing when building of logic begins at a higher level – at the level of values. The conversation quickly comes to an end in favor of the values that are indisputable. In this text, I may be mistaken in some facts, you can find fault with my interpretation of these facts, somebody may not like my style of presentation, in which there are some errors, but it’s impossible to oppose anything to the values put at the first place, the values of truth and human life.
December 27, 2014 – Febrary 5, 2015
In the text I use the word “Americans” and “Europeans” as something unified and monolithic. But I understand that Americans and Europeans are not all homogeneous. The charges I made relate not to people, but to the system. I also use the word “fascism”, for which I have a very short definition. Fascism is a method of dehumanization of people after which they can be killed like animals, without the killer experiencing a drop of compassion. For me fascists are not only those who directly kill innocent people, but also those who support them and those who don’t have anything against fascism.