Basis and anti -monk construction

“OCCUPY WALL STREET IS A PEOPLE-POWERED MOVEMENT THAT ... IS FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE CORROSIVE Power of Major Banks”. It fights “Against the Richest 1% of PEOPLE THEAR WRILES OF ANFARI GLOBAL ECONOMY THAT IS FORECLOSING OUR FUTURE” - OCCUPY WALL STREET movement declares.

According to Guardian and MSNBC (cable news channel), then “Exasperation with the State of Capitalism and Corporate Greed” is a new word of humanity in the struggle against composers.

I’m afraid that the only new in OcCupy Wall Street is Facebook and even the opportunity to order pizza for protesters on the Internet - that is, the consequence of the very capitalism against which they protest. In all other ways, this ideology is, coupled with an unsuccessful claim that “we are 99%” and “we represent the people” - old as the world and dominates all archaic and totalitarian societies, being the main reason for their backwardness.

It's like communism. In the 19th century, when the word “progress” became fashionable, Karl Marx created a “progressive” theory about how a fair society should be built in the future.

But if you carefully look at the Inca Empire-one of the most totalitarian states ever created by mankind, it is easy to notice that there was complete communism. That instead of money, the Incas had socialist accounting and control. And instead of private property, there were state barns. The last surviving city of Incas-Machu Picchu-is a terrible concentration camp, built according to a single plan. This is the only city on Earth in which there is no basic concept of the house. Because in a city built according to a single plan, it is incomprehensible in principle, which is enclosing the wall: a house that is part of the quarter, or a room that is part of the house.

Inca communism was such that girls and guys were built in two lines opposite each other and married. And the consequence of this communism was a total technological stagnation and instant collapse of a multimillion -dollar state in a collision with 160 pisery soldiers.

Let's look at Egypt from the time of the pharaohs - this is also by no means a slave system. This is a communist system. Indeed, in Egypt, slaves were not in private property. They were owned by the state and built pyramids.

Let's look at the Ottoman Port: after the initial brilliant military successes of the Turks, the main reason for the gradual lag behind Europe was more than the foggy status of private property (which, however, is generally characteristic of societies that appeared as a result of conquest and trying, on the one hand, to preserve the high social status of soldiers, and on the other, to deprive the same soldiers of private property). In fact, the Ottoman port was the property of the Sultan, as the USSR was the property of the Secretary General of the Central Committee.

So why is this social system-the system of pharaohs and Incas, and in fact, the system of the herd of the baboons, in which there is no private ownership, and the alpha male proves his power, taking the banana from any strong male and giving it away, sometimes to the weak-why this is the graion of the society of society “progressive”, “the latest” and should change the dying market when The socio-economic component of the history of mankind lies exactly that the market economies defeated and destroyed all these societies? The fact that the system of differences based on money defeated systems of differences based on teeth, strength and titles?

Answer: Just earlier, when they idealized the past, they said “we must return to the Golden Age”, and when it became customary to idealize progress, all this archaic graion complex returned in the form of a “only true” and only progressive teaching.

Similarly, with OCCUPY WALL STREET.

First of all, I will repeat after Niala Fergyuson one very simple thought that he expresses in The Acssent of Money. If people are so protesting against Wall Street, ten-digit salaries to bankers, Vulture Capitalism, etc., it should be expected that those countries where there is no Wall Street, richer than those where it is. Alas, in reality, those countries in which there are no financial markets, for example, Bangladesh or Vietnam - much poorer than those in which there are financial markets.

According to the logic of fighters against Corrosive Power of Major Banks, in those countries where this Corrosive Power is not, it is easier for a simple person to get a loan at lower interest. Reality, however, is again the opposite. In those countries where there are no financial markets, it is impossible to get a loan of 6-7-12%; But it is easy to lose a daughter or son, selling them into slavery for debts.

