Abstract identity – Concrete identity – Abstract difference
Hegel subconsciously tried
to escape from this abstract-overall trap. In order to achieve this he
distinguishes three laws of dialectics but even they can not lead dialectical
thinking out of the dead-end, as long as they are not based on concrete-overall
generalizations of concrete natural and social interactions.
The claim of classical dialectics
on the utmost overall idea led to the thing that the categories became so
abstract that they lost any possibility to reflect reality. As long as all
kinds of opposites, possible in nature and society, started to be called with
one word - “opposites”, most of which were even not true opposites. So it
happened that on such a doubtful abstract-overall dialectical base, that gives
Hegel, it is impossible to build any scientific
method of cognition.
Of course, we do not reject
the method of thinking.
The meaning of proposed new non-classical
approach is that, while rising from abstract to concrete, it necessary to
differentiate Hegel’s notion “concrete identity” at the internal number of more
concrete notions, which are determined as “concrete differences” that are
called “comparative notions”[6].
As a result of such raise
the universal paradigm of cognition is built, which leads to the rejection
not only from three utmost overall laws of dialectics
but also from such a notion as “dialectical opposition” as the source of “any
movement and development”. As long as the source of movement
(not only in non-living nature but also in the society) is the difference of
energetic potentials, determined by the relation of opposites, which are
presented as “surplus” and “shortage” in relation to the intermediate.
All this proves the
necessity of further development of Aristotle’s study about “four kinds of
opposition”, which can be renewed with large number of
new categories – comparative notions – and Hegel’s study about “concrete identity”,
differentiation of which into “concrete difference” must follow Aristotle’s way. And
this is the transfer to thinking, less general than philosophical categories
but more definite comparative notions that are able not only to lead to the
building of definite, common for everyone philosophical image of the world but also to the
understanding among people.
In a search of modern
non-classical dialectic form we turn for help to Aristotle, as long as in his
studies we can find the basis of concrete-overall
theoretical and practical philosophical knowledge, that are laid by him into the base of
two combined methods of world interpretation – logics and dialectics, which determine mental and
reasonable thinking. But if logics, while revealing formal-logic relations that
are determined by the utmost relations of identity and difference has managed to
become contemporary universally recognized science, then dialectics as a kind
of causative-effective relations, determined by other kinds of oppositions,
remained at the crossroads. The reason is its abstract-overall character.
Therefore, our task is not
only the critics of existing classical understanding of dialectics, but the
rehabilitation of its good name with the help of building real scientific
theory. The rehabilitation in the rights of Aristotle’s “kinds of oppositions”
and the replenishment of many new concrete-overall categories leads to the
rehabilitation of dialectics as the theory of the world, as long as nations,
which are put into circulation, reflect the essence of reality – natural and social.
The same way as we build
numbers in arithmetic and notes in music, we build comparative notions in two
parallel lines, and as far as the cognition develops we add to them new and new
notions, each of which give objective
point of view at the world and can be described in the notions of symmetry.
We will rise like at the
stairs from the cognition of things’ identity to the cognition of further their
relations, and therefore – to more complete theoretical models, which reflect
harmony and reasonable world.
The upper line of the
universal paradigm of cognition through such notion as “Corresponding” gives
possibility to interpret the
quantitative diversity of the world, as long as in order to interpret
“the larger” we need to take “the smaller” as the unit of measuring. Whereas
the lower line through such notion as “Opposite” gives us possibility to
interpret the processes of self-movement, their enforcement power.
With the help of common
spoken language and the utmost overall philosophical categories as
classificational notions it is impossible to find theoretical knowledge. They
all represent only the first, reasonable, formal-logic stage of
cognition, which is based on the utmost relations of identity and difference
that are able to reveal only most common properties of reality.
For theoretical
philosophical knowledge we require other comparative notions, which give
objective points of view for reasonable, non-classical dialectical-logical
cognition of the world, its structural diversity.
K. Marx, who was the first
in new European philosophy applying the method of raise from abstract to
concrete, approached to the analysis of capitalistic society. As a real
scientist he starts his research from goods’ exchange – that “cell”, which
hides more complex concrete-overall thinking structures. And they are
“corresponding”, “opposite” and “orthogonal”. But exactly these relations show
themselves in the interaction with the exchange and use value, while causing
the free goods’ exchange in capitalistic society. In essence this is
philosophical, dialectical-logical base made by K. Marx in his theory of
activist approach to the analysis of social processes.
The most important thing
here is that K. Marx understood the relations of goods’ exchange as an
interaction of two pairs of true opposites and precisely in the kind of exchange
and use value relations, which, by the way, were not opposites in relation one
to another but which K. Marx named “opposites”. Whereas the true opposites in
exchange process are two “exchange values” and two “use values”. K. Marx
himself and his colleague F. Engels have noticed this, as long as in “Capital”
it is clearly stated that “goods leave as exchange values” (one meeting pair of
opposites Y.R.), “and come as use values” (the second separating pair of
opposites Y.R.). However, neither K. Marx, nor F. Engels, nor any other could
fixate in adequate concrete-overall notions, which determine the diversity of
natural and social rhythms, the understanding of this process as superposition
of two pairs of opposites, which determine the energy of social process.
More complex processes of
social activity, interpreted by K. Marx as binary relations and these relations
between “producing forces and industrial relations”, between “basis and
superstructure” require more complex abstractions of identity and difference.
As specific form of thinking we can express them in comparative notions and
define them as “Additional 1,2”
and “Similar 1,2”,
while placing them in the universal paradigm of cognition in the upper and
lower lines right after such notions as “Orthogonal 1” and “Orthogonal 2”. However, in K. Marx’s study
these kinds of “concrete identity” are not distinguished and not interpreted as
concrete-overall abstractions.
K. Marx’s dialectics is a mere link to the concrete-overall method of
cognition, which is completely different from abstract-overall pre-scientific
and even pre-logic Hegel’s method. Therefore, no one until now,
except for F. Engels, managed to understand the whole depth of Marx’s concrete-scientific
dialectics, though almost all Marxists noted that “Capital” of Marx has
“special” logics.
