[ Home ]

The End of Illusions – Necessity of a New View on Reality

By Andrei Shkarubo.

It looks as if the parliamentary illusions of the Russian communist party were beginning to die off, as well as many of the stereotypes inherited from the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. When convulsions, which are usual in such cases, die down and the whining about rigged votes, complaining of people’s apathy, clichéd advice of “strengthening and broadening the work with the masses” cease, the communist party will finally have to stop and ponder: The old ways lead nowhere, where the new ways go, how they can be found and explored – no one knows. In order to know where one should go, one must know where one is and how one’s got there.

The communists, like the rest of the Russian society, must have a comprehensive and comprehensible picture of what’s going on in the world and the country, a chart reflecting wholly and fully the rich diversity of social relations and links which, because of their growth, seem increasingly contradictory, entangled and chaotic.

One should clarify what actually each sign on this chart means, in other words, one should verify with reality the basic notions, which we use without giving it a second thought (we must make sure that we all talk the same language, and its words have the same meaning for us), one should determine one’s position on this chart, one’s attitude (policy) toward such important objects-issues, like the man and society, its classes and strata, the state and its structures, economy, and so on.

Taking guidance from this comprehensive picture of the world and one’s position in it, one should establish one’s goals-ideals, toward which one should aspire, as well as one’s beacons-values which one should stick to so as not to get off course.

Finally, one should create one’s own navigation system, an ideology, the mechanism of analysis of emerging problems and their solution, i.e. the mechanism of policy-making to determine one’s tasks, ways and means of one’s progress towards one’s goal.

To reach this goal one should teach people, by one’s own example, in struggle and every-day work, such basic qualities like self-sacrifice and unbending will because Creativity, creation of something utterly new, is impossible without the trinity of clear Goal, selfless Sacrifice and unbending Will.

Morals and ethics (science of harmony of human relations, of proportioning one’s own interests and actions with the interests and life of your neighbor) must become inalienable part of policy. Politics should become as much a spiritual endeavor, as following the Christ’s teaching, the main commandment of which is love of (sacrifice to) God and one’s neighbor.

Objective causes of the crisis and its manifestations

The main causes of sickness and later demise of the socialist system and its state had nothing to do with the subversive enemy action. Instead of endless citing of Alan Dallas, designed to excuse one’s own stupidity by someone’s evil genius, one should recollect dialectics.

So as to understand that the cause of any crisis and demise is innate, as it lies in the uneven, i.e. of different speed, development of form and content, in what dialectics calls “the unity and struggle of contradictions”. 

The contradictions unsolved, and which are not being solved, and therefore growing and turning into unsolvable contradictions, the opposites, which disappear only with the disintegration of form, i.e. death.

For this very reason becomes old and dies everything, which exists, living and nonliving, people and machines, ideologies and states, civilizations and continents.

In the course of material existence, the unevenness of development shows itself in the increasing fragmentation (entropy) exceeding integration, synthesis, renewal; it shows in a disbalance, tension between energy-information content of the system and its material form, which sooner or later leads to a disintegration of form, i.e. death.

Fragmentation is inevitable result for a civilization, which chose material development as the main way of interacting with the outside world. 

Instead of much promised general well-being -“communism”, or at least “sustained development” - the manufacture, i.e. productive (not limited by vital necessities) labor with its social division, i.e. increasing specialization both in skills and knowledge, leads to a narrowness of outlook, spiritually impoverished pragmatism; thus increasingly distancing people from their Creator, Nature, and each other.

The fear of the surrounding world forced the man to make an artificial material form, a technetronic civilization; now human egotism turns this protective shield, necessary for the time being due to man’s spiritual immaturity, into a crypt for mankind.

The contradictions haven’t disappeared, they haven’t become less in number, nor acuteness. 

Wasting the remainder of our spiritual and natural resources, we are forced to admit that the more we know of the surrounding world, the less we comprehend it; the more we adopt it to our needs, the more vulnerable we become.

Inability to modernize, restructure, reintegrate is the cause of any crisis and death: 

If a program on which a system functions is not updated, or updated, but not fast enough, it will change from being an engine of truth into an obstacle of dogma, which can be removed only by inevitable dementia, decay of the program.

