Read the beginning here.
DISHARMONY AS A DEVELOPMENT FACTOR
The Paleolithic is the childhood of mankind, a time that is harmonious and at the same time unproductive - like the childhood of each of us. A full-fledged conscious life begins not from birth, but from the time of the emergence of a sufficiently developed self-awareness. I do not in any way want to say that the time of early childhood - about 5-6 years old - is unimportant. It's a very important time. However, I do not at all share the psychoanalytic position about the exceptional importance of that time and the dependence on it for the rest of my life.
On a human scale, childhood ended after the Neolithic Revolution. The Neolithic revolution did not happen at once, it was a process stretched over millennia - just as a person's childhood does not end immediately and suddenly. However, some people also experience a sharp leap in self-awareness, when a child with pain, surprise and distinctness suddenly realizes that he is he and nowhere to get away from. A description of this sudden self-awareness in a ten-year-old child is given at the beginning of the second chapter of E. Fromm's book "Escape from Freedom".
So, the Neolithic revolution was a long, gradual one, but it irrevocably and forever changed humanity. Let me remind you that the Neolithic revolution happened about 10 thousand years ago, when people switched from hunting and gathering as the main way of obtaining food to subsistence farming. People living in suitable geographical conditions got the opportunity not to roam after herds of animals, but to get food on their own, by their own labor. This is due to the domestication of animals and the cultivation of edible plants, primarily cereals - without this, a person would not have the opportunity to begin to live sedentary, to stock up food and free up time for leisure. It was a giant leap in development that changed all social relations, the way of doing business itself and the way of life of people. It is just as important thatthat people were able to live in large groups, and not in tribes, which were essentially one clan. Therefore, this transition to a subsistence economy from hunting and gathering is precisely a revolution, i.e. a radical, fundamental turn in the life of society, reaching a fundamentally different level. Only then did all further development become possible - the invention of writing, the emergence of science and philosophy, the development of the arts. At the same time, about 10 thousand years ago, the first proto-cities appeared, i.e. during the neolithic revolution. Only then did all further development become possible - the invention of writing, the emergence of science and philosophy, the development of the arts. At the same time, about 10 thousand years ago, the first proto-cities appeared, i.e. during the neolithic revolution. Only then did all further development become possible - the invention of writing, the emergence of science and philosophy, the development of the arts. At the same time, about 10 thousand years ago, the first proto-cities appeared, i.e. during the neolithic revolution.
People's attitudes have also changed radically, in a revolutionary way. They could not help changing after the changes in economic (economic) and property relations. For the first time, private property appeared (not to be confused with individual property). For the first time, rulers and subordinates, rich and poor, higher and lower, appeared. Captured enemies used to be immediately killed and, to be honest, eaten, tk. the main problem before the Neolithic Revolution was the problem of physical survival. After the Neolithic Revolution, this problem for the most part ceased to be dominant, but many other problems appeared. For example, the problem of labor. And it became more profitable to keep captured enemies alive and to exploit them as labor force, i.e. make them slaves. There was a slave revolution - it did not happen at once, it took place over the centuries,but it changed social relations beyond recognition. Cannibalism has become immoral, but the possession of a person as a thing has become the norm - public morality changes following the conditions in which society exists, and this is inevitable, because otherwise society cannot exist. The slave-owning society gave us the entire galaxy of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists, Roman law and the canons of classical art. Then, when experience showed that a free man works more efficiently and does not need to be examined, the next revolution took place - the feudal one. After the feudal one, there was a bourgeois one, it was also a capitalist one, which was also directly related to the problem of highly qualified labor force in technically complex jobs … But in terms of scale, colossality and importance, it is worth highlighting that first revolution - the Neolithic. All subsequent ones fundamentally changed social relations, but in all of them there remained what was first formed after the Neolithic revolution - the division of society into masses and elites. It is this division that generates disharmony and contradictions in society that have existed since ancient times and remain to this day.
