Democracy and "democracy"

Recently read a wonderful book by Dmitry Travin "Will the Putin system exist before 2042?". This entertaining reading, the author was able to write it in clear language, in places with sarcasm and irony, but the questions and answers posed in the book are very relevant.

In fact, the whole book talks about the various choices of Russian society in the points of fracture (bifurcation), so I recommend it to a wide range of readers, not just specialists. After all, life will force us to make many decisions again, the fate of our children and grandchildren will depend on them.

This book just helps to make a choice in the points of the fracture quite consciously. I was hooked on Dmitry Travin's very interesting arguments about democracy, and I decided to state my thoughts on this issue. The author told how a lot of people during the perestroika played funny in democracy, but this entertainment was replaced after some time by other interests.

"Democracy"

A lot of Russians consider themselves disappointed in democracy, especially in liberal reforms, but about them some other time. It's pretty funny. The fact is that democracy in the Soviet Union, and in Russia has never been. How can you hate and be disappointed in what was not? Under democracy, Russian citizens understand a rather amusing procedure.

This is a certain collection of people in one place, deciding by open or closed voting in one beautiful and dazzling moment its fate, and indeed of all mankind. At the same time, the preparation for such a meeting always remains beyond the bounds of understanding, it is being pushed out of the consciousness as something in which man, this democrat, never recognizes himself.

The fact is that behind the scenes there is always the same circus. Some "democrats" are intimidated, gold mountains are promised to others, others are bribed with attention (serfs especially on this padki), the fourth gives hope for a position.

This circus always occurs on the Russian geopolitical space with an enviable regularity and repeats itself as an obsessive idiotic thought through the layers of time. Behind him always looks power, strength, brothers who came to the meeting of the housing partnership to seize power through a fictitious procedure, green men armed to the teeth.

They sort out unreliable elements. But if something that has lost human dignity because of wild fear, paralyzes the will and the thought in your head comes, that's the democratic voter, then he always arranges bandits. After all, they completely control it, and this "democrat" guarantees people behind the scenes that organize the circus in the form of "democracy" success in their endeavors to seize and retain power.

Population undergoing psychological exertion to turn it into controlled "democrats" naturally understands that this practice of various sources of power and power substitutes for itself a free choice, and it hates and condemns such "democracy" hiding the main cause of this sad mechanism - its cowardice and meanness. And cowardice, as Pontius Pilate said, is the most terrible vice.

Bolshevik democracy

The Bolsheviks came up with such a distortion of the principle as democratic centralism. Its essence lies in the phrase: we thought, and I decided.

That is, the head assembled subordinates, and they voted unanimously for all his decisions. In this case, a special person watched the voters, so that God forbid there were no abstentions, and the opponents must be immediately ostracized and expelled.

This principle of popular "democracy" the Bolsheviks borrowed from Sergei Nechaev. He created an organization based on the very same democratic centralism. And the contradiction in the definition did not bother anyone. Seryozha was the main fighter against the hated tsarism, he was subordinate to five people who led every five, those in turn by others and so on down to the very bottom.

The way of making all decisions: the five votes, and always as the chief says.One of the students named Ivanov doubted the authority of Sergei, who whistled to everyone that he was a representative of the European Revolutionary Committee. Then under the influence of Sergei one of the fives decided and voted for the murder of the doubting student Ivanov.

When the verdict was carried out in accordance with revolutionary law, they even forgot Sergei's presence of a revolver, they choked and beat the student Ivanov for a long time, who bitten them in death cramps and so gave them to the police, who quickly could figure out ardent Democrat revolutionaries. This tradition had deep historical roots, was the result of a mutual responsibility in the scorched Russian Horde steppe, was a mechanism for the departure of the individual from responsibility and transfer it to the whole group.

This is the usual psychology of the conflict-authoritarian (primitive) group, which requires tying the participants with the help of joint crimes. And to fix the guilt of the participants, an interesting procedure is carried out as a joint solution under the pressure of the leader.

For some reason, it is customary in Russia to call it democracy, although it is a banal ochlocracy, used by authorities to carry out their interests.

Lugandon Democracy

Once on the television channel "Rain" showed a wonderful story about modern Russian democracy without a touch of tinsel and clownery. True, as it is in a pure and sparkling splendor. One field commander from Lugandon was able to expand his influence over a significant territory and thereby achieve a huge amount of resources for the war.

It goes without saying that the meaning of participation in such conflicts lies in the trade in resources, the robbery and murder of witnesses, the sale of hostages. The competitor decided to seize the territory under the control of the field commander and when he raped another victim a comradely court was held where without investigation and trial the rapist was sentenced unanimously to death, with the exception of his mother who did not take part in the voting.

People were driven at the barrels of rifles, demanded a unanimous vote, all with fear were imbued with righteous anger and committed murder, tied each other with the blood of a murdered rapist. The fact is that in the territories of such conflicts violence takes open forms and rape is committed systematically. Field commanders do not even conceal these actions using power, which is what competitors used.

And the junior team to organize a crime organizes a crazy bomb from the enemy. In such cases, this democracy becomes what it really is - okhlokratie - a mechanism for realizing the interests of authorities in seizing and retaining power.

Democracy

If "democracy", which in fact ochlocracy is a positive mechanism for securing primitive groups, democracy is a completely destructive mechanism, just like Kalashnikov's machine gun.

The fact is that inclusive institutions in the form of the distribution of power over a large number of persons require a mechanism to oppose the seizure of power by an individual authority, dictator or group of individuals.

So this democratic mechanism is exactly the destructive mechanism. They block the attacks of usurpers on political and civil liberties, and therefore are highly valued in developed countries. The essence of any gangster is a constant expansion, increase of money incomes due to redistribution, investing them in political capital, which is used to further seize property.

This creates a beneficial circle for bandits, it is thanks to him that they seized power in Russia and a vicious circle for the population. The more bandits concentrate their power and property, the more they select both citizens. To eliminate the very possibility of creating such vicious circles, humanity has come up with democratic procedures.

They do not allow you to concentrate power in one hand, block investments in political capital.But in Russia democracy has never existed and in the foreseeable future it is unlikely that it will appear, since for a larger number of the population it is not a value, because they are not actually citizens ...

The paradox is that first citizens win political and civil liberties rights, then they form inclusive institutions, and only after that they launch democratic procedures experiencing in them excessive need to protect from the authorities and political freedoms, and civil rights, and inclusive institutions, and creative times ushenie, themselves democratic mechanisms.

https://itmages.ru/image/view/6615402/e5a74173