- Part 1 - Part 2 -
COMING TO HARMONY DUE TO DEVELOPMENT
It's time to talk about a mature personality, i.e. about a person who reaches the third stage of personal development - the stage of productive harmony. What qualities does a mature personality have? Perhaps, having understood the essence of a mature personality, we will be able to imagine at least a little a mature society, a society that has not yet existed.
Many qualities of a mature person can be inferred from the characteristics of an immature person. Egocentrism is a mandatory attribute of immaturity. Accordingly, the mature person will move away from self-centeredness. An immature person cannot afford genuine honesty and frankness. Therefore, maturity implies complete openness to oneself and a willingness to be open with those with whom such a relationship is appropriate. An immature person has not fully decided who to be, i.e. looking for himself. Mature has found himself and is doing his job. Disharmony implies a number of complexes, psychological problems, at times age crises are inevitable. Productive harmony does not stop in its development, but development proceeds more evenly and relatively painlessly.
More specifically, all of this can be said this way: a person must be realized as a member of society. This time. A person must be realized in personal relationships. These are two. And a person must have their own meanings. These are three. There are only three conditions for a person to find himself fully, so that he reaches the stage of harmonious productivity. Of course, each of these conditions is very extensive in its content, we will consider each of them in more detail.
Realize yourself as a member of society. I believe this is a fundamental requirement in order to achieve psychological maturity. In the article "mature personality" I defined this as "being in the right place." You can be a full-fledged member of society on condition that a person has a status that he has chosen for himself and which he can correspond to. A person must find his place in society, be satisfied with this place and feel his importance for society. This is directly related to the choice of a profession and the realization of oneself in it. Several requirements for the profession must coincide: a person must like it, it must be respected in society, it, in the end, must give a person the opportunity to earn a living. And here there are several insurmountable difficulties associated with the peculiarities of modern society. Firstly,the problem of status and reward. In a capitalist society, a person's status in society is determined, for the most part, by income and wealth. Not achievements at work, not certificates of honor, not efficiency and innovation, but income. All of the above criteria are good only if they are reflected in income, otherwise they play a completely insignificant role, mostly symbolic. And therefore, after graduating from school, a young man is forced to choose a profession for himself not based on personal inclinations and personal interest, but on the basis of the profitability of the profession and its relevance in the labor market. Secondly, it is the problem of the prestige of the chosen profession. This difficulty is inextricably linked with the first - the profitability of the profession overrides in its importance the honor of the profession. The two most honorable and significant professions for society - the teacher and the doctor - are now trampled almost to the very bottom of the social ladder due to their low profitability. Respect for the representatives of these professions partially remains only due to cultural inertia, but in fact these professions are perceived as a vocation, and therefore a good doctor and especially a good teacher is a blissful, willing to work for free, social failure. Third, there is the problem of meaning. The importance, usefulness, meaningfulness of the work have faded into the background or even to the third place - income is in the foreground. As a result, a person who lives in accordance with the requirements of the market is ready to take on a job in which he sees no point and in which he is not personally interested. I immediately imagine a man in a stupid suit who is throwing flyers to passers-by. Passers-by don't care about him,nor to his leaflets, they are unhappy with the obtrusive advertising, they throw the resulting leaflets into the trash cans. The person himself cannot but see the absurdity of his position. He is not interested in the results of his work and in these conditions can only want one thing - to distribute these leaflets faster and receive the agreed amount of money. Of course, this is an exaggerated example, but many workers are, in fact, in this position. They don't even try to find meaning in their work. Thus, they are not able to bring any creativity, no ad-libbing to their work. Under these conditions, a person cannot feel himself to be the author of his work, and therefore turns into a mechanism that is indifferent to his work, unable to take responsibility for his work - after all, in fact, the employee has no business of his own. He has obligations to the employer under the employment contract, but he no longer has anything to do with the employer's income, as well as with the results of his work. Marx calls this "alienation of man from his labor", that is, labor and the results of labor do not belong to man. As a result, we see the following picture: a person in modern society for the most part cannot proceed from personal tastes, and therefore does not have the opportunity to work in a profession that would correspond to his true inclinations. In our society, even proper ideological work is not going on to equalize the prestige and status of various professions. The slogan "all professions are needed, all professions are important" has actually ceased to sound since the destruction of the USSR. Marx calls this "alienation of man from his labor", that is, labor and the results of labor do not belong to man. As a result, we see the following picture: a person in modern society for the most part cannot proceed from personal tastes, and therefore does not have the opportunity to