If the structures executing the program do not reorganize, or they reorganize, but not quickly enough, they change from structures, which control, sustain harmony and integrity of the system, into structures which domineer, in which the fear of disintegration is counteracted not by conscious reorganization, but by unrestricted consumption (strengthening the hierarchy of power) which in the end leads to open sponging on the system, its collapse and death.

The dialectic consistency of such outcome has been wittily observed by someone, saying: “It’s dreamers who conceive revolutions, fanatics who execute them, and sordid pragmatists who benefit from them”.

No ideological modernization and state reconstruction have been possible until early 1950s, because this was the period of growth and physical survival of ideology and its carrier, the state.

During Khrushchev’s thaw, attempts were made, intuitive, subconscious, mostly at the level of culture, by writers, artists, and dissidents to analyze the accumulated negative experience o faults and shortcomings, so as to draft an algorithm of their solution.

To do so a feedback from the people was required, not the one, which in Russia is still provided by the secret services through total surveillance and snitching, but a direct one, through democratic institutions.

But the ruling cabal couldn’t risk democratic reforms: Any concession of power to the people undermines a regime, which has neither the necessary state scope of thinking, nor moral authority and support among the people.

Democratization was out of the question because bureaucracy, an ugly offspring of dogma, had already become aware of its own interests, differing with the interests of the people, and therefore stopped at once the old Bolshevik practice of party purges, for the purpose of which they resolutely denounced the “personality cult” of Stalin who nipped their elitist sentiments in the bud, sending them in mass to Siberia so as to keep the unity of the party and the people.

To denounce the Stalin’s cult they used the dissidents, strictly following the rules of intrigue, bureaucracy’s deadly weapon: they first used them, then crushed them; and the dissidents’ status, in the twinkling of an eye, changed from the victims of the old regime, into outcasts and vilifiers of the new one.

In the decades that followed, the soviet bureaucracy flourished fully: 

In a society where no free flow of information, thoughts, ideas was possible (any attempts to conduct independent research, especially in sociology and philosophy, ended up in labor camps or psychiatric prisons), these parasitic invertebrates had ideal environment.

Having successfully buried the live core of the communist ideology, they still had to maintain its mummified form: that’s how they produced a magnum opus of “developed socialism” with its goal of “meeting the growing material and spiritual requirements of population” – those who knew the essence of spiritual development, or at least were acquainted with the lives of saints, argued that these tasks were mutually exclusive unless a clear priority were given to the spiritual aspect; that a disregard of this contradiction would trigger serious problems in social development. 

Life vindicated their judgment, and beside stagnation in ideology, Russia developed economic stagnation.

After stagnation, predictably followed a period of disintegration, generally known as Gorbachev’s perestroika (reconstruction). Despite the fact that the whole process was under control – as it had been planned and executed by the bureaucracy’s armed vanguard, KGB, - in effect, it was a collapse because the implemented reforms were always behind time in solving the snowball of contradictions. 

The collapse of the party, the state and privatization of its remains were inevitable.

After the failure of Gorbachev’s perestroika (a period of form decay), the state lost its territorial and economic unity.

During Yeltsin’s period, the disintegration of state structures was most visible: privatization in economy, devolution of power to the regions, and, predictably, the crisis of government, marked by constant government reshuffles.

The last period, the decay of informational content (fragmentation of national consciousness) has been passing under the auspices of Putin’s regime. 

The period during which it becomes clear that the regime, wasting the remainder of the national resources by beefing up its own structures of government, has no idea as to how to steer, nor in what direction. 

This period is bound to end shortly with a complete disintegration of the state, economy (first of all, its life support structures) and, which is quite possible, with disintegration of national consciousness.

The collapse is inevitable unless the problem of social pact is solved, and the harmony of social relations achieved.

 It would be impossible to find such solution, taking into account the convoluted, contradictory condition of social relations, and fragmentary state of public opinion (if not its absence) without absolute objectivity and impartiality of power.

The search for such solution demands analysis of the accumulated national experience, i.e. objective analysis of history, instead of its rewriting by Kremlin’s courtiers. 