Therefore, the raise from
abstract to concrete in the studies of K. Marx we need to understand as the
transfer from abstract-overall Hegel’s dialectics to its completely new concrete-scientific form, discovered by K. Marx. K. Marx approached the
cognition of concrete economical relations from mere dialectical positions,
while using concrete relations of reality, including relation of goods’
exchange as a specific “cell”.
So, which of two completely
different form of dialectics – abstract-overall Hegel’s dialectics or
concrete-scientific dialectics f “Capital” – we need to understand as Marxist?
V. Lenin highly estimated
the logics of “Capital”, which testifies his phrase “if Marx did not leave
“Logics” (from capital letter), then he left the logics of “Capital”. In
“Capital” to one science are applied logics, dialectics and theory of cognition
(no need for three words: this is the main thing) of materialism that took the
main thing from Hegel and moved this main thing forward” [7].
In the whole “the
understanding” of a special logics of “Capital” remains still limited and not
only with abstract-overall thinking in a way of three Hegel’s laws but with
false understanding of dialectical opposition as a source of movement and
development.
We, who completely reject
the abstract-overall classical method of dialectical thinking, have to admit
that K. Marx oriented his thinking in a right way on the way of concrete
dialectics. Therefore, we will follow K. Marx and will make research over the
social processes in the way of concrete-scientific dialectical method of
thinking applied by him but trying to avoid his mistakes.
4.
The
history figure of Copernicus
In order to rehabilitate the
dialectics as concrete-overall science about development we will use as the
notional apparatus of philosophy the whole line of comparative notions, while
continuing the study of ancients and concrete-scientific logics of Marx that
was used by him in creation of the history formational conception.
First of all, this notion of
“orthogonal” as that “cell”, which allows to interpret the relations of not
only bourgeois society, not only relations between concrete people, but also a
wider spectrum of society relations that are put by us in the cognition of
formational history division. On this base we managed to distinguish not just
one, as this was made by K. Marx, but four [8] dynamically combined but completely
different forms of social exchange. Two of them are compulsory and two others –
free, non-violent.
The first form of social exchange is the most primitive – tyrannical. And it is the most immoral, as long as it is based
on personal egoistic interest, on cruel violence and exploitation. It is
defined by the thing that products of human activity or any other values are
exchanged for the safe of life – the most significant value for people. This
form of exchange can be defined with the help of formula: “trick or treat”.
Therefore, this system of economy, based on this form of exchange, we can call
archaic or criminal economics.
The second form of exchange relations – serfdom – is connected with the limited but still existing
violence. However, here it is already unacceptable to take away human life. It
defines bureaucratic economics of a feudal type and is based on less vivid
(reasonable) egoism.
The third form of exchange – liberal – determines the change of social interaction in
the opposite direction and gives stimulus for the transfer from egoism to
altruism, as long as it proclaims non-violent, free and profitable for both
sides exchange. The self-organization, based on freedom, non-violence, on
mutual personal interest and profit, replaces force, authorial form of society
organization. It characterizes market economics of industrial society and is
determined by the formula: “give in order to receive”. The essence of liberal
relations is determined by free and overall exchange of human activity results,
which obtain the form of goods. The relations of personal dependence and profit
of one side go back to the past and give way to mutual usage.
The fourth form of exchange – servistic (from English “service”) determines most complete
unity of personal and public interest. It appears on the base of mutual serve
relations and not mutual struggle. Its peculiarity is that human achieves his
personal goals not through the dominion over other people with the help of two
first forms of exchange and not even with the help of liberal relations. He
achieves success because he serves society and concrete people. The roots or
even these relations themselves we can see, for instance, in serving of businessmen their customers, of politicians –
their people, of religious people – God, etc.
We
reveal that the relation of exchange, while being humanized gradually
transforms from one form into another, is included into another, more global
rhythm of history, which combines everyday life (micro system) and macro system
levels of social dialectic-logic analysis. The analogy can be the day moving of
Earth around its axis and its moving around Sun as it is illustrated in
Illustration 3.
And
this means that paradigm of N. Copernicus,
which lies in the base of heliocentric model of Solar system, is not working
with the interpretation of local (micro) and global (macro) social rhythms’ [9]
interrelation that lies in the base of formational history model [10].
Moreover,
all social rhythms have subjective factor, which deforms the strict sinusoid
form of natural dependences.
The
first three forms of social relations have already taken place in the history
of society and determined the degree of its social maturity and its class
content. These are slave, feudal and capitalistic relations. As for the fourth
“servistic” form of exchange, which K. Marks missed, its appearance and
establishment same as its three previous forms is not fatal. It is probable, as
long as it depends on our expectations,
in many things determined by the dominated moral upbringing and, besides, the
knowledge of public development laws.
Therefore,
the main in these forms of exchange is that they in the base prove the ground
of K. Marx’s conclusions about “social-economic formations”, which in many
things correctly separate one historic period from other: primeval regime,
slavery, feudalism, capitalism.
5. Trend “figure” of history
As any other processes of reality the world history as
a cyclic process of interaction between people needs to be studied but we need
to look at this question not like physicians look at the studying of natural
rhythms. The thing is that the driving
forces are opposites, which determine the interaction in nature in a diametric
way and are different from interactions in society.
In such a way in any vibration processes that take
place in non-living nature oppositions as a driving force of development are
striving for destruction of one another – the meeting pair. As a result in a
vibration system appears another pair of oppositions – the separating pair,
which is orthogonally placed in a relation to another pair. Whereas, in society
the driving force is an individual need of people. These people meet not in
order to give something but in order to receive. However, in order to receive
they need to give something. Therefore, in society the driving force of exchange
process will be not meeting, as it is in non-living nature, but separating pair
of oppositions. That is the only the difference.
In order to understand cyclic conceptions of history
we can propose notions of one of the oldest market disciplines, which has not
very appropriate name – “technical analysis”. This analytic discipline is based
on data, which gives her real trade as such exchange values, in which the
participants of market – customers and sellers divide their investments in
their own interests based on a current state of prices.
