Red Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism

Red Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism

Almaz Braev

© Almaz Braev, 2024

ISBN 978-5-0056-1012-6

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Today, the world is on the edge of a precipice. This gap is not only in the form of the end of the world, the apocalypse of humanity but also the world revolution, even though the world revolution will not be the worst way out for reformatting the world system.

Today, the world is under the power of the World Bank and financiers, who also control all the special services of the world. And they control peoples, governments, and presidents as consumers of one world currency on which everyone depends. There is not a single area that these people do not control.

Revolutions are divided mainly into orange and red. The orange ones reflect democracy and human rights, and the red represents socialist ideas. Due to mass urbanization, humanity did not want socialism and presented socialism in the form of Stalin’s concentration camp. In fact, socialism is not a concentration camp and is a system that frees people from all dependence on dark animal instincts. As it turned out, democracy does not liberate humanity, but on the contrary, enslaves and makes people slaves of consumption and slaves of money. Addicts of consumption today are the most dependent egoists. Therefore, they began to be treated for the pandemic. But you are not stupid people, and you already understand what democracy cures under the rule of financiers.

This book is intended for those who want to figure out what happened to the socialist idea and what perspective the new world has.

Chapter 1

Old dogmas. Trotsky’s foreign body

Only social democracy has remained of the left movement in the modern world.

It has shown vitality only in Europe and only thanks to democratic habits. The democratic ark should have “a pair from each species.”

There are also no prospects for the so-called leftists in other parts of the world. If you want social guarantees, go to the polling station.

One after another, the countries of South America stumble upon the electoral rake. There seem to be no more precedents, such as until the overthrow of Allende by the junta. But the victories of left-wing coalitions still happen, as they did during Allende. The world has changed. It became tolerant because maybe the USA became tolerant. Coups have also disappeared from world practice. Or rather, the danger has disappeared because the second camp and the second-world subject, the USSR, have disappeared. Now, it has become easier to turn people over and give injections. Who can prohibit, for example, vaccination?

We state that the left has no other way to achieve power today. However, there are no leftists in the world either in the sense of the leftism of the 20th century. Once again, the world has changed. From the left, there are now only talkers, only left-wing Pharisees. Actually, this is evidence of a global crisis. In the tolerant world of democracy, individuals and intellectuals disappear. Democracy has always led to degradation everywhere. The crowd selects lecturers and idols for themselves in the system and social networks. The system leaves communist artists to play communists, and a crowd of hedonists on social networks is looking for different clowns. Therefore, bloggers want to avoid explaining, not to teach, but to gain a crowd of subscribers.

So.

Our leftists repeat the mantras of a century ago; they resemble the Pharisees of the ancient Sanhedrin of Judea. But no, the ancient Jews are no longer looking at them because the ancient Jews should talk about the Old Testament. Therefore, imitating the hoary antiquity, our left-wing lecturers automatically turned into ancient Jewish Caiaphas because reliance on old dogmas is always more reliable. This is what distinguishes the Pharisees.

The more often they repeat the old formulas of Marx and Lenin, the more they know that they are talking nonsense. We can say they hide behind the old men – Marx and Lenin. But the old people lived in a different time and environment, even if they were authoritative. This is not Ancient Judea with its thousand-year history. The world has changed rapidly in a hundred years.

What to do?

We need to figure it out.

Why do young people not want communism today? Young people want democracy and to live like in the West. Young people enjoy equal rights. Or respect for their rights.

But should the left-wing Pharisees say we are also waiting for the second coming? As they immediately accuse revisionism of others. It has already been so! They’re still talking, Marx and the dictatorship of the proletariat would win! We believe in it. Do they really believe, or are they hypocrites? Many have tried, but what happened in practice?

What? What is a dictatorship?

There were feudal peoples in the world, which means peasant peoples.

These feudal-class peoples gave the so-called socialism in the first half of the 20th century. No matter how Trotsky defied the world system with the dictatorship of the proletariat after the time of Marx, there were no proletarian peoples in the world! Therefore, former peasants always opposed Trotskyism, which became a new communist elite. Trotsky could never win (there is one condition, but it is not for this short article.). And Trotskyism could never win because the state now does not make the factories. They are part of the economy of industrial modernization. They disappear as a stage of development. If there are no factories, there is no proletariat. If there is no proletariat, there is no dictatorship. If there are no activists of history, the basic subjects of action, then go to the ballot boxes! This is the simplest explanation for the crisis of the left idea.