work in a profession that would correspond to his true inclinations. In our society, even proper ideological work is not going on to equalize the prestige and status of various professions. The slogan "all professions are needed, all professions are important" has actually ceased to sound since the destruction of the USSR. Marx calls this "alienation of man from his labor", that is, labor and the results of labor do not belong to man. As a result, we see the following picture: a person in modern society for the most part cannot proceed from personal tastes, and therefore does not have the opportunity to work in a profession that would correspond to his true inclinations. In our society, even proper ideological work is not going on to equalize the prestige and status of various professions. The slogan "all professions are needed, all professions are important" has actually ceased to sound since the destruction of the USSR.which would correspond to his true inclinations. In our society, even proper ideological work is not going on to equalize the prestige and status of various professions. The slogan "all professions are needed, all professions are important" has actually ceased to sound since the destruction of the USSR.which would correspond to his true inclinations. In our society, even proper ideological work is not going on to equalize the prestige and status of various professions. The slogan "all professions are needed, all professions are important" has actually ceased to sound since the destruction of the USSR.
Promotional video:
Realize yourself in personal relationships. Building a truly constructive personal relationship is not easy at all, and even more so in today's reality. After all, for this one must not be afraid of genuine closeness in relationships, i.e. not be afraid to appear in front of another person for who you really are. And this is very difficult. This, forgive me for such a comparison, how to appear before God. Christians say that before God we are all equal, since we all appear before him in complete, absolute nakedness. I think that being spiritually naked, being completely open to an immature person, is torture or even an impossible task, so I don't know how they would appear before God. Maybe the kneeling or prostration of the prayer is like an attempt to hide in shame for yourself, for your imperfection, for your sins? I am an atheist and I don’t believe in Godbut the need for God in man really exists - otherwise the image of God would not have been created by human culture … So, a mature person is ready to meet God (and for such a readiness it is absolutely unnecessary to believe in him), since he knows how to be spiritually naked, i.e. e. be completely honest. The state of openness for a mature person is not torture, but a desired state, a state of relaxation and freedom. As Camus said, free is the one who can not lie, but a mature person wants and can be free. Understand correctly, a mature person does not lose the ability to lie, because the ability to be completely honest does not exclude the ability to tell a lie, but a mature person strives for a relationship in which the ability to be completely honest and open would be satisfied. And, of course, a mature person is capable of being honest with himself, i.e. That is, if psychological maturity excludes the ability to lie, then only to oneself. But it is very difficult to be honest even with oneself in conditions of competition, struggle, constant self-affirmation, deep social inequality, as well as the inevitable fear of other people in such conditions, fear of one's own failure, fear of being unclaimed both in the labor market and on a conditional the market of human relations … Honesty always requires a certain courage, especially when man is a wolf to man. To live with wolves is to howl like a wolf, therefore, in a society built on competition, a person will inevitably be secretive, suspicious, aggressive and prone to manipulation, although outwardly he may hypocritically demonstrate openness and friendliness. Failure to be honest is not the only objective difficulty in realizing oneself in personal relationships. In the book "The Art of Love" Fromm rightly pointed out that in building relationships, people see the main difficulty in finding the right person, finding that one / only one. In fact, it is much more important to become such a necessary person yourself. Here, as in professional activity - in order to carry out it, one must have the appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities. It's the same in relationships - in order to claim a high level of these relationships and be yourself in them, you need to correspond to this. It's not easy to love. For example, a strong passion, the so-called blind love, is not love at all, but rather a manic need to love without the ability to do it. Blind love perceives the object of love,as a dazzling ideal - because she is blind because she is blinded by this ideal. This love madness is in many ways the opposite of true love, which does not idealize a loved one, but sees him with all his shortcomings, i.e. true love is crystal-clear and requires a person to be honest with himself. Thus, being honest with yourself is something without which true love is impossible. At the same time, honesty with oneself is also ruthlessness to one's own weaknesses and shortcomings, it is a refusal of excuses and, as a result, a willingness to work on oneself. It would be for what.true love is crystal-clear and requires a person to be honest with himself. Thus, being honest with yourself is something without which true love is impossible. At the same time, honesty with oneself is also ruthlessness to one's own weaknesses and shortcomings, it is a refusal of excuses and, as a result, a willingness to work on oneself. It would be for what.true love is crystal-clear and requires a person to be honest with himself. Thus, being honest with yourself is something without which true love is impossible. At the same time, honesty with oneself is also ruthlessness to one's own weaknesses and shortcomings, it is a refusal of excuses and, as a result, a willingness to work on oneself. It would be for what.