Such solution is also impossible without invoking national memory, culture, which saves and generates all possible patterns of social conduct evolved and tested in the course of history.

The people are the carrier of both, national experience, i.e.history, and national memory, i.e. culture. 

Without the people hitched to this process, without formation of a feedback, integration of the masses into the running of the state and replacement of “component base” of government structures (replacement of personnel), the process of modernization in society, i.e. in national consciousness, the state, policy and economy, is impossible.

Gorbachev’s attempts to democratize social relations: his “restructuring of consciousness”, the ban of communist party monopoly on ideology, workers’ participation in running their factories, liberalization of small business, even attempts, or rather discussions in the press about the necessity of moral-ethical norms in politics and administration (power) – proved too weak to undermine the monopoly on power enjoyed by bureaucracy and its armed vanguard, the Russian secret services. Too weak, because the whole process was under the control of those secret services.

Being professional crooks-manipulators, they just swapped communist rhetoric for democratic one. After which, instead of a game called “construction of a bright future for all”, the gullible public was offered a no less enticing game “construction of a bright future for each”, thus replacing communism by freedom of enterprise.

Now the public, skinned to the bone but still ignorant of the true meaning of those games, is offered a “patriot game”: a strong state with a hint of social protection.

To look it credible they even sacrificed some pesky oligarch (Michael Khodorkovsky), troublesome because he thought in his naivety that one should play an open and fair game, in accordance with generally established rules.

So what kind of state do they want us to strengthen? – And what is it, they call “a state”?

The state is not an idol, which the public is supposed to worship, as the Kremlin manipulators and their security services intend, organizing a vociferous “choir of patriots” composed of morons and provocateurs.

- emerged in the course of social division of labor;

- took root in the form of various political, governmental institutions;

- functions on the basis of established socially meaningful differences: dominance (hierarchy) of spiritual or intellectual level; difference in power or capital.

The state is created by society for its own security, order; ideally – to achieve harmony and remove tension in social relations. 

The nature of the state is determined by the nature of differences on which the state hierarchy is founded.

The nature of our present state functioning by means of arbitrary power and deep material division, the state of the secret services and big capital, is self-evident: it is a state with a fascist regime, which despises equally the brainy intelligentsia, and the working rabble.

To say nothing of those people who possess spiritual, moral authority in a society, those who in any state represent nation’s conscience and form public opinion – such people were destroyed as species as far back as stagnation period. 

When perestroika followed, no one cared to put them on the endangered species' list, so they’ve either died out or gone deep underground.

The fact that the ruling regime is not guided by openly fascist ideology doesn’t alter its fascist core, nor makes it less noxious for the public. 

Quite on the contrary.

Fascism began its rise as openly antihuman, satanic idea, and an involutionary way of social development. As ideology of the far right, it has run out of steam, and can now offer no openly fascist idea capable of mobilizing society. 

But it still persists as a way of extremely parasitic, involutionary social development.

Being ideologically sterile, it mutates, sponging on alien ideas, juggling with them, courting their carriers, various political forces. 

Judging by the current annual death rate of the Russian population, quite comparable with our losses in the W.W.II, the present colorless and odorless mutant, raised in the secret KGB laboratories, is no less lethal than its notorious German predecessor, created by Nazi Occult Bureau.

Its poisonous, destructive effect may even increase, taking into account that the material carrier of the present form of fascism are the secret services and their men, all those who are now in power.

Those people who lived during communist period by snitching, lying, betraying, stealing and killing – allegedly for the sake of the triumph of communism and in the interests of its state carrier, the USSR.

Communism has ceased to be a dominant ideology, the USSR has ceased to exist, but –

The very same people continue, unceasingly, snitching, lying, betraying, stealing and killing – now making no secret of their own selfish interests, even trying to impose on society their own satanic ideology, asserting left and right that snitching, lying, betraying, stealing and killing is a normal and welcome way of conduct.

Swarms of their agents are seeking to instill this idea at a domestic level in the heads of ordinary Russians. Their main mouthpiece, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is preaching their Satanism openly, issuing death threats from Duma floor to the opponents of the present regime, urging a campaign of genocide against the whole people, who dared to seek independence.