Immediately, I note that the very concept of "disharmony" should be understood dialectically. On the one hand, disharmony is a negative phenomenon that brings suffering and can lead to disaster. Lack of disharmony guarantees stability. We have examples of completely harmonious societies living in complete balance with nature, and they are indicative: these are the tribes of Australia, Africa and America before the arrival of the white man, the peoples of the far north. They have no revolutions, dictatorship and struggle of ideas, no classes and class struggle, but they also have no development, which is why they practically remained and remain in the Paleolithic. Disharmony can be the most important condition for development, being a stimulus for it. On a personality scale, development (change) occurs most rapidly during age-related crises. Each age crisis is a revolution on the scale of one human soul,when new desires and needs come into conflict with established algorithms, with the usual worldview. Successfully overcoming the crisis, a person reaches a new level, approaching psychological maturity. But if the crisis was “crushed” and the person did not solve the problems that the crisis reveals in front of him and the person does not change personally, then the next crisis will not take long and will be deeper, more painful and heavier. This reminds me of the situation in society when "the upper classes cannot, but the lower classes do not want to", that is, society in a pre-revolutionary situation. In this analogy, the tops are the conscious part of the personality, and the lower ones are unconscious or partially conscious desires and needs arising from objective factors. The prerequisites for a crisis are accumulating gradually and imperceptibly for the person himself. To some extent, the crisis is intended to draw a person's attention to crisis phenomena so that he begins to solve them. If a person is capable of introspection of such a level that he notices crisis phenomena in himself before they acquire a critical mass, in their very embryo, then he develops relatively crisis-free, but only a personality at the third stage of development is capable of this, i.e. only a psychologically mature person. An immature person cannot avoid crises, however, just like human society at this stage of its development cannot avoid crises and shocks. As long as society is divided into the exploited and the exploiters, into the masses and the elite, contradictions are inevitable. Crisis phenomena will accumulate until, having reached a certain critical point, they will not lead to a social explosion, i.e. to the revolution. In this light, it becomes better to understand Lenin's thesis that the revolution is made by the people, not the revolutionaries. For society, revolutionaries are a psychologist for a person in crisis. The psychologist only helps a person to overcome the crisis - he supports, gives direction to work and faith in success, but a person can do the work on himself only by himself, by his volitional efforts, by his work. No psychologist can influence a person against his will in the same way as no revolutionaries can make a revolution in a society in which there are no crisis phenomena that have reached a critical point. The so-called color revolutions (i.e. coups d'état with the participation of foreign intelligence services) are no exception to the rule, since for their successful implementation they must also rely on real crisis phenomena in society. A stable and just society is not afraid of any color revolutions, just as infections are not terrible for a healthy organism with a strong immune system. Likewise, an individual person can also fall not to a psychologist, but to a sect, where experienced manipulators use a person's real crisis for exploitation, deception and personal enrichment. Thus, disharmony by itself does not develop either society or personality. It does not indicate the path of development, it only gives a stimulus for development, energy for it. This energy can be used both in the name of good and manipulative purposes.deception and personal gain. Thus, disharmony by itself does not develop either society or personality. It does not indicate the path of development, it only gives a stimulus for development, energy for it. This energy can be used both in the name of good and manipulative purposes.deception and personal gain. Thus, disharmony by itself does not develop either society or personality. It does not indicate the path of development, it only gives a stimulus for development, energy for it. This energy can be used both in the name of good and manipulative purposes.
Promotional video:
The crisis should be understood as a conflict. Age, existential and any other personality crisis is an internal conflict in which the multidirectional desires, beliefs and needs of the same person are involved. A social crisis is a social conflict in which multidirectional social classes with opposite goals participate, i.e. the principles of both internal and social conflict are the same. You can also remember the interpersonal conflict, which is also not so simple and straightforward. It is the conflicts that are the key moments in human relations, moments that can lead to both a rupture and a revision of established rules. A lived, completely overcome conflict brings relations to a new level, contributes to a deeper understanding of each other by people. Relationship conflicts are inevitableconstructive relationships are not conflict-free relationships, but those in which conflicts are successfully overcome and get rid of to the end. Each conflict completely outlived changes both sides of the conflict for the better. Couples who know how to deal with conflicts constructively are couples who seek to understand each other and respect both their own interests and those of their partner. Unfortunately, elites and the masses can hardly be in such a relationship. In order for the aristocracy to respect the interests of the bourgeoisie, the king had to be cut off in France. And not only to him.and the interests of the partner. Unfortunately, elites and the masses can hardly be in such a relationship. In order for the aristocracy to respect the interests of the bourgeoisie, the king had to be cut off in France. And not only to him.and the interests of the partner. Unfortunately, elites and the masses can hardly be in such a relationship. In order for the aristocracy to respect the interests of the bourgeoisie, the king had to be cut off in France. And not only to him.