Technical
analysis reflects collective actions of people and in a specific way estimates
their behavior. It tells a lot about actions, obligations, goods and currency;
however, technical analysis, while being by its nature a universal knowledge
about exchanges, works with the analysis of not only economical but any other
markets, any exchanges made by people – market of physical labor, market of
intellectual and spiritual resources, etc. The market of sexual service, at which
many look nowadays not as a successful experiment but as a fact, is growing
rapidly in recent years. The personal capital of investor at the social market
– is his health and physical state, level of his spiritual, intellectual and
business abilities’ development, state of his sexual attractiveness and many
others.
At
the market where people make an exchange as a free game of interests it is not
important what is sold and how much does it costs. The main thing is who
determines the price. Therefore, market reflects human perception of value.
Whereas the price, by which an exchange as accomplished, is determined by
supply and demand that are determined by aggressiveness of customers and sellers who embody actions of opposite market (social)
forces. The price changes alongside with the predominant tendencies at the
market. In such a way, psychology of mass is an important component of
technical analysis.
Almost
everything we find out from graphics about stock market is justified and for
historical, social humanitarian processes’ analysis, as long as the
participants of bourgeois game think of graphics not in graphical but in
psychological terms. Therefore, the analysis of exchange processes, especially
in case if we want to use it as a universal discipline: in philosophy,
sociology, psychology or even in ethics must have different name. As an
instrument of cognition it could be called “social
humanitarian” analysis, as long as its main aim is the analysis of social
relations as form of resource exchange in all without exception disciplines of
social humanitarian cycle. In such a wide context social humanitarian analysis
is the non-classical analysis of society development on all its stages. The
basic component of social humanitarian analysis, the same as its prototype –
technical analysis, is graphic, which reflects not only change of resource
exchange forms but also fixating in such a way the value of human personality
at any moment of historical time. And as long as the person at any moment of
exchange process is simultaneously the customer and seller, the word “trader”
taken from technical analysis can be applied not only in relation to the
participant of bourgeois game but in a wide context as well. I.e. in order to
show people who take part at any social game or interaction. And from this
point of view any person is a trader, i.e. the participant of global bourgeois
exchange – game under the common name “Life”. The other thing is that everyone
plays in frames of these or another sphere and every player has its scale, its
qualification and its time scale.
The
word “trader” has English origin. It is derived from word “trade”. From the
same word comes the word “trading”, which means purchase or sale of documents,
currency or other values. The word “trend” expresses the current direction of
price movement, the tendency in the direction of this moving. We
will use the notion “trend” in order to define one more figure of history,
which is expressed in terms of stock exchange game, i.e. in basic notions of technical
analysis.
While
gaining the skills of stock exchange game, we will learn how to see on a
graphic the reflection of everything that happens and happened previously at
the global market of human interactions – total market of resource exchange,
which determines life of society. We can see the reflection or separate people,
their groups and even nations’ psychology of behavior. But the main thing is
that we understand the value of person, which appears in the process of social
exchange.
Intuitively
we feel that the same way as everything in the nature of things the value of
human personality, its life and welfare, independence and freedom is changing
from epoch to epoch. Nowadays the constitutions of many countries protect the
value of human life. In reality most of what is written in constitutions are
yet empty declarations, as long as government and its officials are not trying
to guarantee the fulfillment and protection of these rights. Politicians and
officials only say that everything must be done for people, that it is
necessary in society, as long as its main value is human. But in real life
their words often do not meet their deeds.
Therefore,
the formula “to buy someone’s goods cheap and to sell yours expensive” works at
all markets without exception, as long as customers want to give as less as
possible and sellers want to receive as more as possible. The exchange (deal)
is accomplished at the moment when customer and seller estimate the market at
the same level. Therefore, any price at
the stock market, no matter if it is price for oil, bread, currency or any
other values, including human – they are
a moment agreement about the goods’ value. It is achieved by stock exchange
crowd in fact of agreement accomplishment and, therefore, only in frames of
social action expressed with the help one out of four resource exchange forms:
tyrannical, serfdom, liberal and servistic. In historical plan these forms of
exchange determined slave, feudal, capitalistic social economic formation.
Whereas servistic form of exchange is possible (far not obligatory) but not yet
realized post-capitalistic perspective.
This
means that agreement about human personality value is the result of leading
social relations and this value is constantly changing. In one case it is
established in peaceful atmosphere, i.e. when social relations are changing
gradually, in other – in the condition of social unrest, revolutions. But in
any case the measure of human values and
his dignity is morale as characteristics of relations between people of this or
another epoch of this or another country expressed in four forms of exchange. Therefore,
when we speak about humanization of exchange resource forms, we speak about
global trend, which reflects the growth of human personality value in a
transfer from one form of exchange to another, i.e. from one social economical
formation to another, more humanistic. This transfer from one form of social
relations to another we can describe in a circle scale, which reflect the
history figure of Copernicus. However, following the example of technical
analytics who also base on the idea of cyclicity, we can depict the rhythms in
a gradational scale, as transfer from one extreme meaning to another.
Meanwhile, we show the time at the horizontal coordinate. Whereas at the
vertical coordinate we will show the price of human personality expressed in
four forms of exchange resources: tyrannical (T), serfdom (S1), and
liberal (L) and servistic (S2). This approach will help us to show
on graphic the constantly changing value of human where the measure of values
are the relations between people, which are characterized y the leading morale
in society. The same graphic reflects the
trend figure of history.
This
means that we can now show the figure of modern history as the curve with
gradually changing peaks and slumps. The graphic that we receive is the
photograph of social actions of all social exchange participants not only in a
certain period of time but also in a concrete moment. Every price is the result
of two interacted, however opposite oriented groups: customers, or “bills” and
sellers, or “bears” that make together the market crowd – citizens of this or
another country that resist civilization.
The
graphic presented for observation, which shows the change of human personality value
in a time scale, does not give any quantitative expressions of price, its goal is to
give quantitative analysis of human price change, which determines the figure of world
history in a form of global historic trend.
While observing the dynamics of peaks
and slumps, we start to understand better what the true value of human personality was
at the certain period of history and what is the tendency in change of social relations
nowadays, in certain group of people, for instance, in certain civilization, how
long-lasting it is and if it is going to change in future.
The graphic shows that when the tendency
of society rises, it becomes democratized, and when the tendency falls, it becomes wild.
