is, the new dictatorship of the Russian community, was taken as the basis. Who are these proletarians? Why are they so just and Holy in Karl Marx? These are just Russian peasants who worked for a while at the factory, but were or remained peasants by blood and spirit. The Marxist intellectuals raised them above the ground. Did the saints almost. But then the tricksters and romantics were themselves destroyed, tortured, and shot by these same proletarians – former peasants. This ignorance. And Russian Marxism proved to be a heavy tax on the entire people, on the entire society, on all so-called Marxism, which eventually led to the fall of the USSR and the restoration in 1991. Farmers, even after becoming intellectuals, in the second and third generation will think about how to increase their allotment – to build a dacha, for example, or to arrange a son in a prestigious University. When this desire became great, privatization took place in Russia. Privatization and new feudalization based on new technologies is a continuation of the same tax on the elite, when the new elite wants not recognition by the Russian community, but recognition by the world elite. The children and grandchildren of Russian peasants have joined the ranks of the world’s elite with big money. This money, this gold, they stole from their people.
CHAPTER VII
WHERE DID “TAKE AND SHARE” COME FROM”
All traditional families have many children. Traditional fathers could not pass on the same inheritance to all their sons. In Europe, the father passed the inheritance to the eldest son. This transfer of inheritance to the eldest son in the family was called the entail. The younger children were forced to find their own luck. The younger sons went to the city. They created dynasties of urban artisans. All urban burghers – this is all once deprived of the inheritance of their grandfather’s younger sons. Of course, dynasties were created more than one year. All people grow up, grow old, the moment comes when the younger sons are already deprived of their inheritance, and they themselves must pass on the inheritance as fathers. The fathers of the city burghers themselves became stewards of their property. And again, the inheritance was transferred, as it was once in the native village. But in the city it was not so tyrannical, not so abrupt. The bourgeoisie has always had opportunities to soften the old mores. Therefore, in the city, the discontent of the younger sons and indignation occurred gently. Younger sons mixed with older sons and the transfer of inheritance became a formal action. Of course, by tradition, the privileges of the elders were formally preserved. But the older ones might be idiots. Although it was always the younger sons who were frivolous. Because their parents spoiled them. It is impossible and impossible to transfer the property that was acquired by many works of the father, and maybe several generations of ancestors to a stupid heir. This can’t be happening. But no one, no father, ever thought of sharing the inheritance equally. This would violate paternal ethics. For traditional people, hierarchy is important in any form. Otherwise, according to its elite (zerots), chaos will ensue. But where, in what place, could the idea arise-to take and divide all the property?
There are places and societies where no one likes the rights of eldest sons. Such a mood and indignation was always in the minds of the younger sons! The traditional world itself is rebelling in the face of younger sons, and slaves can also be sons, as well as peasants, pirates, bandits, raiders, even proletarians. Not all rebellious workers are the youngest in their families, but all” proletarians have nothing to lose but chains.” That is, all the rebellious in the world of tradition, and the whole world of mankind lived in a hierarchy, among the injustices and exploitation of the weak by the strong, but all of the rebels rose up against injustice, against hierarchy, against the order established by the elite. The traditional elite is a common father for all. The comparison of the discontent of the younger son, of all the younger sons, with the despair of all the slaves of the world is somewhat strange. But you can’t start a family without a material base! And in the name of what should all the oppressed in the world rebel? In the name of human rights, in the name of justice? This justice was invented by poets. The philosophers of the New time. All traditional people are outraged if they cannot repeat the path of their ancestors, the path of their fathers. In the name of this, they must break the system if the system does not allow them to have children. In the name of what then should they live zeref? Who needs then it’s a dog’s life? That’s why the “take and share” appeared not in the primitive socialists of the people, but within the people themselves, which can not, if deprived of the opportunity, repeat the path of their ancestors. There is no tradition, and there is no popular sense. Take and share appeared in the crater of tradition. It was those people who were deprived of their conditional inheritance who raised their fiery lava of protest. Who is there again before your eyes? Traditional people are zerefs. Yes, at first glance, Sharikov’s new Communist looks as stupid as his former dog. But weren’t all the world’s slaves dogs for the exploiting elite? You can not compare all the poor and deprived of the world with the fool and upstart Sharikov. But all the unfortunate people before Sharikov and after Scharikov thought exactly like a Communist Sharikov-take and divide. And Sharikov is a former dog based on Bulgakov’s novel. Previously, there was no teaching of scientific communism. Neither was Karl Marx. There was no one to tell the great Spartacus and his slave companions that their cause was that of the doomed. Slaves could still beat the Romans. They could break out of a Roman prison or a Roman empire. But no more. Then the slaves would create their own state. And this state would be paternal again. That is, there would be their own tribal fathers. And six fathers have their own older and younger sons. There would be favorites, but also outcasts. In many, many centuries, hundreds of thousands of slaves of capitalism will begin to storm their proletarian sky. And what are we going to do with them? Don’t look at all the suffering slaves with perfect eyes. Not all slaves are saints, and not all are unhappy. They will take and divide all the property of the “father”, as they think-according to scientific communism, but in fact, as their fathers divided them. But what will happen in the end? It is necessary to look not only at the source of the mountain river, but also at the swamp of the Delta. Like all traditional people before and after them, they will create a society of new paternal ethics. Where there will be their rulers-the red elite and there will be their oppressed with red faces from indignation. Some will have privileges, others will work for them. And their grandchildren, that is, the third privileged generation will receive the inheritance bequeathed by their fathers bosses-the property of the entire state of the USSR. Where there is tradition, there is always repetition. That’s why all the revolutionaries and slaves are disenfranchised in our country as conditional younger sons.
CHAPTER VIII
TURGENEV’S FATHERS AND CHILDREN
In the 60s of the XIX century, Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and children"was published in Russia. In this work, the contradiction between generations is well shown. The novel became popular. It was popular among Russian liberals, and in Soviet times it was included in the school curriculum
In fact, Russia was expected to reform in 1861. Russia lagged behind the West and therefore lost the Crimean war. The Tsar abolished serfdom. Young people raised in the spirit of progressivism, nihilism and socialism began to resist the conservative fathers. Old people always gravitate to the old ways. In the world of the glorious past, it is customary not only for the zeroth (feudal elite), but for all people of middle and above middle age to live comfortably and well. Young people are not interested in their past life, its rules and customs. The old morals are like fences for keeping cattle, and the laws are like the enclosure of a circus cage, in which young people walk like wolves from corner to corner. The young must always make themselves known. Prove to the old generation that they are better than their fathers. They are not interested in life according to the laws of their fathers. We are not talking about self-realization of the social bottom. There everything is very clear: home, food, rest and offspring. Only rich people can afford to “save the world”. Or destroy it to create a new, better, brighter life. This is how our remids 2 come into conflict