And this rule applies not only to modernity, but also by the origin of capitalism. There were no financial markets in Spain, and Spain was impoverished. In England and Holland, they were, and England and Holland overtook Spain in development. In Spain, due to the lack of financial markets, everyone sought to succeed, becoming either priests or officials, which led to the formation of a giant parasitic class on the country's body. In England and Holland, where it was easy to access capital for the founding of their own business, those who sought to succeed, became entrepreneurs.

The same rule is valid in modern Russia. We have no banks strictly speaking. Accordingly, before each student there is a dilemma: either I will go to the organs and will immediately have a million. Or take care of entrepreneurship and it is not known where I have to take starting capital.

So, he will look into the history of mankind and see if the Exasperation with the State of Capitalism and Corporate Greed is so fresh, as the authors of Guardian would like.

Let us take the most archaic of human societies that do not have a pronounced subordination and leaders, in some places in Central Africa they are still preserved. The belief is very common in them that a person who has a better harvest stole the spirits of the crop in a neighbor.

No less characteristic is the system of “Bigmen”, described at the beginning of the 20th century by Bronislav Malinovsky in Melanesia. The system is very simple. Everyone is equal, there are no leaders, a person has the right to accumulate, but only on condition that he then gives everything. Actually, such a person is called the Bigman. During the year, he grows vegetables, bred pigs - society, so be it, allows him to accumulate more than others, provided that at the end of the year he will arrange a feast and will give it all out. Then he will change the crop he collected on influence. If he does not want to distribute-the local PEOPLE's Movement, PARTY-YESS, LeADERLESS, By the PEOPLE and For the PEOPLE will find a way to express its Feeling of Mass Injustice.

What is the way out of this situation for a person who, for one reason or another (he has more strength or more children) has more? The answer is to become a leader. Who became the leader, distributed only to his warriors. He took away from everyone else. It is amazing that all traditional societies always find an occasion for hostility to the rich; That is, to the same person as you, only having more money. But as soon as a larger amount of money is accompanied by the nobility of the genus, this hostility is immediately replaced by deep, almost sacred respect. Money is envious. Strength inspires love.

We rise to a higher level of public evolution and see how society was arranged in ancient Athens. Oddly enough - in an economic sense, it is very similar to melanesia. There were no taxes in democratic Athens, instead of them there were liturgy - that is, voluntary contributions of rich citizens to various social responsibilities. With such a social organization, it was necessary to invest in folk love; To invest in production is dangerous. As a result, Socrates and Aristotle were in Athens, but Bill Gates was not there and could not be.

In pragmatic Rome, unlike Greece, “private property” was much more held in high esteem. In general, Roman law in its clear definition of private property is a striking exception against the background of most ancient and medieval cultures. But if you look at how the Romans reacted to acquire, then the answer is simple: rather negatively. The leading concept in their culture (as, indeed, in most ancient cultures) was the concept of glory. Who gains glory is the hero. Who converts wealth is something wrong with him. “The ancestors ... acquired glory not with wealth, but with cruel wars,” recalls in the 4th century. Ammian Marcellin.

The only worthy and socially encouraged form of wealth was the wealth originating from the development of hereditary land; In other words, wealth did not cause rejection only when the nobility of the genus and a large number of customers who enjoyed support and mercy of Patricia was accompanied. The rejection was caused by Skorobogachi. That is, those who possessed money, but not power. Here we again see the same principle in action. Those who envy the rich are repented before the strong.

Nevertheless, the Roman Empire gave rise to a huge number of rich and rich people until he fell under the triple load of barbarians, Christianity and bureaucracy.

Let's see what motives all three forces were guided by destroying one of the greatest empires in the history of mankind.

In its socio-economic aspect, early Christianity was a pure communism. Christianity was a religion of slaves and the poor, just like now a religion of the poor is socialism. Early Christians lived in communities in which there was no private property, and the attitude of Christianity to private property is well known: "It is easier to go through a needle ears with a camel than to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

“ How do the rich rich in, if not by seizing things belonging to everything? If everyone took only what was needed to maintain his life, leaving excess others, then there would be neither the poor nor the rich . ” This is not Karl Marx - this is Vasily the Great in the 4th century.