Trotsky and Trotskyism have only one gratitude – for the left alternative to Stalinist-peasant communism. But, again and again. The world could not get any other socialism in the 20th century except socialism, which grew out of a class-feudal culture – from tradition. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Kampuchea are in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The people with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism, but new bureaucrats replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These are the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. However, the alienation of the Eastern (fertile peoples) at that time was enormous. There could be no other communism. It’s all objective. Today, Marxists have one task for those who consider themselves such. Understand. Where from follows planetary individualism. Democracy or the market system has proved that a person needs alienation. He wants to separate himself from the crowd, to put it simply. Therefore, the left has no future with the old dogmas. Young people are for democracy.

Hence, the so-called Marxists have no choice but to join the ancient “Jews” crowd and shout, crucify him! I have not met any other reaction from hypocrites, impotent, and therefore envious, except for accusations of revisionism. Well, of course! Repeating the conclusions of a century ago in a new environment is not only a habit. It’s also an excuse. The Pharisees also justified themselves by the millennial experience of the people.

Chapter 2

Russia after the formal victory of Zyuganov’s Communists

What would have changed if the Russian Communist Party faction had taken the majority in the Duma?

Nothing. Because the second head of the fairy-tale dragon of the local bureaucracy would have risen conditionally. Actually, the Communist Party formally won. But this victory is not it. People voted for the opposite. Democracy is different in this. Everywhere. What is not pleasant or annoying is replaced by something less unpleasant. Communist Party was less unpleasant for people in a conditional store, where the same conditional things are sold. The Communist Party and its experienced leader, the compromiser, were chosen only from Russian hopelessness. The domination of the main boyars of the EP became simply unbearable. Even the main competitors of the state oligarchs on the business idea – Navalny’s liberal people, called for voting for the Communist Party through smart voting. This, too, is from hopelessness. Despite their cultural modernization and market tolerance, conditional Democrats would never vote for conditional communist Gulag members. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, like the old truth.

Modern communists, or people who call themselves such, are no less greedy. However, they have limitations because of their ideology. Each profession has specific professional clothing; the doctor, for example, has a white coat. The worker has a roba. The orchestra conductor has a tailcoat. Zyuganov’s communists learned to sell communist ideology professionally, although people thought less about communism in these elections. Communist Party members and many other left-wing Pharisees are obliged to talk about the people, for example, what the people are suffering and the people are getting poorer. But will no one of these communists leave the Duma to live as a people? What for? The Communist Party is a profession in one word. So, let’s imagine the professional actors of the second plan were brought out as the main artists. What would have happened? But nothing. First, the quality of the performance would drop. It’s natural. Then, the supporting actors would get a little comfortable with their new roles. The old mechanism or system would have been cleaned up and started working again at the same speed. What will change if you change the car’s details in the blue wrapper to those in the red wrapper? It’s a replay of cargo cult. Is that clear? Hypocrites and Pharisees cannot change anything; they can only repeat.

Few people came to the symbolic protest rallies. That’s why they are symbolic. And now, let’s remember how much came out for liberal Navalny throughout the Russian Federation – thousands of times more. The electoral triumph of the Communist Party, albeit formal, is not a victory of the communist idea. Nobody needs the communist idea. These symbolic rallies are evidence of this. Modern leftists, those who are called or those who consider themselves Marxists, prefer not to see this. Modern leftism is full of old Pharisees, middle-aged, and even their young parrots about the dictatorship of the proletariat, justice, and other ideas of Karl Marx from the 19th century. Modern left-wing Pharisees think in terms of a century ago and even more. (This is if the Marxists of Lenin’s time talked about the Mazdakids and their struggle’s eternal, holy methods). The modern left does not even understand why they are in crisis. They are nervously leafing through Lenin’s hundred-year-old records. They carry gibberish. They calm their ego.

First, the modern activists must admit that they are a product of tradition, that the so-called planetary communism was established on earth not only thanks to, and despite, Marx. Only nations with a rigid tradition have found a new traditional system and called it communist. Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, and Kampuchea are in Asia. This is the territory of a rigid collective tradition. The people with a similar culture of collectivism adopted the so-called communism, but in fact, case new bureaucrats replaced the local feudal elites through the revolution. These were the nations where capitalism was underdeveloped. However, the alienation of the Eastern (fertile peoples) at that time was enormous. Europe solved its overpopulation by World War I. Then, it made an upgrade. By this time, the people of the East were not ready for a world war. These were the people of the periphery. They were late for planetary modernization, so they chose a catch-up project – communism.

The communist project is a catch-up project, as rigid collectivism in the tradition is compensation for the severity of the climate and conditions by common labor. The countries of the Asian tradition chose communist ideas because they approached their dictatorship (of the proletariat) to the collective memory of peoples, to the production culture of reflexes. Karl Marx, an urbanized citizen, despised feudalism, Asia, and Russia. Therefore, empirically, he could not connect the alienation of the slave personality to the alienation of the proletarian personality. The alienation of the proletarian personality is the same as a member of a generic collective. The generic “nothing” alienation could not happen unnoticed in the modern Marx city. It happened just in the kind of alienation described by Marx. But Marx concluded the reasons for a person’s dependence on society. Industrial relations in a duet with production forces did not allow a person to be free. From this, Marx found a solution to replace people with machines that create abundance. But if a tribal person is freed from relatives, will he become free? If a peasant is left without a village, won’t he run wild?

