![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nikpavl2002 [Ru]
[Eng]
Being a social creature, a person can gain knowledge about the world around him/her in the process of his/her formation and learning. It is logical to assume that this will be the knowledge and experience of society, which is the quintessence of the knowledge and experience of all previous generations.
Alas, this is not the case. The level of understanding of the world and the amount of knowledge will depend on the person’s place in the “hierarchical ladder of the power”. All "revolutionary" ideas "trickle down" from above, and the controlled majority perceives them as "revelations," naively believing that their implementation will change the existence of society for the better.
What is the difference between a person belonging to the caste of managers and a hard worker who is mired in poverty on the brink of survival? Knowledge! But do not rush to think that, having gained access to knowledge, the worker will be able to replace the manager.
Significant differences in the system of basic knowledge and ideas of the worker and the manager will not allow the former to perceive what is given for the latter. Knowledge will come into conflict with the worldview, as well as the ideas of the worker, and will simply be rejected by his/her consciousness.
To prevent this from happening, it is necessary to change the basic knowledge and ideas, convincing the learner of their incompleteness or unreliability. Learning is always easier than retraining. Retraining is the worst option, because there is a process of replacing knowledge, and not perceiving it "from scratch".
This substitution is conditional and most often fragmentary, because new knowledge can be perceived only at the evidentiary level. Hence, in the minds of people there will be doubts about the truth of the newly acquired knowledge and uncertainty in their application.
Most people do not even suspect how powerful as means of civilizational change the process of teaching subsequent generations can be.
There is always a problem of freedom of access to knowledge itself and its reliability. Usually, it can only be obtained from "renegades" from the power class. Therefore, not every revolution can lead to constructive changes in society. Most often, the changes concern the personalities in power, and not its essence.
Ask the "newly minted revolutionaries" from the opposition about their vision of the country's near future after they take power. You will not hear anything definite, except for general phrases and slogans.
Their goal is to gain power and nothing more, which makes them only personified, and not a qualitative replacement for their predecessors. Probably, they will be a lesser evil than the "former" ones, which, however, is also not a fact. The very institution of power for them is sacred and inviolable.
A certain V.F. Khalipov, in the past a faithful Marxist-Leninist, the founder of kratology, the science of power, pompously declares that power is a true find and a true apex of a person, a regulator of relations with his/her own kind, given to him/her by life itself ... People should put power in the very first place in all the diversity of its forms and manifestations, and above all, state power.
The Creator has His own view of the future – in the prospect, power as a social institution should be eliminated everywhere, replaced by popular self-government.
The country has been living for more than twenty years in anticipation of reforms and changes for the better. The reason for this "stagnation" lies in the lack of elementary knowledge and understanding of the essence and principles of state building in the minds of the newly-minted "managers." They are mediocre, ignorant and pathological liars, and therefore are busy with their usual business – theft. There is no greater trouble for the state than an abuzz “fool in power.”
Any "party-building" in the post-Soviet space results in the emergence of another clone of the CPSU. State administration bodies are a poor copy of analogous bodies of the USSR. And this despite the fact that the form of ownership has changed and socialism has given way to capitalism, and the state is no longer the owner and is forced to live off taxes. Officials still want to manage everything and everyone, and therefore they are busy inventing all kinds of corruption schemes. The Law gave way to the “unwritten (criminal) rules" and "total lawlessness."
It's time for the authorities to stop looking for some special national ways of development, but to call on intelligent specialists and take advantage of the experience of state building of the same European countries. Bourgeois society, the construction of which the authorities are "concerned with," has long and successfully functioned in developed countries.
At the moment, in Ukraine, the so-called "middle" class has turned out to be most interested in carrying out reforms. It is its "strangulation" that the current government is busy with. Representatives of this class should form a representative body, which would act as a customer in the formation of government bodies. Its competence should include issues of expediency, number and funds allocated for the maintenance of the government, ministries and departments. Managers for vacant positions must be hired on a competitive basis. Similarly, it is necessary to reform the judicial and legislative branches of government. A lustration process is also required. This is one of the possible scenarios for the transformation of society.
A big problem in matters of reforming society is the disunity of people and the difficulties in achieving mutual understanding. There are two options for solving this problem, and both of them are beyond the competence of people.
The first one we could observe during the events of the "Arab Spring". This is control at the subconscious level, when the motivation for action comes to people from the outside. Motivation is individual for everyone, which allows the managed to carry out his/her specific task.
The second option does not exclude the first and consists in the formation of associative connections in the memory of a person that would allow him/her to acquire the most reliable system of knowledge and ideas about the world around him/her.
This means that all people will receive the same basic knowledge and ideas, and with them a new system of values, which would be the first step towards restoring mutual understanding and trust between them. The second option will give people an understanding of what and how everyone should do, so that humanity regains the qualities of a social medium and with them – the perspective and goal of its further development.
Translated by professor Leonid Bilousov