" Every owner is either a thief or heir to a thief ." This is not Lenin or Proudhon. This is the theologian of Caesari Gesterbakh, XIII century.

“ Do not take away from others their property - this is still not enough; You cannot consider yourself innocent, while you are holding for yourself the benefits created by God for everyone. Who will not give others his estate, that killer and murderer ”is not a declaration of OcCupy Wall Street. This is all the same Caesar Gasterbakh, XIII century.

What moved German barbarians? You will laugh, also social justice! “It is unfair that the rich and lazy Romans have so many wealth, and we, brave and strong people, have no where to bow our heads,” Ataulf, a relative of the plunder of Rome Alarich, said at one time.

What moved the Roman bureaucracy? Yes, the same thing is social justice. Even in the days of the republic, the Grachi brothers introduced the then Velfer - a free distribution of bread, and the emperors canceled many conquests of democracy, besides this. Distributions spread to other cities of the empire; By the 3rd century, the amount of bread seized by the state was so large that entire provinces, first of all, Egypt, could not sell bread in the market until they fulfill the plan for the surplus. Gradually, the intervention of the authorities in the economy became so great that in 304 AD Emperor Diocletian issued a decree on fair, uniform prices throughout the empire. (The consequence of the Decree, of course, was that the empire switched to barter.) This is a common story with seekers of social justice of all varieties-they morally condemn the accumulation, trade and usury, but for some reason they always authorize all types of robbery, starting from primitive extension and ending with such refined forms of expropriation, as controlling officials over the economy.

Three types of seekers of social justice - barbarians, bureaucrats and Christians have kicked the Great Empire.

What happened to the Christian church after she, preaching social justice, reigned on the ruins of the ancient world? The answer is like the Central Committee of the CPSU, it got rich.

The Reformation became the reaction to the obvious inconsistency between the censure of the acquisition and the defiant luxury of the papal throne. At the same time, both the reformers and their predecessors demanded a return to early Christian values, that is, from a socio-economic point of view-besides communism.

The Taborites included trade in the list of mortal sins (at the same time they lived at the expense of robberies and surplust), the anabaptists, before becoming peaceful concessors, arranged small Cambodia with executions in the squares and socialization of wives in Munstere in 1533, and even pyligrim fathers, planted in Plimuta, were not gather America. They were going to base communism.

One of the most amazing features of development in the West of capitalism, the market, and even more so credit organizations, was that they developed contrary to the generally accepted ideology, and not thanks to it.

The market in Europe turned out to be a result of rather unique historical conditions than any ideological prerequisites. This is very easy to demonstrate by comparing Christianity with Islam. Unlike Christianity in its social avatar, Islam never fell to the directly communist sermons: in the end, the Prophet Muhammad was the husband of a rich trading.

However, this would be affected by the tolerance of trade and entrepreneurship about historical reality: about the series of Turkic invasions with the subsequent emergence of the Ottoman Empire, in which, as in any gigantic state education, the authorities had a primacy over property.

Christianity, unlike Islam, was much more negative about wealth, and Christian bureaucracy - whether it was the kingdom of the first European bureaucrat Friedrich Barbarossa or the Spanish monarchy - constantly tried to subordinate a private initiative. But due to the geographical characteristics of Europe and the multiplicity of its states, such bureaucracy sooner or later as a model lost to states more market ones.

If we look at the other end of the world - at China - we will see about the same picture as in Rome, with the only difference being that if in Rome the primacy was not money -grubbing, but military valor, then in China the primacy was not money -grubbing, but bureaucratic wisdom.

The state in China suffered wealth - no more. The attitude of the Chinese bureaucracy towards people who are engaged in making money hesitated in a certain ideological range, the extreme right border of which is Confucius with his “low person thinks about the benefit, the noble husband thinks about justice” - I emphasize, this is the right border. The very left is the school of Fha Jia and the “Book of the Ruler of the Shang”, according to which, the main task of the state is to create a strong army, to create a strong army, a prosperous peasantry is necessary, but trade is parasites.