Before reaching maturity, a person cannot develop without a crisis. Self-consciousness that has taken shape, but not developed, is egocentric and therefore inevitably comes into conflict with the real world, which does not revolve around the given I. The endless path of consumption, the desire to minimize responsibilities and maximize rights is nothing more than the desire to implement egocentrism in practice, to force the universe to serve the selfish I. In society, the role of this I is played by the elites. What are elites in my understanding? I understand this term as an extended version of the Marxist term "ruling class". In Marx, the ruling class was determined by the right of ownership of the means of production: in the era of slavery, these were slave owners who owned a "talking tool," in the era of feudalism they were feudal lords who owned the land and exploited the serfs enslaved on it.after the bourgeois revolutions, the ruling class became the capitalists (aka the bourgeoisie), who own capital and exploit wage workers. All these so different eras are related precisely by this division of people into ruling and subordinate, into exploiters and exploited. Under the term "elite" I unite not only the direct owners of the means of production, but also everyone involved in this, everyone who benefits from this order of things. Marxists, probably, will disagree with me, but I believe that in some societies the elite may not possess the classical features of the ruling class as the direct owner of the means of production, for example, in the caste society of India, rights and occupation were determined by belonging to a caste, and in the late USSR the party nomenclature has become the elite,the emergence of which laid the conditions for its further collapse.
A pictorial picture that in a simplified way illustrates the class structure of capitalist society. The money bag at the very top is not a member of society, of course, it is a principle that defines the very structure of society and gives it meaning - making a profit for the sake of even greater profit. It can also be noted that in the most developed countries of the West there is no base of the pyramid … But in fact, there is a base, only it is located in the third world countries, where production is taken. By and large, this picture illustrates the state of affairs not so much in a single country as in the whole world.
The elites of any era have the main feature: the elite pursues exclusively their own interests, and not the interests of society (country) as a whole, i.e. the elite are egocentric. The second pattern follows from this: a decrease in responsibilities and an increase in rights. In the caste society of India, for a crime punishable by death, a brahmana was subjected only to cutting off the hair on his head! And we have noblemen from the service class, as they were under Peter the Great, by the time of Catherine the Second had already turned into a parasite class: they were enrolled in military service on paper from birth, so that by the age of 20 they would “rise” to officer ranks … The interests of society are protected by the elite only in two cases: when these interests coincide with their own, or when it is a forced measure against the threat of overthrow and loss of power. In the third case, this is possible only at the timewhen the change of elites has just taken place and the new rulers have not lost their ties with the masses, with the people, i.e. the elite has not yet taken shape and therefore have not acquired their characteristic features. But the tendencies to increase their rights and reduce responsibilities, the ever-increasing isolation from the rest of society and the ever-increasing separation from the masses are doing their job, and soon the new rulers become the new elite. For the first time, similar reasoning sounded back in antiquity, when Plato in the dialogue "State" described how a just monarchy degrades to tyranny, and aristocracy (the power of the best, who think about the common good) to oligarchy (the power of the richest, who think only of themselves). The more the elites acquire their characteristic features, the more contradictions manifest themselves in society, the stronger the social tension, which ultimately leads to a crisis and elite displacement. The displacement of existing elites can occur both from above, from the side of the opposing elites (as, for example, in our country under Peter the Great), and from below, from the people (Great French Revolution, Great October Socialist Revolution). Apparently, the contradictions that have reached a certain critical mass cannot be resolved otherwise than by a revolution, only if a revolution is carried out from above will it be called a reform.