Similarly, a person who is not working and free from alienation will not write poetry and philosophize. Abundance will not make a person kinder. But the fact that Marx jumped over the traditional alienation and did not see the old capitalist alienation tradition still blinds all the so-called Marxists on the left (for me – a large crowd of Pharisees). They feel it would be better not to think at all. Alienation is changing; the city is replacing the village, but the culture and traditions remain. Production robots and other mechanisms cannot solve this problem.

That’s how Zyuganov and Co. are primarily traditional people from the village. What the system, like the tradition, tells them they will do. They received from the system all profits, and they will still receive, like that meek heifer sucking at two cows.

Chapter 3

There must be an emperor in the empire

The world of information and its consumers needs resonance. Information channels always scare or write “that the world shuddered.” The world shuddered because divers found something at the bottom of the ocean. The world shuddered that a famous politician said something. And so on. But who in Russia shuddered at the wedding? At the wedding of a man from the last tsarist Russian monarchical dynasty. After all, the late Russian tsar was overthrown in 1917. There was the same resonance. Who in modern Russia was not lazy and paid attention to the new wedding?

The world of information and its consumers needs resonance. Information channels scare or write “the world shuddered” all the time. Therefore, not everybody is true in the Russian Federation, but interested citizens also shuddered. These newsmakers and other creators of ideas “shuddered”. However, no one now cares about anyone or anything. The townsfolk have been in suspended animation for a long time at the resonances. Only the primary instincts remained. The modern man in the street seems to have no other traits except instincts. Such a tendency that soon reasonable people will not be found.

A lot of time spent online has confirmed the opinion that now people are very conservative. It is difficult for them to leave their cozy worlds. (They also rarely leave their apartments and sofas). Now, people look at the world with lonely egoism. This is such an answer to the extras of the soviet life (which is better, I do not know, but we want to live in a predictable world, and, in my opinion, in the soviet past, it was easier).

The so-called elite looks at the world with the same egoism. They also watch something during the breaks of their big affairs. They are also tired and want the world not to “shudder”. Furthermore, they are also painfully thinking about how to live and save their billions of stolen dollars.

Where is the coincidence between the “trembling” of people from large palaces and people from sofas? However, the inhabitants of sofas are more inclined to equality of rights with the inhabitants of palaces and self-exclusivity, in contrast to Central Asian migrants. Nothing has happened to traditional conservatism. It didn’t disappear. It turned into the struggle of the European bourgeoisie for equality of rights, like in the 18th century. This concerns ordinary citizens and the opposition to the existing regime. Conservatism usually turns into xenophobia.

What is the trend from below?

There are three of them. The first and main one is the liberal trend. There is a link between a group of liberals and young people who want to live like in the West. The second one is still nationalism. If you give nationalism the first place, Russia will not stand. Judging by the past elections, the voters used the oppositionists as part of the regime in the form of official communists to solve their problems. Nobody really wants Soviet-type communism. The people have explicitly been free for a long time and thus corrupted. I watch the conservatism of former Soviet and modern people, which turns into xenophobia. There are many disparate speakers, but the puzzle has not yet been matched. They’re looking, too. They search exit paths. But the elite is also looking. They’re looking, too. They want to rule forever.

Empowerment with a sense of superiority is the very imperial thesis. The so-called bourgeoisie wants the same equality as the third French estate of Louis XVI. The topic of civil equality is a European topic. Fascism emerged from bourgeois internal equality and external superiority. (There were no bourgeois revolutions, and the old nobility was preserved). The old generation quickly transferred the old superiority to the new civilian generation. They would be told that there was a time when we were great. Therefore, any failure outside and a crisis inside always creates a mini-war sent out by succession. That is why the former empires, even in disassembled form, have an active foreign policy, rattle weapons, and powerful propaganda. The population also likes such an active foreign policy (partly because it continues to greatness). Napoleon III, for example, also led an active policy (the Crimean War, the war with Austria, the war with Mexico, and the war with Prussia). But the bourgeoisie and the Democrats didn’t care. They demanded equality and accountability from Napoleon. However, the people around Napoleon III would not report to anyone. France is once again mired in corruption.

Actually, who is Napoleon III?