The rising tendencies can never go straight up, whereas falling tendencies often go
straight down, as long as the fall of morale (the start of wars, the power of dictators
and total regime) can happen very fast in contradistinction to its rise.
This
global trend, which can be put on graphic in arbitrary form, reflects social
history of humanity. Starting from
slavery in antique period it comprises the whole following period until modern
time. It is showed at the graphic in arbitrary form how with a pass of many
centuries the value of human personality was changing. It was either rising, or
rapidly falling down. It actually means the same as the change resource values
on goods’ and financial markets. This fact leads to the conclusion that
application of technical analysis ideas in order to interpret social phenomena
not only in economical but also other social markets. Therefore, the proposed
analysis as a universal instrument can play a crucial role in the
interpretation of society development in frames of large and middle periods of
time (or price intervals) as, for instance, Western
civilizations. And it will be useful in studying short historical (or
price) intervals, which reflect social relations in other social markets, in
other epochs, in other not Western
civilizations. This analysis includes not only the analysis of those social
actions, which were leading in the past, but can also give prognoses for
future.
The
study of social phenomena by the means of social humanitarian analysis just as
it takes place in modern stock market game and will play favorable role in
studying psychology of mass in frames of large or relatively closed social
groups, for instance, countries, ethnic groups or civilizations. Its goal is to
define the correlation of forces between bulls and bears, i.e. those opposite
forces, which raise the lath of social morale and which make it fall. Some
people see the reason of their life in raising real value of human personality
in a certain country at a certain historic moment – these are the followers of
so called “bull” trend. Whereas other players – the representatives of “bear”
trend find their luck in making it fall. The first players develop the social
morale, the second make it degrade. The first group is represented by bulls,
sheep, pigeons, the life of which is oriented at serving people, at the
establishment of high moral norms, at the rise of human personality value, at
the satisfaction of altruistically oriented personal interest and finally at
the development of civilization.
The
second group of players are represented by predators: bears, wolfs, hawks,
which aim of life is oriented at the dominion, at satisfaction of egoistic
oriented personal or group interest that slows down the social development and
sometimes even pulls civilization back. The struggle of these two forces – the
forces of Good and Evil that form the moral climate of society at every
historic moment of time, defines the direction of trend, its raise, and fall or
side movement.
Finally
in the analysis of social relations the same as in the analysis of deals in
stock exchange game we can distinguish three types of trend: “bull”, when the
value of human personality rises, when wins “Good”, i.e. goes the process of
exchange form humanization. “Bear”, when wins “Evil” and happens the opposite
process or “side” with not vivid changes of social relations in time. Generally
speaking, the side trend can be applied for the analysis of Asian way of
industry or other stagnizing civilizations as a certain social market.
All
three types of trends we meet not in clear way but in a certain combination. In
order to show these tendencies the traders explain: “the bull beats the enemy
with horns upwards”. The bull is a player who counts on the raise of social
morale. He wins from exchange form humanization and, therefore, from the growth
of human value, from humanistic attitude to all living, from care to nature.
This is a supporter of progressive evolution.
“Bear beats the
enemy with its paw from above” – explain traders. The bear is a player who
counts on non-moral forms of social relations, on decrease of social morale. He
wins, when social morale degrades, when dominate authoritarian relations and
human personality values fall.
In real politics the players can not leave the game.
However, depending on the change of trend direction they can switch their game
in direction they need. In this case wins the one who understands the strategy
and tactics of game, who has more resources and plays mostly in the direction
of more significant, in this case, global trend.
But if one of the players will be allowed to play in
bull trend and if its direction changes he is forbidden to leave positions, and
his opponent is allowed to play in two directions or abstain from game, then
the answer is clear: the one, who is not allowed to play in two directions,
will lose. This fact reflects double
standards in politics, which are called conception of the so-called
“political correctness”, the true meaning of which is the support of preferable
and failure of the opposite side.
In such a way, under the guise of democracy and high
morale support its pretended “supporters” openly take the side of the enemy. In
fact, they support terroristic organizations, which in this case are not the
states and , therefore, do not think they have to follow international norms
that touch human rights, approved by universal agreements signed between
liberal and democratic states. As a result an international court applies only
at the states and does not apply non-governmental establishments that avoid
responsibility with the help of rejection from taking the status of state
character. In this connection V. Lenin was right when he said that “in order to
discredit idea, one should make it look
absurd under the guise of support”.
In such a way, unfortunately, it happened with most
wild “supporters” of freedom and human rights ideas and therefore supporters of
terrorists – the enemies of Western civilization. In reality, they play
favorable role in radical Islamism world’s dominion and therefore the transfer
of all social relations in its countries into liberal, serfdom level. And these
are not just thoughts of philosopher-dreamer but real fact of modern world, the
point of which is that in borders of European (Western) civilization already
lives medieval ghost who threatens its existence. But this is not “the ghost of
communism”, about which K. Marks and F. Engels wrote in “Manifest to
Communistic party” in 1848. The name of this ghost is “Islamism”. It represents the combination of extreme
ideological trends that show in the last resort the religious intolerance,
including the attitude to Muslims themselves. Therefore, “Islamism” which
sometimes is called “Islamic fascism” can not be identified with the whole
system of Muslim religious belief and majority of world population (it is about
1 billion of people) way of life.
While being oriented on this or another party in the
way of “bull”, “bear” or “side” trend, we, first of all, need to understand
what we want from our game. If we should play in the direction of long-lasting
trend, directed at the side of human relations humanization, in frames of which
goes humanistic development. Or should we haunt our luck in a moment vibration
of “prices” and build our personal material welfare.
In the analysis
we come from that at any moment of time at any social market the same as at any
usual financial market we can reveal several tendencies: basic tendency, secondary
tendencies and minor tendencies.
The basic (global) tendency, which determines social
period in the development of the humanity, lasts for centuries. This is a
rising tendency, which is determined by exchange forms humanization. It has
four formational phases that follow one another: tyrannical, serfdom, liberal
and post-liberal, which we call servistic. And here we again can not ignore K.
Marx’s attention, as long as in his study the most crucial category is the
notion of social economic formation that reveals the unity of historic
development.