This Satanism is calmly received by the Russian Orthodox Church. 

Anyway, none of its hierarchs, bursting with corporeal saintliness, has stated publicly that every fiend in human form openly corrupting human souls, destroying public morals deserves not a seat in parliament, but an aspen stake in his grave, to say nothing of those who orchestrate such Satanism.

Equally unspiritual, and unintelligent too, is the present opposition, which treats as a jester a raving fiend, who deliberately destroys public morals, and breaks the law too.

Neither the communists, nor the democrats, none demanded that the administration, the parliament should take steps to bring the provocateur to justice so as to appeal later, when their demand refused (the Russian secret services are loath to surrender the scum faithful to them), to apeal to the world public, say, the European Parliament, asking it to strip the Russian delegation of its membership there, because Duma and Kremlin are openly encouraging fascists…

How can one fight the fascist scum?

Those who are prepared to fight the present regime in earnest, should understand one thing:

“He who accepts the reality imposed by the regime, he either adapts to it, or resists it. He who seriously intends to fight the regime must create his own reality”.

It’s time the opposition switched from resisting the regime to fighting it, i.e. to creation of its own reality. They must stop taking part in electoral jamborees side by side with all sorts of mercenary scum, but should better restore bit by bit the fractured public consciousness, the social unity.

They should do it patiently, bearing in mind that the true unity and strength of public consciousness lies in the rich diversity of people of integrity, not in the numbers of the herd of spiritually raped and dehumanized.

The real communism means social harmony, impossible without personal freedom and democracy. 

A featureless unity of spiritually raped means fascism of bureaucracy and slavery of the mass.

The fight against the regime and creation of one’s own reality can start only after a sharp, definite and complete break off with the Kremlin. 

A simple precaution of political hygiene demands it. If a healthy part of society wants to survive both spiritually and physically, it must completely isolate itself from the leprous regime. 

Let Kremlin and the Moscow City center become their leprosarium. Let them rot there and spread their rot amongst their own.

The society must completely isolate itself from power because all contacts with this spiritual leprosy are dangerous:

The society hasn’t yet discovered the root-cause of this scourge, hasn’t defined its symptoms, the dynamics of its development and the mechanism of its spread, and what’s more – it has no clear idea how to fight it – the society has no strong immunity against the power, 

which is doing its utmost, trying to convince the people that filth and decay are the norms of life, that “everyone lives so now”, “one should stop seeking truth and justice which never existed, one should live like the rest and help our President”.

Those who do not want to lie to live and abet their president, get under the iron heel of their secret services. 

A typical example of this, but far from being the only one, is Edward Limonov and his young national Bolsheviks, who resolutely refused to march in step with the official youth organization the people call “Putin-Jugend”, and therefore received various prison sentences.

Like any evil, this power is well-aware it won’t survive a single day without a chance to sponge on anything spiritually healthy, selflessly open and sincere; on all charismatic that attracts people so much.

 That’s why the power is so generous with threats and promises, seeking to secure a “unity of a parasite and its victim”.

The isolation from the regime, its boycott are impossible without self-identity, creation of one’s own self. One must create a distinct image, one’s own form, so as to fill it, fill human life, with new content: with one’s own experience, outlook, values and ideals, totally different from the outdated ideals of consumerism and money-making. 

The new form filled with new content will produce a wholeness of the mind; it will give strength of conviction and energy to struggle.

The new form will be incomplete without new symbols, expressing clarity of intent, selflessness of sacrifice and unbending will. 

The new form and symbol are vital for those young who are already seeking their own, spiritual, path in life. Those who are making their choice by putting on T-shirts with portraits not of their president, a featureless spook called Putin, but of charismatic revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara.

The fight against the regime, creation of one’s own new form must start with the reconstruction of internal party relations, which should copy relations existing in early Christian communities where only spiritual authority gave the right to leadership, and persecutions and martyrdom were the only material rewards received. 

The mankind’s previous experience, history, shows that it’s a uniquely flexible form of organized struggle, the most effective in an atmosphere of despotism.