After the defeat of Napoleon I by the coalition of European monarchs, a restoration took place in France. The people who had tasted freedom at the first opportunity overthrew the Bourbons (1830) and the Orleans family (1848). Napoleon III was not a king, but an emperor like his uncle did not dismiss the monarchical tradition. The Second Republic was not much different from the regime of Louis Philippe (although the regime of Lee Philippe is very similar to the modern regime of the Russian Federation). No, to Marxists, this phenomenon of similarity of regimes between 200 years cannot be explained in any way. Combine the regime of Louis Philippe, where the big bourgeoisie elected a parliament for itself, and Philip’s friends were mired in corruption, plus the foreign policy of Napoleon III, to solve internal issues with the imperial policy. You will get a modern Russian Federation one-in-one). But there has been no monarchy in Russia since 1917. There is no monarchy, but Putin’s authoritarian power is a modern variation that is not much different from an absolute monarchy. In terms of population control, it surpasses all the monarchies of the world combined.

It turns out what?

Nationalism in the general retrospective arena of the empire is contraindicated. It turns out that imperial policy needs historical continuity. Furthermore, it is approved within the framework only in traditional legitimacy. But no one can cancel market relations, either – market relations in the permafrost of conventional hierarchical culture. Therefore, nationalists should love the monarchy and the current elite advertising it. Here, they converge on the path of superiority over peripheral peoples, in short, over migrants. Although the elite will need migrants all the time, not only do they support the economy of the regime, they are beneficial to the oligarchs. Labor migrants confirm the triumphant imperial policy (even in this form of a dismantled state. The Empire is stored in memory and imitated). At the same time, nationalists represent the second stage after democracy, which does not exist and cannot exist in the traditional permafrost.

Civil equal rights are a European culture. This association is also historical and is confirmed by examples. The bourgeoisie will unite against autocracy, empire, and probable monarchy.

But where are the Communists here? And why did the official communists suddenly become popular?

It’s all about elections without a choice. If you looked at the Russian Federation through France in the 19th century, there were communists in France. Gavroche and the Paris Commune. They were also bourgeois democrats, in fact, and fought for equality. But that, liberal Navalny spontaneously propagandized to support his ideological opponents, the communists – Pharisees, and this is the first objective of unification.

P.S. In 7—10 years, the idea of a monarchy will sound open at this rate. After another five years, they can choose a monarch at the Cathedral. After another five years, the monarchy could be overthrown, and someone would proclaim the emperor.

Chapter 4

Doomed to lag

How the left Pharisees manifest themselves.

They say the West’s technological breakthroughs and social guarantees are a triumph of Marx. Lies! Marx did not write anywhere that bankers and stockbrokers would fulfill his thoughts. This is the highest falsification of Marxist Pharisees, Marxist bankrupts, and Marxist swindlers.

He wrote about the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course, unlike stockbrokers and bankers, the proletariat had scanty chances to build developed capitalism in its proletarian state. The luckiest proletarian had to find a treasure trove of gold to turn into a banker. If a hundred thousand proletarians had simultaneously found a treasure trove of gold and staged a dictatorship of treasure hunters, they would have pushed back the descendants of those peasants who fled from hunger from their villages long before the 20th century. The successful proletarians who found the treasure that is, the late peasants, could not compete in any way with the early peasants, that is, those who escaped from the village from hunger a hundred years earlier, and maybe two hundred, three hundred and four hundred years as the haberdashers of Bonacieux. It was Bonacieux who became a banker.

However, the late peasants in the wild estate society made the so-called socialist revolution at the beginning of the 20th century. And did all other traditional peoples have the opportunity to build only such socialism? Only at the stage of total migration of the traditional population to the cities is socialism possible. Therefore, communism of the 20th century has always been a catch-up project, and the modern Leftists, the so-called Marxists, are only catching up all the time; they want to avoid getting ahead. That’s why they lie.

Catch up and overtake the West! Such a slogan has been preached in the USSR since the time of Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet secretaries also added that we will live under communism a little more. Why need to catch up and overtake the West?

Because this West was a model for the late group of Soviet bureaucracy, the first Bolsheviks had no such task. It was standing indirectly. Stalin said, “If we don’t do this, we will be crushed.” Who would do that? Who could crush the USSR? Of course, the technologically advanced West. For the Communists of the USSR in the 60s of the last century, the task was already social benefits because social guarantees were given to the population from the very beginning of the Soviet Union. But did the old Marxists or people who considered themselves Marxists know that they were preparing a coup by creating benefits and weakening the first elite’s dictatorship (Lenin’s close comrades)? Therefore, the descendants of the peasants instinctively exterminated the first Soviet leadership and maintained an atmosphere of defense and discipline all the time. They created a showcase of socialism in one city of the USSR and brought oranges and bananas there. The population went to Moscow for sausage. Could the old men of Brezhnev fill the entire USSR, even if not with sausage, but with bananas and jeans? Thereby bribing the youth. Yes, they could. But they instinctively maintained the old atmosphere in which they grew up. At the same time, they provided their families with everything they needed.