The secondary
tendencies are intermediate movements, not necessarily directed
in the opposite direction from basic tendencies. They characterize relations in
frames of this or another country, group of countries or civilization. These
tendencies can last for hundreds of years and, as a rule, accompany social organism
from its birth till its death.
Minor
tendencies are movements in frames of secondary tendencies,
which can be directed both in the direction of basic tendencies and in the
opposite direction. They characterize the change of social relations both under
the influence of new philosophical ideas and under the influence of this or
other historical personalities.
All these tendencies show that the character of social
relations is not constant and its changes are traced both at significant
intervals of time that last for hundreds or thousands of years and in frames of
decades, some years or even months. Every minor circle is the basic part of a
higher level, whereas in a combination they form the model of basic tendency.
Therefore, in order to estimate social development, it is important to take not
minor or secondary tendencies but summarized result of a long period of
historic time.
As for the common side of our life, here everything
develops according to the rules of stock exchange game. Professional players at
the market of life achieve success because in accordance with a folk wisdom “no
one should play against trend”, whereas in another case the players have no
other choice but to lose. Therefore, many politicians, likewise professional
stock exchange players, orient only on short-lasting systems of “trade”. They
are always in game and can clearly define the direction of a current trend.
While following the tendency, they always support the side of winners, and in
case of its change they can easily change position in order to receive
profit.
The same thing happens with non-significant people who
never oppress minor tendencies. They are never wise but can easily understand
themselves and can compare this with the understanding of crowd behavior. This
tactics guarantees them in any case not only survival but even some prosperity.
As for people of another type, in their case this
often establishment and moral raise of people who count on raise in frames of
basic tendencies. I support these people in emotional plan, as long as their
personal interest and their personal position is determined by long-lasting
interests of majority, but in the same time I understand that in personal plan
they, as a rule, will never receive prosperity. Moreover, they are always in
danger and often a mortal one. Jesus, Gordano Bruno, Andrei Saharov and many
other, less famous people, can be an example. However, in a long-lasting
perspective, through decades and hundreds of years, such people become winners,
as long as they orient themselves not at minor, current but at basic,
long-lasting tendency in society development.
Therefore, the main reason why high moral people can
not live rich and comfortable life is that they follow a ban on short
positions, i.e. sell short. They play only in one direction – direction of
rise, in simple words they follow the norms of high morale. And this puts such
people or even whole countries in
non-equal position with competitors who play with trend in two directions. Therefore, the more we find out about the
trend figure of history, which gives universal knowledge not only about itself
but about society, then easier it will be to achieve success in any business,
no matter if it is activity of stock exchange player, businessman or state official
or even world-wide politician.
6. About advantages, theoretical errors
and Utopian delusions of K. Marx
While interpreting K. Marx’s formational division of
history, we will underline that relations typical for primeval regime, as well
as communistic relations, should not be included into social relations, as long
as primeval relations are not social relations of exchange but tribal, family
or even biological relations. As for communistic formation, then according to
the classics of Marxism any form of exchange is eliminated in it, as long as
exchange relations determine no only material inequality of people but also
division of people into opposite classes. Therefore, social, i.e. class period
in development of human and humanity, we divide into four (and not five like K.
Marx had) stages, which follow one another in a circle (spiral) scale. Such
approach makes society analysis strictly scientific.
Now we can see that, while observing social movement
as natural historical process, K. Marx was right in many things and, first of
all, in applying goods’ exchange as the initial “cell” in order to interpret
bourgeois society. This is definitely an outstanding discovery of K. Marks.
In his work “To the question about dialectics” V.
Lenin describes concrete-scientific expression of Marxism dialectical method in
such a way: “Marx in “Capital” firstly analyses the most simple, common, basic,
most massive relation of bourgeois
(trade) society that we meet billions of times: goods’ exchange. The analysis
reveals in this simple phenomenon (in this “cell” of bourgeois society) all contradictions (respective germs of all contradictions) of contemporary
society. The further observation shows us the development (both growth and movement) of these contradictions and this society,
in Σ * his separate parts, from its start
to its end.
The same must
be the method of synopsis (respective study) of dialectics in general (as long
as dialectics of bourgeois society according to K. Marx is just a separate case
of dialectics) (distinguished by us Y.R.)” [11].
We can agree with many things proposed by K. Marx and
with his estimation of concrete scientific dialectical method of cognition
proposed by V. Lenin. However, we are interested not only in advantages of this
method but also in disadvantages, one of which is that K. Marx observed only
one constant “cell”, which reflects the essence of only one, bourgeois stage,
in society development. The question about
other “cells”, about their probable transfer
from one form into another that determines other stages of formational circle
(spiral) process, remains in Marxism without an answer. Therefore, K. Marx has
a number of false conclusions and utopian misinterpretations, for instance,
about class struggle, about revolutions, about dictatorship of proletariat,
about communism that abolished exchange and private property.
And truly, theoretical research leads us to
disagreement with K. Marx’s question
about class struggle and according to his belief about complete destruction
of class oppositions in the process of historic development. Here our positions
completely disagree not only with the position of K. Marx but also with
understanding of class struggle by other thinkers of past and present, as long
as struggle happens not between opposite
classes of this or another formation: slaves and slave-owners, serves and
feudalists, workers and capitalists. It happens between new (born) and old
(dying out) orthogonal pair of
opposite classes [12].
The opposite classes are not enemies that meet in
brother-killing war, as a result of which one becomes a winner. In contrary,
opposite classes are “friendly” classes that can not exist without each other.
While having a mutual victory, they affirm a new form of social relations, i.e.
this or another form of exchange dominating at this stage of historic
development. And they as friendly pair of classes slow down the progress and
keep the old form of exchange from having lost. Opposite classes also die (or
extinct) together. From this point of view K. Marx’s belief about proletarian
revolution and dictatorship of proletariat is false.
In the same time class struggle as a struggle of
opposite classes also takes place, however it does not have antagonistic
character, as long as it would destroy the form of exchange, which lies in the
base of class division. “Those who love fight for fun” – say people about
arguments between husband and wife. The same is the struggle between opposite
classes, the meaning of which is oriented at the balance of interests between
friendly sides. We can destroy the opposite classes in the process of historic
development only if we destroy corresponding them form of social exchange. This
is, by the way, what theoreticians of communism wanted in their utopian false
beliefs.