Have your own meanings - or, in other words, have a well-developed personal ideology. It is also not as easy as it might seem at first glance. In essence, the question "what are your meanings?" is tantamount to the question "what is the meaning of your life?", and this is not an easy question, is it? It would be simpler if the first two points were fulfilled, but they would not be entirely sufficient if the person is not able to go beyond the limits of his egocentrism. More on this topic is written in the articles "the illusion of egocentrism" and "the meaning of life". In order to go beyond the framework of his own egocentrism, a person must be able to see himself as a part of something whole, something greater than himself … At first glance it is paradoxical, but in order to fully understand himself as a separate person, a person needs to be able to perceive yourself as a PART OF THE WHOLE. What is this most WHOLE? To find this WHOLE, a person must find values that he could consciously put above himself, find goals OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF HIS LIFE. Through this, a person finds meanings. Through this, a person can see the meaning both in his activities, in the society around him and in other people, and in himself. Both first points about self-realization in society and in relationships cannot be fully realized in the absence of the third. A person who does not know how to go beyond the framework of his egocentrism will never fully reach psychological maturity. He will remain for himself the center of the world, the only point of reference, incapable of a critical attitude towards himself, and therefore incapable of conscious work on himself. A person who has found their own meanings lives a truly conscious life,capable of long-term strategic planning, has unrelenting motivation.
Let's summarize. A mature person knows how to be honest with himself and others, has his own meanings (that is, a well-formed worldview and personal ideology), knows his place in society (he has realized himself in practice as a professional). This is a truly psychologically healthy person. A mature person also knows how to love, is able to build constructive, harmonious relationships. The development of a mature personality proceeds without a crisis, since a mature personality is able to independently resolve internal conflicts in its very embryo. Thus, a mature personality is harmonious, her Self is not egocentric and does not try to follow the path of maximum satisfaction of desires and endless consumption. Simultaneously with the fact that a mature personality is harmonious, she is very productive, this is a person who is a professional in his field, who loves his job,who is able to approach his business creatively and truly responsibly.
Agree that this gentlemanly set of qualities seems hardly achievable in practice as a single complex. In reality, it rarely happens that at least one of the listed points is fully implemented, especially since they are related to each other … There are such people, but these are the few who have become such as a result of a favorable combination of external circumstances and their internal qualities. It is very difficult to be realized on all three points under the current conditions. But it was even worse with this earlier than it is now. At all times such people were few and there were objective reasons for that. Before the Neolithic revolution, people could not reach anything other than the third, even the second stage of personal development, i.e. their psyche did not yet have real self-awareness - I wrote about this in detail in the first part. After the slave revolution, only people from the elites were given the opportunity to develop personally, and some could achieve all the points I listed even in antiquity. After the bourgeois revolution, certain people from the masses were able to count on getting into the ranks of the elites and improving the situation, if not their own, then at least their children - thus, there are a little more people who have the opportunity to achieve personal maturity than before. In the USSR, for the first time in the history of mankind, people began to have the opportunity to receive education and a number of social guarantees - something that even in developed bourgeois states was fully accessible only to the elites - and there were even more such people. Can a society be created where everyone has the opportunity to achieve personal maturity? It not only can, it must be created,otherwise, humanity will never become mature and truly intelligent. It will be a classless society, a society without dividing people into masses and elites, because in this society each of its members will have equal access to all public goods: education, healthcare, choice of profession, i.e. to everything that only representatives of the elites previously had. In this society, social and national chauvinism will be excluded, there will be no eternal