The fight against which cannot be limited to propaganda only, which is effective only if a civic society exists. 

In the present-day Russia we have only Philistines, frightened, divided and spiritually raped, those who believe, quite justifiably, no one and nothing. They don’t believe a single word because a Word without Deed is a Lie!

In these conditions a flexible approach in mobilizing the mass is important:

There are some who are starving and freezing, and still scared to fight even for their own rights, even for the right to life; 

there are others who are prepared to struggle for civil rights, provided the rights are their own, and the struggle is lawful and constructive, if compliant;

there are still others who are already prepared to fight their enemy to the bitter end, but receive neither support, nor even openly expressed sympathy from those whose political manifesto and duty require such action.

The followers of nonresistance and compromise with the regime should be explained, with lots of examples from the past and the present, that this wait-and-see policy of compromises with a fascist regime, a policy of compromise between a lamb and a wolf, would inevitably result in a heap of bones of the gutless and gullible.

Those who are prepared to struggle within the limits of the law must be enlisted in the human rights movement so that they could see for themselves that appeals to the law can be effective only in a true democracy, not in this country of “managed democracy”,

that the only way to defend their rights, their human dignity is to form a broad anti-fascist coalition capable of organizing large-scale demonstrations, protests, industrial actions and mass actions of civil disobedience.

Those who would object, saying that mass protests are impossible in Russia with its inert, apathetic population and allegedly high popularity rating of Putin, they should be reminded of a pre-elections scandal over much trumpeted pensions rise, when the poor men and women began spontaneously, without any outside agitation, sending back to their “darling president” those pittances which he’d so generously allowed, regarding his generosity an insult.

The realities of the fight against the regime demand a definite policy in choosing one’s allies. Among them can be any political, social force, which openly states its concept of socio-political pact, and opposes anti-democratic, fascist principles in running a state.

Dealing with allies, one should bear in mind that under conditions of fragmented public consciousness reflecting the convoluted, contradictory nature of social relations, no one can claim monopoly on truth. 

Only a sincere desire to search for it, however bizarre the proposed ways may look, can unite the motley opposition.

Actually, the society is split in two camps: those who are sincerely looking for truth, each in one’s own way, so as to have a key to solving the accumulation of problems; and those who are not interested in such truth because they live by sponging on the problems of society. 

It’s obvious that the class of parasites, which took form of a “Unity Party”, cannot be interested neither in open discussion of the problems, nor in a democratic search of their solution. The blind leaders aren’t interested in a society with vision.

Building one’s own reality as a means of fighting the regime is impossible without the reconstruction of party press, which should be devoted not to a demented wailing over irretrievably lost past, but to a formation of a new integrated national consciousness with its own culture, outlook, values and ideals; it should be devoted to mastering this methodological instrument in the fight against fascist regime, not to hysterical outcries of various morons who view the cause of their problems only in certain persons, and therefore demanding execution of a next scapegoat, appointed by the regime which has its own interests in spilling his blood;

demanding execution of the weakest species of the present cannibal clan, at the same time glorifying the regime which supports and reproduces this clan, demanding a strong-arm rule and advocating the increase of its strength.

The press should stop covering the endless squabbles of party big bugs but devote itself to concrete experience of struggle in all its forms, in all spheres of public life, in all its progress; it must give a comprehensive analysis of this experience, using similar experience of struggle in other countries now and in the past.

Bearing in mind the numerical strength of parasites making up the present unity of bureaucracy and their armed vanguard, the secret services, as well as virtually complete decay of life support infrastructure in Russia - the only thing which at present unites the nation - it’s not hard to guess that the regime’s collapse as well as disintegration of its state are guaranteed in the near future. 

Unless the society overcomes the fragmentation of its consciousness by this time, and attains its wholeness and fullness in accordance with the “E pluribus Unum”(Unity out of Diversity) principle, attempts to reassemble a new state out of the fragments of the old one will be futile:

The body, which this tangle of parasite worms are to leave will be dead by then.

March 2004.

 

[ Home ]

Yoga - the path of personal harmony