This is, apparently, what F. Engels was thinking about
in his work “Principles of communism”, in which he writes that at the highest
stage of society development when “the whole capital, whole industry, whole
exchange will be concentrated in hands of nation, then there will be no need
for private property”. “Money will become excessive and industry will come to
such a level that people will change so much that last forms of old society
relations will disappear” [13].
But this means that with complete victory of communism
not only authoritarian forms of exchange (tyrannical and serfdom) but also
liberal form will disappear and alongside the most perfect one, servistic form,
which is hard to accept.
And here comes a new question: how should we deal with
K. Marx’s personal belief about the
essence of human as combination of all social relations, understood,
however, not from abstract-overall but from concrete-overall non-classical positions?
I will answer this question with the words of V. Soloviyov: “Every person is a
centre point of eternal number of relations with others, and to separate him
from these relations means to take away from him any true content of life”.
The essence of what is happening we need to determine
with concrete-overall answers to this question: “what is human?”
In many things, though we do not accept Marxism
classical dialectic-material study as a strict scientific knowledge, we can be
proud of both K. Marx and F. Engels. Their full of tragic contradictions wild
scientific and political life will always be a good example of unselfish serve to poor people, serve to the world brotherhood of
people and nations and they induced to serve
to the truth, justice and good.
7. The battle of formations and
civilizations’ collision
One of the most popular approaches to the theory of
world politics after cold war and collapse of USSR was aimed at the comprehension
of interactions between different civilizations, which form the face of modern
world. The new phase of world development, according to one of most famous
authors, Samuel Hantigton, will be characterized not much with competition of
national states in sphere of economics and not with the difference in ideology.
The dominant source of conflicts will be determined by culture. “Nation-state
will remain the main participant in international affairs, - thinks S.
Hantington, but most significant conflicts of global politics will take place
between nations and groups that belong to different civilizations. The cohesion
between civilizations will become the dominant factor of world politics. The
lines of collapse between civilizations are lines of future fronts”[14] and most significant conflicts of future
will take place along the lines of collapse between civilizations. The
difference between civilizations does not necessarily mean conflict between
them, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. However, the
retrospective point of view shows through hundreds of years the most
long-lasting and bloody conflicts of the past were caused by difference between
civilizations.
If previously in Western areal the conflicts took
place mostly between sovereigns: kings, imperators, monarchs who tried to
enforce their economical power and enlarge their territories by adding new
lands [15]. Later, starting from Great French revolution, the basic conflicts
started to take place not only between sovereigns but mostly between nations.
This model continued until Great October Socialistic
revolution in Russia,
starting from which the conflict between ideologies replaced the conflict of
nations: international-communistic (Sovietism), national-socialistic (fascism),
and liberal. In fact, this was class
conflict, conflict of formations, in which one pair of opposite classes
that propagated authoritarian relations, was trying to return Western
civilization – to tyrannical and serfdom form of exchange. It started an opened
struggle with another, orthogonal pair of classes, which were trying to defend
more developed liberal model of Western civilization not only inside the
country but also at the international arena.
With the failure in Second World War of Nazi Germany
and multinational Soviet Union enforcement of power the conflict between
formations showed itself in struggle between two super-states – USSR
and USA – none of which were
mononational states. Their self-identification was formulated in frames of
authorial communistic and liberal Western ideology, based on principles of
class struggle as struggle for moral progress. And if conflict between
sovereigns, nations-states and ideologies were mainly conflicts inside Western
civilization, then with the end of cold war, according to S.
Hantington, comes to the end Western phase of international
politics’ development. The interaction between West and non Western civilizations
becomes central. At this new period nations and states of non Western
civilizations do not represents anymore the objects of history – the target of
Western colonial politics and alongside with West start to move and create
history: to the conflict of ideologies
the conflict of cultures is added. Therefore, we should group the countries
in accordance with their economical and political systems, according to S.
Hantigton, “not according to economical development but according to cultural
and civilization criteria”. Identification at the level of civilizations will
become more and more significant; therefore the image of the world will be
significantly formed in the course of seven-eight large civilizations’
interaction”.
In contradiction to universal human civilization,
which we will name global civilization or
world system, all other civilizations we will name local civilizations.
Civilization is a wide level of unity between people,
with which human can correlate himself. But even larger unity, in frames of
which we can identify all people, is “global human civilization” that
differentiates human from other species. Nowadays Western civilization de-facto
occupies a higher stage of formational development than all existing
civilizations. And in this meaning it plays the role of vanguard border in
universal human civilization. It exists in two basic modifications: European
and North-American.
The differences between civilizations are objective.
Civilizations are not similar in their history, culture, traditions, they have
different religions. People of different civilizations understand God in
different ways and look at his attitude to human in different ways as well. But
the main thing is that they look in different ways at the interactions between
people, between parents and children, between husband and wife, individual and
group, citizen and state, have different interpretation of correlation of
rights and duties, freedom and compulsion. These formational differences were
created through centuries and can not disappear in one moment. These
formational differences, combined in frames of global human civilization, are
determined by four forms of exchange: tyrannical, serfdom, liberal and
servistic.
The struggle between formations is total. It touched
and will touch all civilizations, all nations, all citizens of Earth, as long
as it is connected with social relations, determined by the level of moral
development. Every human being is a participant of constant class struggle, as
long as while taking part in exchanges, he is willing to make everyone think of
him as good as possible, therefore he is angry and protests against bad
treatment. Whereas he himself far not always treats other people well. Here lie
the roots of golden moral rule: “Treat people the way you want to be treated”.
The collapse of civilizations is fragmentary; it can
take place at any moment of time but can be missing. It does not touch deep
spheres of human. Therefore, the combination of formational and civilization
interests damages the struggle for moral progress.
In twenties century ideological struggle, i.e. the
struggle between formations took place between socialistic and capitalistic
camps. Communistic society was opposed as “progressive” social economical
formation to the “extinct” West. However, in reality communism not only did not
manage to surpass liberal stages but even did not grow up to the same level.