struggle of all against all in the endless pursuit of profit and success. It will be a healthy, just society, which, like a mature person, will be capable of relatively crisis-free development. The current society of even the most affluent and prosperous countries cannot even come close to this.a society without dividing people into masses and elites, because in this society each of its members will have equal access to all public goods: education, health care, choice of profession, i.e. to everything that only representatives of the elites previously had. In this society, social and national chauvinism will be excluded, there will be no eternal struggle of all against all in the endless pursuit of profit and success. It will be a healthy, just society, which, like a mature person, will be capable of relatively crisis-free development. The current society of even the most affluent and prosperous countries cannot even come close to this.a society without dividing people into masses and elites, because in this society each of its members will have equal access to all public goods: education, health care, choice of profession, i.e. to everything that only representatives of the elites previously had. In this society, social and national chauvinism will be excluded, there will be no eternal struggle of all against all in the endless pursuit of profit and success. It will be a healthy, just society, which, like a mature person, will be capable of relatively crisis-free development. The current society of even the most affluent and prosperous countries cannot even come close to this.that previously only representatives of the elites had. In this society, social and national chauvinism will be excluded, there will be no eternal struggle of all against all in the endless pursuit of profit and success. It will be a healthy, just society, which, like a mature person, will be capable of relatively crisis-free development. The current society of even the most affluent and prosperous countries cannot even come close to this.that previously only representatives of the elites had. In this society, social and national chauvinism will be excluded, there will be no eternal struggle of all against all in the endless pursuit of profit and success. It will be a healthy, just society, which, like a mature person, will be capable of relatively crisis-free development. The current society of even the most affluent and prosperous countries cannot even come close to this.
It was written long ago that the mature society of the future will be inhabited mainly by psychologically mature people. In the novel "What is to be done?" Russian writer, teacher and philosopher Chernyshevsky described mature people, his main characters, whom he called "new people". I will allow myself to insert a rather long excerpt from the chapter "Conversation with a discerning reader and his expulsion": "I bet that until the last sections of this chapter, Vera Pavlovna, Kirsanov, Lopukhov seemed to the majority of the public to be heroes, persons of a higher nature, perhaps even idealized persons, perhaps, even by persons impossible in reality for too high nobility. No, my friends, my evil, bad, pitiful friends, this is not how you imagined it: they are not standing too high, but you are standing too low. You see now that they are simply on the ground:it is only because they seemed to you hovering on the clouds, that you are sitting in the underworld slum. At the height at which they stand, all people must stand, can stand. Higher natures, which you and I cannot keep up with, my pathetic friends, higher natures are not like that. I showed you a light outline of the profile of one of them: you see the wrong features. And to those people whom I portray completely, you can be even if you want to work on your development. Whoever is below them is low. Rise out of your slum, my friends, rise, it is not so difficult, go out into the free white light, it is glorious to live on it, and the path is easy and tempting, try: development, development. Observe, think, read those who tell you about pure enjoyment of life, that a person can be kind and happy. Read them - their books delight the heart,observe life - it is interesting to observe it, think it is enticing to think. That's all. Sacrifices are not required, hardships are not asked - they are not needed. Desire to be happy - only, only this desire is needed. To do this, you will enjoy taking care of your development: there is happiness in it. Oh, how much delights a developed person has! Even what the other feels as a sacrifice, grief, he feels as satisfaction for himself, as pleasure, and his heart is so open to joys, and how many of them he has! Try it: good! "grief, he feels, as self-satisfaction, as pleasure, and for joys his heart is so open, and how many of them he has! Try it: good! "grief, he feels, as self-satisfaction, as pleasure, and for joys his heart is so open, and how many of them he has! Try it: good!"
