There was a time when I hoped that soon Putin would drive out of the authorities such liberal comrades as D.A. Medvedev. Years passed, but nothing changed. Then I saw that the basis of the economic system – the export of natural resources – determines the basis of economic policy and the structure of power, and my hopes for its change have melted like spring snow. On the other hand, we are opposed by Russophobic circles, ready to sacrifice Russia on the altar of their own interests. In these conditions, the question of transition to a progressive economic model with the preservation of the country’s unity arises. In other words, the question is, what should be a positive reaction to the case of Putin’s preservation of the oil and gas oligarchy system in the next six years? At the same time, the reaction should be positive not only for Russia, but for the whole world.
Questions of philosophy
As you know, liberal thought places the law in the head of people’s behavior. There will be no laws – there will be anarchy, liberals teach us at every step. In the case of the poisoning of the Skripals, Russian diplomacy constantly pointed to the violation by England of international laws and agreements. On the part of England, this was followed by a zero reaction. With the dispatch of 60 US diplomats, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov acknowledged that the British had used the technical support item of the OPCW regulations, which allows countries to go directly to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, bypassing third parties. Finally, he said the most interesting words: “We will not just react reactively to what the Anglo-Saxon link does to us, forcing everyone to follow the anti-Russian course. We want to establish the truth”. But what is the relation of truth and law? What is higher, truth or law?
I think that the answer is obvious. Truth is above the law. To it, as to the last instance, Lavrov turned. According to the truth, laws and norms of morality are established: do not kill, do not steal, do not deceive. But in order to establish the truth, appropriate tools are needed, in the light of which it is visible. The modern court and liberal institutions, for which the supreme yardstick are laws and agreements, and not truth, are not such tools. For a modern court, evidence can be illegal (for example, obtained in a hacker attack), even if it completely sheds light on the truth and doesn’t cause doubts about its authenticity.
“Not by words, but by works you will be judged”
Do the Russian authorities support the creation of such independent international institutions, for which the supreme yardstick is the truth? No. Without an independent supranational investigation, before which no one can conceal internal documents, and a supranational court, truth in cases of the level of poisoning of the Skripals can’t be obtained. This means that the Russian government turns to the truth in words, but in fact is trying to catch a fish in the muddy water of the liberal system of explicit and secret agreements. It appeals to liberal justice: if you yourself fish, so let us as well! We also have our own interests! But in vain. In a brutal liberal world guided by interests, not truth, the one who is stronger is right. Enough for Syria? Well done. Not enough for Ukraine? Sorry, move on!
Whether the forces were enough for Syria is a question. For example, we don’t have technologies for a rapid economic recovery and the restoration of a destroyed economy. This means that we will be forced to negotiate with Russophobes on this matter and make concessions.
The weakest goes to the wall. Russia is attacked because it is weak. One provocation is followed by another. In a world in which there is no rule of truth, provocations can follow endlessly. And let Russia be three times right, it doesn’t matter. While we play by the rules that are established by the strong, the game can end only with the complete submission of the weak to the strong.
Can we again become strong in order to regain the liberal right to conclude treaties that Russophobes will comply with? Can we create a super-weapon against which Russophobes will be powerless? Let’s imagine what we can, but what for? Why should we repeat this dangerous and difficult path by which we have already walked? In the painted picture of the world, where the strong unambiguously subordinates the weaker, not everything is so linear. The real world is not at all linear. But maybe it’s time to stop wandering along paths with an indefinite final result and to follow the obvious path leading to a clear goal for all?
It seems natural that the authorities when investigating a fire in the SEC “Winter Cherry” use laws and regulations, looking for violators and identifying the guilty. But, as Konstantin Semin in his journalistic investigation showed in the Agitprop broadcast of March 31, 2018, the laws themselves led to the appearance of such an object as the SEC “Winter Cherry”. Certainly, the laws of the state, their appearance and functioning can be considered as a certain system. It turns out that in order to objectively and completely understand the causes of the fire in the SEC “Winter Cherry”, we need a supersystem court that can judge the system itself.
In addition to the news on Channel One, I watch two more shows. These are “Voice” and “Voice. Children”. In “Voice. Children” is an “Additional Stage”, during which viewers by way of a telephone vote choose additional finalists from the number of retired participants at the stage “Song for departure”. So, in the finale of this program, one of those whom the audience chooses at the “Additional Stage” invariably wins. Here is the morality: next presidential election should be considered as the final goal, and the time before them as the “Additional Stage”. The earlier the opposition nominates its candidates, the more cycles of selection by the people they pass, the more will be chances to defeat the candidate nominated by the authorities. The primaries left before the presidential elections by these criteria were too narrow, even in view of the fact that he was supported by the CPRF, and too short-term – the broad masses learned about it shortly before the elections. And, as the elections showed, the result of the primaries turned out to be unsuccessful.
The primaries of exclusively left forces are likely to be too insipid for the voters in terms of attracting their attention. Therefore, the form of organization of the primaries should include the whole range of political forces. It should be an attractive platform on which various political forces organize ideological battles, and the audience reveals the winners. Technically, the results should be protected from manipulations. The platform should be supranational and should allow battles to be fought by political forces from different countries, for example, from Russia and Ukraine. Further in the first place will be interesting countries in Europe and America. This doesn’t mean that these political battles will be reflections of international clashes. Political forces from different countries can follow a similar or identical ideology and act together against those who oppose the views of representatives of other countries. In general, it should be a platform for organizing primaries to bring political forces to power with a political program coordinated with other political forces in other countries. People from different countries have the inalienable right to influence each other’s choices, and the platform must effectively help them in this.