In the USSR, there was a cult of scientific worldview. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, religion returned to our lives, and chaos ensued in the field of worldview. I believe that the time has come to bring order here, and also to sort out the actual question of the attitude to the revolution.
The scientific worldview is based on the material experience obtained from the senses and the logical conclusions from this experience. For example, we can approach a wall, run a hand over its surface, feel what it is, assess its strength and the consequences of hitting it at a run. Religious worldview is based on our imagination. We can imagine that there is Something behind the wall and that it is his existence that gives the wall the properties that we have felt. The most important thing in a religious worldview is that, despite the fact that Something can have any properties of any kind, the real properties of the wall are at the exit. It can be asserted that Something has a rational basis.
Which worldview is better? Scientific or religious? Why do we need to imagine Something, if we can get all that we need from our material experience? To answer these questions, let’s have a look at a lullaby:
Rock-a-by, little baby,
Don’t lie on the edge,
A grey wolf will come
And bite your side.
We see that еру lullaby carries with it a rational instruction: “Don’t lie on the edge”. At the edge of the baby’s bed there is danger. For example, he can fall from it or catch a cold. The role of the imaginary Something is played by a “grey wolf”. It is clear that in this way it is easier to get rational behavior from a child than to explain the laws of physics, biology, mathematics, and much more. Thus, religion helps us to find a rational seed where science is powerless.
At the same time, the weakness of the religious worldview is linked to the imaginary world, which remains the way it was originally invented, while life is changing. The norms of behavior dictated by religion may in time cease to bear rationality. For example, the monotheistic religions helped to end the internecine wars and form modern states. After the formation of states, this role lost its significance, with it the monotheistic religions also lost their meaning, which was reflected in the norm of separation of church and state.
On the other hand, moral norms, the rationality of which is indisputable, are adopted without reference to any religion. An example of such norms is the attitude towards children, parents, women, the disabled and the elderly.
If religion has lost or loses its role, then what about the remaining task of finding rational behavior in cases where science cannot help? Politics takes on this role. Politicians are looking for new forms of rational behavior (given the incompleteness of scientific knowledge about the world and the fact that each individual carries only a fraction of scientific knowledge, in many questions he can be wrong and be the carrier of various social norms). Actually, they always did it. Authors of legends, parables and religions can also be considered politicians.
Before turning to the question of our attitude to the revolution, let’s turn to the current achievements of scientific and technological progress.
Nowadays, artificial intelligence has become commonplace. If yesterday we had computers associated with a quick search of what was invented by man, then today computer technologies based on AI demonstrate that a computer can create. Already today, AI is starting to replace a person. What will happen when all the necessary work will be performed by robots controlled by AI? It seems very likely that in the near future there will be no room for human labor and something awaiting us resembling communism, which was mentioned by the classics of Marxism, and, judging by all, it will come without a world proletarian revolution.
The opened horizon is capable of making adjustments to our judgments, just as if in dark ages a man went into space, then the talk about whether the Earth is flat would have ceased with all evidence. The roots of erroneous judgments in relation to the revolution can be found among the classics of Marxism. But first, consider what the classics are right about. They are right in what is called “materialism,” asserting that the base defines the superstructure. As we now see, it is the development of the basis, the development of technology, in our case, AI, allows us to save us from work and restructure social relations. The error of the Marxists was that they also considered the class struggle to be the engine of social progress. The truth is that social contradictions, including the class struggle, are also superstructures – derivatives of the base. As a consequence, the following mistake took place: the statement that revolution, as a way of resolving social contradictions, is an integral element of the progress of social relations. Indeed, the fact that revolutions and coups reflect social contradictions and are also an attribute of the basis.
Let’s now consider the position of various groups in relation to the issue of social revolution.