Another characteristic feature of the elites is that the masses are not perceived by the representatives of the elites by the people, i.e. the elite is necessarily subject to social chauvinism. Most of the landowners treated the peasants as third-class people, rather even as working animals. The word "cattle", which is so fashionable in certain circles, comes from the contemptuous name of the peasants of the nobility - the Polish nobility - and is translated as "cattle". The attitude of business owners to workers was extremely mercantile and consumerist. The living conditions of the workers in the factories were truly hellish, and the elite suppressed the attempts of the workers to defend their rights and even the very possibility of survival by force. Everyone can learn more about this by reading about the origin of the May Day holiday. To retain power and increase wealth, the elites will not reckon with the victims, since the main interests are their own. The point is not that the representatives of the elites are some particularly cruel people. There are all kinds of people, as elsewhere. But people are always part of the system, and the system dictates its own rules, which a person must follow in order not to be rejected or even destroyed by the system. Even autocrats were killed if they went against the system, as happened with Emperor Paul I. Here we see the validity of the Marxist assertion that it is not the ruler who rules, but the ruling class. Popular thought expressed this idea of man's dependence on the system (on his environment) by the proverb "to live with wolves - howl like a wolf." On the other hand, the elite should not be perceived as something single and monolithic, driven by a single will. I deliberately say "elites" in the plural, emphasizing their divided, multi-layered nature. Within the elites, there are many trends, groupings and players, and the final vector of the policy pursued is determined by the result of the struggle between different forces - either a compromise between them, or the victory of one of them. So in an individual person there are many motives that are in constant struggle with each other, and therefore the final behavior of a person also does not have to be dictated by one motive, often it is a compromise of many, sometimes completely differently directed motives. So in an individual person there are many motives that are in constant struggle with each other, and therefore the final behavior of a person also does not have to be dictated by one motive, often it is a compromise of many, sometimes completely differently directed motives. So in an individual person there are many motives that are in constant struggle with each other, and therefore the final behavior of a person also does not have to be dictated by one motive, often it is a compromise of many, sometimes completely differently directed motives.
Elites are inherently a parasite on the body of society, since they consume the lion's share of all goods and they cannot independently limit themselves in their consumption. At the moment (more precisely, in 2016) 80% of all goods belong to 1% of the world's population - this is according to the Oxfam organization (Great Britain), which stated at the economic forum in Taoist that “Instead of an economy that works for the general welfare, for for future generations and for the planet, we have created an economy for one percent. The trend towards widening the gap between the poor and the rich continues to gain momentum, and, apparently, the elite will not be able to reverse this process even if some of its progressively minded representatives so wish. The elites do not have a command center, and therefore they obey elemental laws,similar laws of biological evolution with its eternal struggle for existence and natural selection. In the world of capitalist competition, the winner is not the most progressive, humane and responsible, but the one who more successfully increases his capital and thereby wins the competitive struggle of his more honest, more responsible for the future of the planet, more humane competitors. I am reminded of the American proverb that you steal a loaf and go to jail, and if you steal a railroad, you will become a senator: a good illustration of the fact that the most ambitious, most cynical players who are ready to commit major crimes win in a competitive struggle under capitalist relations. Based on this rule, a number of scientists have come to the conclusion that a competitive market economy will inevitably lead to a global environmental crisis. Well, reasonably and reasonably this is stated in the lectures and reports of the biologist V. S. Friedman, I strongly recommend to everyone interested.
If we look for a bright, constructive side in the elites, then it can be noted that it was the representatives of the elites who made progress for millennia, since only they had such an opportunity - primarily due to the possibility of obtaining an education and the availability of free time. The art of the masses for most of human history was represented only by folklore, and classical, high art was the privilege of the elites, and it is this art that truly develops the culture of the nation as a whole. Belinsky wrote for a reason that Pushkin's Eugene Onegin is a much more Russian work than any folk art, since it was written by an educated, genius Russian person. Indeed, Russian culture is rightfully considered great not for folk art, but for the work of a galaxy of our writers, composers, artists and scientists. Science, too, for a long time could only move by representatives of the elites. Probably, it was only from the end of the 19th century that people from outside the elite began to contribute to art and science. However, the successful creator from the people himself soon fell into the circle of the elite and lost touch with him. The tragic path of a talented writer from the masses was described by Jack London in his largely autobiographical novel "Martin Eden". The parasitic essence of the elites is also manifested in this - it consumes not only material goods, but also the people themselves for “fresh blood”. The tragic path of a talented writer from the masses was described by Jack London in his largely autobiographical novel "Martin Eden". The parasitic essence of the elites is also manifested in this - it consumes not only material goods, but also the people themselves for “fresh blood”. The tragic path of a talented writer from the masses was described by Jack London in his largely autobiographical novel "Martin Eden". The parasitic essence of the elites is also manifested in this - it consumes not only material goods, but also the people themselves for “fresh blood”.