If we look at the Middle East, then we will see about the same picture. As I said, Islam never fell to the directly communist sermons. However, if you take any set of eastern life instructions and examples, then you will always see the same topic: “you have to be generous”, “you need to distribute everything to the poor” and so on. One would think that a society with such a set of instructions would live much richer than America with its Wall Street; Reality, as we know, proves the opposite.

In conclusion, I would like to note a few simple things.

Occupy Wall Street manifesto contains fiery denunciations of the capitalists that “Have Deliberatly Decline To Recall Faulty Products Endangering Lives in Pursuit of Profit”, Continue to Blockk Alternate Forms of Energy to Keep Us Dependent on Oil, Continue to Block Geneeric Formines of Medicine That Could Save Peole's Lives, etc., etc.

So-it is not necessary to say that protests against medical companies, oil giants and financial derivatives are something new in human history. The new ones themselves are the new ones themselves. But the idea that if a medical company sells you a medicine that it has developed, then she stole a generic from you - this idea does not differ from the story that if a neighbor has a better crop, then he stole the perfume for you.

This is an absolutely archaic feature of the human psyche, dating back to our animal and primitive roots.

The whole history of mankind, where there is progress in it, is overcoming this ideology. The whole history of mankind where it has regression, is a triumph of this ideology.

At one time, Chinese culture was based on the class of officials who, I remind, shared the belief that a low person thinks about the benefit, and a noble husband - of justice. The bureaucracy served as a social elevator, but often, as corruption grew, a social elevator ceased to work and a huge number of Syutsaev and the Schitsy did not find application in the civil service, and making money was lower than the dignity of noble husbands. A peculiar class of lumpen-bureaucracy arose, which partially consisted of really talented people, and partly of envious losers. Moreover, this lumpen-bureaucracy knew that in happy times noble men serve at court, and in the vague they hide in the forests, and, of course, they all-like my correspondent-considered themselves noble men and claimed, at least, the status of the first minister.

В итоге именно эта люмпен-бюрократия очень часто оказывалась во главе гигантских народных восстаний, которые в китайской истории были причиной гибели практически всех великих китайских династий. Классический пример — сюцай-неудачник, несколько раз провалившийся на экзаменах, глава тайпинов Хун Сюцюань.

Это я к тому, что начиная с конца XIX века европейская интеллигенция и интеллектуалы превращаются в этаких леволиберальных хун сюцюаней. Они берут на себя те обязанности, которые раньше брала церковь, проповедовавшая, что «каждый собственник либо вор, либо наследник вора», и проповедуют, в сущности, то же самое.

Европейская история последнего столетия выглядит парадоксально. С точки зрения науки и технологии — это история невиданного прогресса; история цивилизации, которая построила железные дороги и самолеты; создала телекоммуникации и интернет; излечила болезни, считавшиеся неизлечимыми.

Что же касается осмысления левой публикой всех этих гигантских изменений, которые были бы невозможны без существования финансовых рынков, то сначала это были «полезные идиоты», с восторгом поддерживавшие Сталина; потом — бессмысленные протесты 68-го года, а теперь — движение Occupy Wall Street, которое пишет в своем манифесте, что, если нефтяные компании продают им нефть, это означает, что нефтяные компании украли у них альтернативные источники энергии.

В свое время Карл Маркс писал, что «базис» — то есть способ производства — порождает «настройку», а именно: социально-экономические отношения и идеологию. В современном мире ровно наоборот. «Базис» в мире технического прогресса и финансовых рынков порождает «антинадстройку».

На роль интеллектуальных владык в нем претендуют люди, по каким-то причинам отторгнутые стремительно растущей экономикой, но при этом усматривающие в своих собственных экономических неудачах доказательство нравственной деградации тех, кто разбогател.

В этом смысле меня поражает тотальное несоответствие между невиданным финансовым, техническим и социальным прогрессом современного мира и господствующей в нем идеологией меланезийских дикарей, научившихся пользоваться социальными сетями.

Photo by hedgehog