Therefore, the objective need appeared to reformate of USSR, to bring
its economy and politics to a liberal way.
Misunderstanding of existing difference between
formational and civilization paradigm [16] eroded humanistic identification of
people. This brought into world politics the elements of chaos, inconsistency.
The vacuum that appeared was gradually filled up with mystic, pre-logic,
regressive ideas, mostly nationalism and religion, in form of fundamental
movements that were supported in Western schools and universities by
politically correct intellectuals (who played the role of fifth column of
Islamism), organized by the youth, highly qualified specialists, businessmen
and politicians who did not understand the meaning of society development.
The process of desecularization [17], which became one
of the dominant social phenomena at the end of XX century, characterizes the
return to “new medieval” interpreted by defective ideologists as return to
cultural roots. With the end of cold war the ethnic and religious unity rapidly
pushes out ideological, i.e. formational, class differences. Religion separates
(and combines) people even more rapidly than ethic belonging. While defining
identity in ethnic or religious terms, people tend to look at relations between
each other and people of other ethic or confessional belonging not from
formational, class positions, not from position of mind, not from positions of
morale, determined by four forms of exchange but from positions of reason or
even instinct. The relations between people are built at the base of elementary
binary oppositions as relations “we” and “they” that can not slow down social
progress.
The end of communism at the territory of former USSR and states of Eastern
Europe as “leader of world progress” allowed liberal Western
ideology to advance at a new level. This was a victory of social classes, which
affirmed free resource exchange and replaced compulsory forms of exchange,
including non-economic compulsion to labor, which dominated in states of
communistic block. Therefore, West with its main values: idea of freedom and
human rights became not just one of existing civilizations and took the control
of universal human civilization.
Nowadays at the top of its power liberal Western
civilization meets non Western, authoritarian countries, which have enough will
and resources to make the world before-liberal. These influential non Western
societies that defend traditional clan culture create opposite social classes,
which are interested not only in preservation of extinct social relations’
forms in their countries; in contradiction they are trying by all means to
affirm them in the whole world. However,
this struggle of formations is presented as liberal ideology in primitive way,
not as the struggle of progressive forces with reaction classes, but as the
collision of West with all other civilizations. Whereas perfect and successive
Western liberal culture in reality affirms new, more moral social relations,
while creating new, more progressive pair of classes – driving force of social
development.
In
such a way, conflicts take place in two levels: between formations and between local civilizations. But the main
thing in their collision is class struggle as strive for establishment in the
world of this or other social relations and on their base their political and
religious-atheistic values. An example can be radical Islam, which in reality
is not only religion as many people think but, first of all, total political
ideology, which will not stop until West finally and totally becomes Islamized.
The attempts of West, directed at democratic authoritarian countries by
conducting in them democratic elections, often gives power not to democratic
forces but in contradiction – to religious fanatics. It happens because these
forces are directed not at cultural and natural growth of Eastern and Central
Asian nations but at the democratization
as an empty form, procedure.
It
turns out that both in years of cold war and nowadays the basic sources of
crisis and bloodshed was concentrated along political and ideological, i.e.
formational borders, and not as S. Hantigton’s thinks, transfer at the line of
collapse between local civilizations.
And
truly, as soon as communism failed and ideological division of Europe between liberalism and communism was liquidated,
it returned but as a class struggle between feudal and liberal ideologies.
After taking form of cultural or civilization collision, the world divided into
Western Protestant and Catholic Christianity from one side, and Orthodox, Islam
and Confucianism from another side. The both sides see the interaction of
civilizations’ conflict. But this is not just the collision of cultures but
mostly the struggle between formations. Liberal West will definitely confront
to the rest of authoritarian world, which combines for struggle with
progress.
At the end of cold war an impression
appeared that a new world regime was building and belonging to one human
liberal civilization will replace different political ideologies. But this
never happened, as long as consolidation happened not at the base of
formational identity but at the base of civilization one. And here works famous
formula: “West fights against Islam”. Mistake of West is that it did not manage
to transfer the war with some Muslim countries from civilization into
formational stream.
The thing that West is trying to spread
more humanistic social relations and transfer world into a new stage of social
development remains unnoticed by critics. Whereas it’s actual strive for total domain is showed by its enemies as the
main. And in this non Western countries see the main disadvantage of West. Apparently,
and many politicians see this, the central axis of world politics in future
will be the conflict between “West and rest of the world” but that will be not
the conflict of civilizations as many politicians try to show it but as the
collision between progressive and regressive formations.
It is difficult to say what will do
Eastern countries that are less developed in social and economic way. For Russia with its
multinational and multiconfessional population, which represents some
civilization groups, the more desirable is formational rather than civilization
paradigm.
While overcoming national and
religious (group) egoism, Russia
can save its unity. But it must affirm human values: liberal (market)
relations, democracy, human rights, norms of high morale. However, to make all
this we need consciously and not let national and religious groups to collapse Russia.
Such human values are appropriate fro
Ukraine as well as for any other country, which population is represented by
several civilization groups, like in former Soviet Union or present Russia.
Self-identification on the base of belonging to certain civilization is
detrimental. It requires authoritarian forms of government and any
democratization will only destroy the unity of the country, while making it
collapse. This is a trap, in which get many countries, when they take as
self-identification non-formational criteria, and belonging to a certain
civilization! Therefore, for Russia
belonging to a certain civilization must be rejected and replaced by belonging
to liberal formation.
Russian government understands the
complexity of this situation and is searching for such an idea for Russia that
would play favorable role in preservation of country’s unity. But unfortunately
such idea has not been found yet.
In its strive for knowledge and
technical progress, to humanization of all social relations Western
civilization is a good example for all nations and in this relation it is
universal. Therefore, many things from Western culture became wide-spread in
the rest of the world.
However, such ideas as liberalism and
internationalism, democracy and separation of church from government often lead
to hostile reaction of “true culture values” supporters. These forces separate one
people from another and require authoritarian tyrannical and serfdom relations
in order to keep their unity.
The existence of different nations
and civilizations that create identity and collision can not replace
formational identity and formational division, determined by the transfer of
countries and civilizations from one level of social-economic development into
another, more advanced.
