About our ruling class

The problem with our ruling class is not that it is evil, greedy and cruel. The trouble is that he can't cope with his responsibilities.

Medieval feudal lords were cruel, dirty savages, but they at least provided their subjects with protection within the walls of their castle during the hard times. In the 18th century, former knights turned into a crowd of elegant, decadent parasites, well depicted in the French film Le Libertin. They did not hold court (there were already lawyers for that) and did not walk across the battlefield with a drawn sword. Instead, the nobility preferred to lounge around the card tables, debauchery and chatter in the salons. The result of this outrage was the Great French Revolution and the gradual departure of the nobility from the historical scene.

The first capitalists were also tough guys, ruthless exploiters with the habits of gangsters. But their banks, at the very least, invested in production, they built factories and laid railways. The situation changed as soon as bankers realized that virtual speculation brought incomparably greater profits than investing in the real sector, and industrialists made it a habit to knock on the doors of the Ministry of Finance with a request to allocate subsidies to “effective” businesses. The disappointment was terrible. “I had so much faith in you,” says the killer as he takes aim at the yuppie billionaire's head at the end of Cosmopolis. But what can we do, the capitalists have become a parasitic class, and therefore “the doctor said - to the morgue.”

Another problem for the ruling class is that its idea of ​​freedom does not correspond to how the majority of the population sees freedom. For the feudal lord, “freedom” came down to the right to introduce war and make peace, move from one lord to another, participate in class meetings, feudal rights over peasants, etc. It is clear that the men did not care about these “freedoms” of the gentleman. They just wanted land and freedom. Which for their master was already complete chaos.

The same picture is observed today. For a capitalist, freedom is the possibility of free movement of capital, absence of taxes, representation in parliament, a ban on trade unions, the absence of a labor code and environmental legislation. Only in this case are his hands truly untied. For a worker, freedom is the right to self-organization, social protection, education for children, jobs, opportunity for self-realization, etc. It is clear that freedom for one class means slavery for another. Considering that 90% of society are hired workers, it is quite obvious which of the two freedoms is preferable.

One more point in conclusion. At one time, Karl Marx noted that the portrait of a capitalist he painted is impartial not because our owners are scoundrels from birth, but as a result of the socio-economic functions that they have to perform. Let's take, for example, the general director of any construction company that demolishes historical buildings in the center of Leningrad. Perhaps this is not a monster, but a sweet person who reads Anderson's fairy tales to his children at night, anonymously donates money to the opposition and loves his hometown. But he understands perfectly well that land in the city center is of enormous value. If his company doesn't take it, another company will. Of course, the building should be as tall as possible - each floor represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in income. The floor is smaller - the shareholders will not stand. Etc. etc. As a result, we get another concrete monster and several dozen activists who have caught a cold in senseless protests. There is no doubt that professional activity has an impact on our owners and over the years they become very nice people , but these are the costs of a harmful profession.