I must say that Chernyshevsky's call to “try to develop” was not a voice crying in the desert: many people were extremely impressed by this novel, many changed their lives, for many the heroes of the novel became a model, became a moral bar that must be met. However, the novel had many opponents, as a number of people consider such characters impossible, fake, flat in their "goodness". They will say that Chernyshevsky is a moralizer, too strict with regard to human weaknesses and too demanding of a person. Some critics generally find in Nikolai Gavrilovich's call for development, in his desire to change a person for the better, a real crime - he wanted to change a person, ish what! Correctly he was imprisoned and rotted in hard labor - to know for what! But where did he see such people, his Lopukhovs and Kirsanovs are generally flat,non-living characters! To these critics, I would like to say that the neurotic throwing of an immature personality is not yet a depth of character, and if they do not believe in the existence of truly harmonious people, this is their problem. I argue that such people can be, they were and are, and their small number is dictated primarily by conditions unsuitable for development. A person is generally determined by external circumstances to a much greater extent than is commonly thought. We explain neuroticism, inconsistency, primitiveness, duplicity, cynicism, inconsistency, infantilism, existential torment and anxiety of the people around us by their inherent qualities, but this delusion, which bears its own name, is a fundamental error of attribution. This is a cognitive distortionwhich can be expressed by the popular saying “you see a straw in someone else’s eye, you don’t see a log in yours”, makes us draw false conclusions about people.
In our era, there are a lot of people whose meaning of life is consumption - and we are ready to explain this by the very nature of man, which is greedy, insatiable and selfish, and not by the fact that social reality is such that people, for the most part, have no opportunity to be different. A person in a capitalist society is not offered any other meanings than consumption - then are all these psychologically immature people guilty of being consumers and the limit of their dreams - of unlimited consumption? There are no real conditions for maturation (development) in society, on the contrary: egoistic, narcissistic behavior is encouraged, individualism is preferred to collectivism (which does not make it possible to go beyond the framework of egocentrism), at the same time, disbelief in a person flourishes, misanthropy and cynicism are cultivated as a sign of intelligence. In the end,all conditions have been created for people in their overwhelming majority to remain at the stage of disharmony, although technically society can already produce personally mature people in much larger numbers than now. And many people understand or feel this on an intuitive level, feel the injustice of the existing world order. About the fact that from the highest tribunes it was openly said that 80% of all goods belong to 1% of the population, I already wrote in the second part. People want harmony and justice, but most of them have no idea what to do.feel the injustice of the existing world order. About the fact that from the highest tribunes it was openly said that 80% of all goods belong to 1% of the population, I already wrote in the second part. People want harmony and justice, but most of them have no idea what to do.feel the injustice of the existing world order. About the fact that from the highest tribunes it was openly said that 80% of all goods belong to 1% of the population, I already wrote in the second part. People want harmony and justice, but most of them have no idea what to do.
In this regard, the idea of RETURN to the lost paradise is often heard, this idea is well shown in the French film "Beautiful Green", where the savages were presented as the most spiritually developed earthlings, as they live in harmony with nature. The same idea is felt in the phenomenon of "downshifting", it sounds in the hippie movement, in the creation of eco-villages, in a wide variety of esoteric teachings. This idea of returning stems from a person's longing for lost harmony, from the inability to get out of the second stage of personal development and become a mature person. After all, each of us was a child and was internally harmonious, but that's all over. The happy caterpillar, which had no other worries but to eat and grow, turned into a butterfly, but the butterfly never learned to fly, it has no opportunity for this. Now she crawls on the ground, ugly and patheticlongingly remembering those times when I was a caterpillar and lived without problems and sorrow, lived in harmony. But instead of striving again to the state of a caterpillar, it is logical for a butterfly to learn to fly, isn't it? To fly for her means to truly realize herself. A person must also realize himself, having reached personal maturity.
The idea of returning to a lost paradise, the search for personal happiness is untenable not only because of its naive absurdity, but also from the point of view of morality. We immediately understand the absurdity of the idea of turning a butterfly into a caterpillar, but the idea of returning to the harmony of childhood, to the spirituality of traditional society, does not seem to us as such, and these are things of the same order. Well, all these downshifters, eco-settlers and other seekers of the lost paradise are pursuing their PERSONAL HAPPINESS, looking for their lost harmony. Well, please, put the flag in their hands, let them be as happy as they can. My opinion about such a life path is that there is no moral height in it, respectively, no spirituality. This position well illustrates the Buddhist position of supreme virtue. As you know, the goal of a Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment, which opens the way to nirvana. But the highest virtue is not to go there, but to stay in order to help OTHERS achieve enlightenment. This is what Buddha did.