In this article it is not stated that formational identity must replace all
other form of identity, that nations-states and civilizations will
disappear and formation will become complete and non-conflict.
Refuse from feudal, serfdom relations determines
transfer to the true liberal and servistic relations changes the character of
conflicts, transfers the struggle between different groups into more natural
stream. Therefore, in frames of universal human civilization it is required to
start global ideological war for the transfer from non-moral authoritarian
relations of the past to more humanistic social relations of future, the war
for moral progress of humanity.
This means that struggle
of formations is required to be transferred into ideological stream, while
applying for these purpose the authority of science: scientific philosophy,
scientific sociology and other social humanitarian disciplines. As a result
not only professors and students of Western universities but also pupils of
schools will be involved in ideological struggle as a struggle of Good forces against Evil forces.
And
creation of political parties that stand on progressive class positions will
make anti-feudal front stronger. And the most important is that the highest
arbitral will become not religious or any other belief but the authority of mind. Only in this case the conclusions of social sciences will penetrate into universities
of those countries and that civilization, which nowadays are the base of
terrorism that mostly uses democracies to destroy free world. Whereas democracy is liberal freedom of those
who believes in liberal values: the equality of human rights, women rights,
national minorities rights, free elections, tolerance, integration. But not
those who is willing to use liberal laws in order to achieve non-liberal ideas.
Nowadays war against terrorism is held only in two
fronts: military and informational that provide for destruction of terror
infrastructure and victory in social opinion. However, the roots of terrorism
lie deeply in non-developed consciousness of individuals and it is impossible
to pull them out by proposed means. For this we need the third, ideological front, organized on the base of new
philosophy, new global ideology and new morale, which oppress all their
non-developed authoritarian forms [18].
Here it is, apparently, appropriate to quote short fragments from the performance in
Washington Institute of Eastern politics in New-York made by former British
prime-minister Tony Blair who called for “revolution of thinking” in sphere of
struggle against terrorism, as long as at the moment Islamists win West in this
struggle.
Blair shows that he still has no idea what to do with
“extreme ideology” – to start confrontation or try “to get used to it with a
hope it will become different”. “however if to make a total of all voting “for”
and “against”, I think, that we can
make it disappear with a help of tame. Its roots are so deep and its discourse
is so omnipresent”, - concludes Tony Blair [19].
Therefore,
we need to do all possible to make struggle of formations dominating factor of
world politics and line of collapse between them would become line of future
ideological (moral) and no other fronts. Fronts that take place no only in the
collapse of civilizations but in every separate country as well, in every
separate city. The events that took place at the beginning of 2011 in Tunis, Egypt
and other Muslim countries prove this thesis.
The main field of struggle must
become the consciousness of every separate person, his struggle against himself
for morel self-improvement. As long as if
you change thinking, you change the world.
This means that radical Islamist
ideology directed on struggle against infidel must be oppressed to another,
same powerful force, but scientifically grounded secular ideology, which
reflects interests of not only one religious confession, not only interests of
one nation or one state but all citizens of Earth.
8.
Where does the humanity get under
way? The probable forecast
The establishment of new more moral
social relations is a method of harmonization between people, between human and
nature, which is provided by evolution. Not war but trade as a way of
resources’ division, not dominion but mutual serve in frames of social ethic
market – these are the principles of morale in modern civilized states, and
therefore the whole world society.
This way is connected with the
formation of such interpretations in all countries of morality human idea, which must be cognized by every human being
and every nation at the level of its national idea. Briefly it can be
formulated in a way of following paradigm: “Life
is a serve”.
But this is humanistic revolution – the turning point from authoritarian egoism
to alloritarian altruism, from strive to solve your “own” problems with the
help of domain over “others” to strive to solve your problems while serving
others, from insanity – to mind.
The history of society is a search of
harmonious synthesis between natural strive, which makes human to take care of
his personal welfare, and moral strive, which makes him responsible for other
people. New form of reasonable concrete-overall dialectical thinking and forestalling upbringing will help to
understand how to combine personal and social interests, how to transform the
atmosphere of hostility and hatred into the atmosphere of benevolence and love,
how to achieve this synthesis. Servistic,
more than any other form of exchange, harmonizes relations between people,
between personal and social interests.
Therefore, neither antique heroes,
nor this or another image of Superhuman in a later time, nor Islamic-Fascist
terrorists nowadays can not serve as an example for our contemporary. We need
new models and new examples of superhuman heroic deeds. We need to form New person, who will learn how to
receive the world not as a cruel struggle against everyone in condition of
total hatred but as competition, as mutual and profitable serve to people.
For a true Superhuman – “Serviceman”
– the way contemporary hero must be presented, life is not a struggle between
people for domain, life is a serve to people and whole surrounding world.
Through satisfaction of other people
needs, through care about our family, through serve to customers or patients,
through serve to electioneers, nation, mankind or surrounding nature, human can
receive anything that he needs. He can even become rich and famous.
Modern morale remains the morale of
under-developed in social relation types, this is morale of “sovereigns” and
“slaves”, and this is a weapon of their mutual existence, class domain. Our
post-Soviet reality testifies that we are not that much ready to receive the
idea of building more justifiable society, but mostly that neither people, nor government are not ready yet to use other, more
perfect relations than serfdom. This is a concrete reason, which leads not
only to corruption but also to other asocial phenomena in Russia, in Ukraine and at the whole
post-Soviet territory.
Unfortunately, we can not foresee in
what direction will move social development, determined by the predominance of
this or another relation of exchange. But our contemporary expectations,
predetermined by forestalling moral upbringing, will form the future.
Therefore, in social cognition we
need to affirm new servistic morale and
to proclaim the appearance of new hero – strong, kind, justified and rich
Superhuman, who will come to rule not through the domain over people but
through serving them. As long as the wealth of the country is not only its
nerds but also intellectual capital of its nation, its moral Capital, i.e. that
relations of exchange, which rule in society and which evolution from non-moral
authoritarian relations of past and present to social ethic relations of
future.
Now it’s time to understand that the
relations of serve is that unique bridge, which can combine personal interest
of human, group interest of nation with humanity interest.
Literature