The first group are the romantics of the Maidan. They believe that the power changes according to their desire, that they will replace any power if they don’t like it. They don’t pay attention to the fact that serious resources were attracted to the organization of the Maidan. Emissaries traveled throughout Ukraine and offered to the unemployed to take part in the Maidan for good money. For example, my childhood friend after participating in the Maidan was able to organize his own enterprise. They don’t care about the question of how power from a small area suddenly instantly passed over the whole of Ukraine, that in this process Maidan played only the role of scenery, and the real action in the form of betrayal was accomplished in the highest layers of power under Western guarantees of legitimizing their actions, which according to the Constitution only the President of Ukraine can provide. Only under this condition, the president of Ukraine has to flee from Ukraine, saving his life from those who are legally obligated to protect it.
The most interesting thing for us now is the norms produced by this group. This group of worship of the Maidan divides people into those who are able to organize a pro-Western coup (they don’t accept anti-Western revolutions, for example, the Cuban or October 1917,) and those who, in their opinion, are unable or unwilling to participate in it. It calls them “vatniks”, or “potatriots”, classifies them as lackeys and slaves. This group writes itself to people of higher dignity. Thus, we face a new kind of Nazi philosophy. In order to be a Nazi, it is not necessary to have a tattoo in the form of a swastika and to give a Hitler salute. There is no doubt that there is a rational grain in this philosophy – hopes that Western investments will come to Ukraine. I am only afraid that they are in vain. The West has once made a mistake and supported the Nazis in their aspirations, greatly regretting it. The second time it will be difficult for him to make the same mistake.
The second group is “antimaidan”. After Maidan 2014 in Ukraine, this group generates the following universal standard for all. It says that revolutions carry the danger of civil war and that the worst democratic elections are the best alternative to Maidan. Over time, this provision is capable of stopping the emergence of local military conflicts and reducing social costs in the same way as the introduction of hygiene standards once did. Unfortunately, carriers of this standard often make a mistake of time. They don’t pay attention to the fact that the norm starts working from a certain point and extends to the future, but doesn’t touch the past. The norm could have acted on revolutionaries and the government in Colombia in 2016, but one cannot look at the past from the point of view of modern norms and see in it only the result of someone’s evil intent.
The third group is global liberalism headed by American liberals, representing the so-called “mainstream” in science and the media. Most often this group is meant when we talk about the West. Liberal considers modern revolutions natural phenomena, and not the result of the work of Western intelligence services and political technologists. Their NGOs are an insignificant factor, unable to change the internal situation in the country. At the same time, the opinion is easily changed if the Russians concern their elections in the slightest way. We miraculously have tremendous opportunities to influence Western elections. I note that in this case we are not talking about a coup, the seizure of power by military means, but about elections held in compliance with all legal procedures.
The norm of the liberals is aimed at preserving the attitude towards the revolution as a natural way of establishing power. They believe that this is legal and democratic, because it is they who determine what is legal and democratic. About the fact that their philosophy of positivism inhibits the development of social sciences, I already wrote. After all, the essence of the social sciences dealing with social norms is the generation of new rational social norms, i.e. in politics. The basic principle of positivism is the separation of politics from science. So modern social science serves not for truth, but for interests. Let me remind you that according to polls of sociologists, the United States gave a landslide victory for Hillary Clinton. There is also a rational grain in the norm generated by the liberals in relation to the revolution. It allows the heirs of the colonial world to establish regimes advantageous for them in various countries. By supporting outspoken Nazis, killing people for the sake of “democracy” and “civilization”, the liberals remain agents of the colonial world and hidden Nazis.
Finally, the fourth group is Marxists. The brightest media persona representing it in our country is Konstantin Semin. Many Marxists gathered around the Razvedopros channel. Marxism represents many parties, the largest of which is the Communist Party. Marxists are waiting for the repetition of the October Revolution and the awakening of class feelings among the working people in vain, because the conditions of 1917 will never be repeated. There will be no more World War. And if it takes place, the consequences of nuclear war are definitely not what is needed for the construction of communism. The social norms of that time will not be repeated. Never again will society be so supportive of the revolution and the living revolutionaries. Awakening of class feeling was to be expected in the 90s. If then it did not wake up, now it will not wake up even more so. It is much more effective to talk about what is easily accepted, for example, the priority of the public over the private. Against the background of the crisis of liberalism and Marxism, so-called “populists” come to power (these include both the first and second groups), which, apparently, speak to the people in a language they understand.