That for society, that for an individual person, the way out of disharmony is not a return to a lower stage of development, but in an exit to a higher level - productive harmony. And if I have already written about what a person must achieve in order to reach maturity, then about a mature society I cannot write the same point by point - because it has never existed. I can only guess what it will be like … It is clear that in a mature society there will be no division of people into elites and masses, respectively, social stratification will be minimal. The rights and obligations of each member of society will have direct proportionality, and not the opposite, as is often the case now. The society will be classless, fair and reasonable. Of course, it will be completely honest, transparent and there will be no opportunity for one to manipulate others. Control and supervision will weaken in the course of personality development, in order to completely go to achieve personal maturity. In this society, there will be no advertising, status items and fashion. There will be no goods in it - only a product. There will be no show business - only art. There will be no nations - only people with individual differences and heredity. Perhaps there will be no countries, only humanity. There will be no threats of international terrorism and nuclear war. Crimes from an ordinary phenomenon will pass into the category of amazing, exceptional incidents. There will be no market, there will be reasonable planning and a reasonable distribution of goods and resources, which will allow you to give up money. The main task of this society will not be profit, as it is now, but the development of each member individually and the whole world as a whole. People will learn all their lives, learn what suits their aspirations. If Beria and Stalin (now considered great villains!) Developed the possibility of switching to a 5-hour working day back in the middle of the 20th century, then in a mature society of the future a 5-hour working day will seem excessively long - there will be less for a person to have more opportunities to communicate, study, travel, play sports, etc. This society will give each person the maximum opportunity to achieve personal maturity. I do not know if ALL members of such a society will be able to achieve it, but given that even the very top of the modern elites have much less opportunities for personal development than the most ordinary citizen of a mature society will have, I can assume that personally mature people in a mature the society of the future will have a lot, it will be an ordinary phenomenon. It will be a society of trustmutual understanding and mutual assistance, which will be a universal law there - right according to Kant. One can only imagine the speed with which scientific and cultural progress will move … What I am describing is a communist society - and it is absolutely not necessary that there be red flanks and posters "glory to the KPSS" everywhere. Even more - there will be EXACTLY no such posters.
Last year was the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. I intentionally write this way, with capital letters and full title. It was not an "October coup", because this event gave rise to a new type of social relations, a new society, the emergence of which changed not only our country, but the whole world. Such unconditional benefits as an 8-hour working day (as opposed to 10 or more hours), free medicine, education and paid vacation became known to the world only after this event. The importance of this event is also recognized by opponents of the communist idea, because the 20th century was the century of this revolution. I propose to look at this even more broadly. This was the first attempt at building a mature society. Of course, it was also a crisis, since the example of a person's personal development shows usthat the key moments of development are moments of crises. Disharmony, crisis is an impulse, it is a release of energy that can be used both for good and for evil. I already wrote about this, comparing progressive revolutionaries for society with a psychologist for a person. Coups and color revolutions differ from a true revolution in that their goal is not to solve existing contradictions, but to obtain benefits, to put it simply, robbery. I find a good analogy for a society that has gone through a coup, with a person falling into a sect. Both the visit to a psychologist and the bringing of a person to a sect are dictated by the same thing - a personal crisis, but their results are diametrically opposite. It is by the result that the final conclusions should be drawn, because someone may saythat the sect and the psychologist (coup and revolution) are fundamentally no different - in both cases a person pays money (the psychologist sometimes more explicitly and openly, the sect starts to work for free and at the beginning is content with voluntary donations), in both cases the person turns to authority, in both cases speak of burning topics for a person … But the result is different. In one, a person is deprived of mental health, property and independence. And in another, he becomes independent, capable of independently solving problems as a person, stronger and wiser than before. Let's look at the results of the October Revolution … The era of the USSR was for our country the peak of power and influence in the world, a breakthrough in the scientific and technical terms. Why the USSR ceased to exist is a different story, it was not the people who created it that destroyed it. And the creators succeeded - to build a new type of economy, win the civil war (unleashed by the old elites who did not join the revolution, who did not want to lose their privileged position, that is, the whites), repel the intervention … And