Discussion of them is often far from the point (e.g. mass media discussion of the global financial crisis during the tenth meeting of “United Russia”)
Or the discussion is substituted for by official declarations like “yes, there are some problems, but our father-tsar has already taken measures to solve then, and they might be already solved and the messengers have not yet reported on that…” (e.g. mass media coverage of the Tchernobul catastrophe and the first few days of rescue operation of the “Kursk” submarine sunk by NATO).
And when some of the events move to the past, then an official myth is created, which in its content can be very far from the actual reality (e.g. official version of the establishment of post-soviet statehood of the RF or the official story on the “Kursk” submarine).
And overcoming development problems in Rus’ is taking place based on the non-public “underground-couloirs politics”, to which both the power and the opposition are equally adherent. In Rus’ everything is secretive, but nothing is secret, although along with non-secretive truth society has and spreads many rumors: that’s why everybody “knows” that Alexandr I officially publicly died in 1825 in Taganrog and was buried in Peretburg side by side with other emperors…. After what he spent few more decades incognito living as in Siberia, where he died very old.
And if in Rus’ official declarations the power says that
Everything is fine, that they have achieved some goals in life and that many problems have been solved
At the same time many people do not see any proved of that in their everyday life
― then the powers, on the background of public, knowingly hypocritical declarations of loyalty by unbelieving and despising it people, faces politically amateur actions of the people – as un-public as the actual politics.
All of it happens because direct appeals to the power on the issues and ways of solving them, are ignored by it, because those issues do not fit in the format of public policy of the state.
The question is in:
How much time will it take the state power to commit suicide by not being able to handle the problems ignored by it?
And how much time after that will it take the underground opposition to become legitimate de-facto state power?
In such circumstances de jure legitimacy of power – is a question that means little to both sides – to power and its social opposition.
The key reason for such difference in public and non-public approaches of socio-political lifes in Rus’ and in the USA is because:
Russian “elite” is shameless anti-nation egoistic corporation that only wants the people to admit that they are rednecks in whose presence the “elite” does not have to explain itself.
Whether ‘elite’ takes this position consciously or unconsciously does not matter – it would have been just as comfortable in cast society: you belong to one group and therefore you have the right, if not –you don’t have the right, and all your talents and advantages worth nothing. It is almost impossible and very rare to work one’s way from the bottom to the top/ “elite’, because all the space in it has already been taken by representatives on historically formed “elite clans”, some of which manage to keep their status despite revolutions and counter-revolutions (e.g. clan of Mikhalkov). With the change of ‘elite’ after catastrophes, the process starts again (e.g. Yeltsin came from deep country, but where are his kids now – highly elite, but for what concrete talents or work? And besides Yelstin there were many other officials, whose children were ‘eliterized’..)
And in the U.S. "elite", with all its flaws , prefers that people beleived that the "elite" responsible to him and is working in the general public interest, being an «avant-garde» of the people in their socio-historical development.
And ‘elite’ occupies this position as a corporation, knowingly or unconsciously - does not matter. In the American "elite" there is also a hereditarily-clan core (in particular it is widely known by its representatives such as Kennedy, Mc Cain, senior and junior Bush, Rockefeller, Ford), but a lot of those who withdrew from the American common people or the middle class (the most widely known, General Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice,- At different times were both U.S. Secretary of State; even B. Obama - elected president: all are black and would not have been able to make their career, have they been born at least 50 years earlier).And the influx of new mass flows of people into US "elite" has been going on throughout U.S. history in every generation, resulting in that "elite" of the US is more clever and more capable than hereditarily clans isolated from the rest of society "elites" of other countries, including Russia, and corporate discipline and lack of freedom (this is explained further in the case of B.Obama) in the USA "elite" are different.
Consequently, all political and ideological conflicts between the U.S. and Russia (except for the period starting from about 1930 to 1953) are - conflicts over good and civilized, refined ways to implement the "elitist" slavery on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the U.S. against the ancient unabashedly naked "elitist" slavery in Russia.
Now we can go back to the essence of justice in society and its implementation.
——————
Notions of fairness and injustice in life of society if double-conditionaclass="underline"
Firstly – from the Above, by humanity’s sole purpose (in atheist formulation – by genetic potential of personal development of all members of society, which it either allows to grow and realize in its full capacity or suppresses and limits it).
Secondly – by historical facts – by what of the already predetermined from Above is already implemented, what needs to be implemented and to which implementation is blocked by greed of some or the others social groups, often supported in written and unwritten social laws influencing personal growth of people in this society.
Therefore notions of justice in social life are, firstly historically concrete and secondly are changing from age to age according to the character of social development of degradation.
Besides, in its cultural conditioning they are the consequence of the answer on the question about relationship between body physiology and biology of Homo Sapience species and a raison d’etre of humans and society. History knows only two answers to this question:
Live to experience pleasure, including pleasure from food, sex, not necessarily aimed at reproduction.
Actually United States are programmed on it, and with more or less success are implementing it. This is a consequence of the fact that their cult Declaration of Independence and a Constitution, Bill of rights do not say anything about what objectively is dignity of a successful person, and even though the dignity is not defined, his pursuit of happiness can still be realized. Bus the USA do not know that[18]. In Russia “elite” also lives but this principle.
Eat and procreate to live: meaning to implement some higher plan.
In Russia the “Smerdyakovs” among common people as well as among the “elite” are more or less active in that direction.
And both principles are objectively and inevitably antagonistic to each other, in addition adepts of the first one are aggressive.
Then social life in civilization of technical-technological nature, where production is based on the organization and collective work, one of the aspects of justice is linked to an opportunity for a person to receive sufficient (in one of the above senses) part of the product, manufactured by collective work – whether directly (sharing the product in its natural state – when where is no monetary exchange) or in financial equivalent (when monetary exchange prevails products exchange).