Martin Eden - London has largely copied this character from himself.
And in this dual, dialectical nature of the elites - on the one hand, education and development, and on the other hand - exploitation and parasitism, which can even lead to the death of society - I see a community with the dual nature of the human I in a period of disharmony. Starting from adolescence, a person becomes a conscious egocentric, tends to strive for the formula "more rights and fewer responsibilities", seeks to overcome the lost harmony, walking along the endless path of satisfying desires on the model of an old woman from Pushkin's fairy tale. The formed, but undeveloped, self-centered I am filled with contempt for others, and often the blackest contempt is usually just those people who provide egocentric existence. So, a teenager despises his parents, sincerely considering them backward, outdated,bone and not refined people, i.e. those who provide it, provide it and are responsible for it. When indulging in egocentrism, a person often moves more and more away from reality and from understanding others. Children who are spoiled, placed at the center of the family and do not meet prohibitions often become incapable of compassion, compassion and concern for others, i.e. they acquire the worst properties of elites in society. There are many both folk and author's tales about pampered princesses, evil stepmother's children, princes and beggars, etc. who clearly showed it. Spoiledness, helplessness, isolation from the real world, arrogance, contempt for the representatives of the masses, egocentrism and ingratitude of representatives of the elites were perfectly portrayed by Saltykov-Shchedrin in his fairy tales "The Wild Landowner" and "The Tale of How One Man Fed Two Generals."At the same time, it is in adolescence, in the most crisis and disharmonious period, a person's worldview is actively formed, there is a need to acquire their own meanings, and creative potential can begin to be realized. Yes, the immature egocentric I is in many ways ugly, but without it, personal development is impossible.
The overwhelming majority of people are at the second stage of development, in the stage of disharmony, but this does not mean that they are limited, abnormal, or defective. This speaks first of all about the state of our modern society, which determines their level. To develop to productive harmony, many factors must coincide: the environment, a constructive reference (authoritative) group, a certain discomfort as a stimulus for development, appropriate individual characteristics, the elaboration of personal traumas … and just luck. In the article "gray childhood" I wrote that gopniks, thousands of gopniks who in the 90s roamed the streets of Russian cities in legions, if they were born 30-40 years earlier, would be pioneers with a completely different way of thinking, with different personal qualities …
My hope, my belief that society can come to a stable state, to what now seems to us a utopia, is based on the fact that a person is, in principle, capable of developing to psychological maturity - sometimes even in spite of the environment! Individuals are able to outrun their time and contribute to the development of society. Thus, on the one hand, a person is largely determined by the environment, and on the other hand, he is not completely determined by it. Ultimately, this is what gives our society the ability to develop and hope for a brighter future.
application
Personality - Society.
The first stage of development
Unproductive harmony, childhood - Primitive communal system, primitive communism.
Lack or insignificance of internal conflicts - Lack of class struggle.
The ability to live “here and now” is a “nature-friendly” life.
Lack of expression of the conscious and unconscious spheres of the psyche - Lack of expression of the elites and the masses.
Second stage of development
Disharmony, personal immaturity - Class society (slave, caste, feudal, capitalist).
The conflict between the conscious and the unconscious spheres of the psyche - The conflict between the elites and the masses, the presence of antagonistic classes.
Egocentrism, striving for maximum satisfaction of personal desires (peace for me), individualism - Egocentrism of elites, inability to self-restraint (masses for elites, people for power), imposed collectivism / individualism.
Adaptability, underdevelopment of the worldview as an internal core, internal conformism - Careerism, inability of strategic planning, solving only momentary problems.
Third stage of development
Productive harmony, personal maturity - United classless communist society.
Lack of conflict between the conscious and unconscious spheres of the psyche (honesty with oneself) - Lack of division into elites and masses.
Developed worldview as an internal core, its own meanings, self-reliance - Ability for strategic deferred planning, reasonable (fair) distribution of resources.
High professionalism, ability to trust and love, conscientious collectivism, psychological health - The unity of people is high efficiency, no lies and / or concealment, interest in the development of each member of society.
Continued: Part 3
B. Medinsky