withstand the largest war in history humanity, when we were opposed by the forces of a united Europe, superior to us in all respects, except for one - the social structure. Therefore, when I hear that Lenin or Stalin are guilty of the collapse of the USSR, I see in this only a desire to divert suspicion from the real culprits of this tragedy - the newly-minted elites that began to form in the Khrushchev era. Elites, as we remember, always defend their own interests, not the interests of their country. The USSR did not build a classless society already quite officially since the 60s,when the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became always right, when people began to join it mainly for careerist reasons, when the country became for it, and not she for the country; in short, since the formation of new elites. So, humanity did not manage to reach a new stage of development. On the other hand, the first bourgeois revolution, which took place in the Netherlands and lasted almost 50 years, was more than 150 years before the Great French Revolution: the old feudal elites did not want to lose power and estate privileges. Nothing gets done quickly when it comes to such massive shifts. And the scale of the transition of society to maturity, to harmony, to classlessness is an event that in its scale, in my opinion, is much more grandiose than the transfer of power from one elite to another, as it was in France. In scale, the Great October Socialist Revolution is comparable only to the first one - the Neolithic revolution, with which the childhood of mankind ended and a long period of disharmony and development began, when society was divided into masses and elites. For ten thousand years this division went on, formations were replaced, science and technology developed, revolutions thundered, social relations changed, but this split into elites and masses, into exploiters and exploited remained. In 1917, for the first time in its history, mankind made an attempt to resolve this contradiction, to overcome the alienation of people from each other, to come to true rationality and unity. Thus, the October Revolution is the first manifestation of the maturity of mankind, and therefore the most significant event since the Neolithic Revolution, i.e. over the past 10 millennia.
Soviet propaganda was mostly clumsy, but it also produced masterpieces.
The transition to a mature society is objectively beneficial to all people, including people from the elite. The capitalists, in a way, are the same victims of imperfect capitalist relations, as are the people from the masses that they exploit, the wage workers. A person from the masses envies people from the elites as celestials, and people from the elites feel the imperfection of the world more sharply. They have nowhere to strive and they have no illusions - they know that they are not inhabitants of heaven. People from the masses are afraid of tomorrow, but people from the elites feel the same way. The yuppie phenomenon shows that the downside of so-called success (success in terms of capitalist relations and nothing more) is depression, loneliness, total distrust, existential crisis and ruined health. Nevertheless, a number of Western elites are actively propagandizing against communist ideas, the ideas of a classless society. Must beloss of power and control - or rather, ILLUSION of power and control! - horrifies them. As we remember, the overwhelming majority of the population is personally immature and therefore unable to realize this illusoryness and strategically realize their position … And therefore, anti-communist propaganda is constantly injected into the mass consciousness of the same Americans, for example, in 2006, American President George W. Bush in of his speech, he easily put Lenin, Hitler and Ben Laden on a par - i.e. communism, Nazism and radical Islamic fundamentalism have become things of the same order - absolute evil. As a result, in the United States, the idea of justice, rationality and unity has to be clothed in different clothes and the same communist idea (in a simplified form) is called there "resource-based economy". I don't care at allwhat will the mature society of the future be called - "communist" or "resource-oriented" - the main thing is that it be mature, fair and truly reasonable; so that it was a society for people in general, and not for a small part of them.
Unfortunately, we still do not understand for the most part that equality of opportunity is not the same of people. Equality of opportunity is the liberals' favorite equality before the law. Equality of opportunity is the absence of any privileges that give wealth, connections, origin, i.e. belonging to the elite, to the ruling class. Thus, equality of opportunity can only exist in a classless society, otherwise it will only be proclaimed, but not carried out in practice, idle talk.
History moves in a spiral. In the course of development, a person becomes a sage and acquires a number of long-lost positive traits of a child, without losing either knowledge, or productivity, or all the achievements during the period of disharmony. Humanity has gone from primitive communism to a class society split into elites and masses, into exploiters and exploited, but the time will come - and we will return to a classless society, but we will return, armed with technology, knowledge and developed culture. We will return to a harmonious existence with the world and with ourselves, but we will understand this world and ourselves without fear and despair, without alienation and anger. An example of the fact that some people in their development can - albeit not quickly, difficult and painfully - but find themselves, having reached personal maturity, inspires me with hope,that humanity as a whole will be able to come to itself.
B. Medinsky
