So what happened? Isn’t the degradation of socialism and Marxism as its distinct, most autonomous branch linked to the reorientation of the goals of the “passionary” as it was qualified by Lev Gumilev, individual? “The misfit” as we have called him, the troublemaker, as these kinds of restless people are called by the American tradition? (In my earlier book “The Disciplinary Sanatorium” this type of person is called “the excited one”.) It is precisely a reorientation that happened, it seems. The possession by the working collective of the factory, the land is not attracting? Well it’s even a burden. And the mass person as we know, does not make revolutions by himself. He is drawn into revolutions.
So for what would now the passionary individual, the misfit move from his place, will rebel? What he will fight for? A part of these objectives is already defined in this book.
1. He will fight for the destruction of the family and for a new sexual and social collective – the commune. For a high sexual comfort in life. For two, three and as many as you want hours of affection per day. One should not underestimate the revolutionarism of the striving of man for sexual comfort. It is more important than the right for labor. For sexual comfort his girls went into the family to Manson. And he attached them for years. Sexual comfort rises the quality of life immediately.
2. He will fight for a faster and more substantial life, for the reevaluation of the roles of the ages and their displacement in favor of youth, aged from 14 to 35. He will fight against the dictatorship of the middle age.
3. He will fight against the monstrous school, repressive system, standing hand in hand with the family and the prison. He will work for its elimination.
4. Another important good: social mobility. So that everyone who is now nothing, who enters life at 14, 15 or 20 years old could in a short time become everything. In old, stagnant states all the places are repartitioned, distributed and seized by the families. In literature they have their Mikhalkovs, in cinema their Mikhalkovs, in painting their Konchalovskys. This should not be this way. One needs such a society and State where the talented newcomer has the chance to quickly become everything. Every fate has to be possible. The highest social mobility is observed precisely during revolution. The right to a particular extreme fate is given only by society in the moment of revolution and shortly after it. Precisely for the fate, the possibility to become regiment-commander at 16 years old the passionary individual will move from his place. (As they said during the French Revolution: In each soldier haversack lays a marshal baton”. It has to lay.)
5. The right for war may serve a stirring good for the passionaries may serve. There is an entire category of men who passionately love war. They need war, its feats and even its looting because these things are in man’s nature. For those who have a fighting instinct one has to foresee a right and an opportunity to fight.
6. The societies of modern European and Asian and African countries are oriented on the amassing of prestige and capital by families. On the improvement of quality of life of the family during generations. The misfit always was and will be interested in the elimination of such an absurd order. Heritages should be abolished, everyone would have to begin from zero and not from dad’s capitals. One has to fight for the increasing of the quality of one separately taken human life.
These are only a few basic theses, they are also slogans, they are also objectives, for which will rebel and are rebelling the modern misfits, passionaries of the XXI century.
A part of the objectives is already defined in this book and the objectives received their explanation. It is interesting that not a single of these objectives is economical. Nowhere is capital, plants, factories, means of production discussed and if they are discussed then they are not the important thing. Why did the prestige of economics fall and with it of socialism and Marxism?
The most general answer would be as follows: the transfer of ownership in those or other hands, in one or many is not able to change the principal conditions of life on Earth.
Lecture 14
In 1988, during the writing of the book “Disciplinary Sanatorium”, I immersed myself in excerpts and dictionaries. I remember in the French dictionary “Petit Robert” I was struck by the definition of capitalism: “Social system in which the means of production, plants and factories belong to private individuals”, calmly told me the dictionary. It gave the impression that the definition belonged to Mr. Karl Marx. Since it is truly known that Marx wrote some articles for the “Encyclopedia Britannica”. I looked into some others dictionaries and encyclopedias. And everywhere, to my surprise, the definitions of capitalism were given in Marxism terminology. It turned out that for capitalism to see itself it had to look in the mirror of Marxism. There is no other mirror.
Keeping thinking, I already then noticed that both socialism (since Marxism is only a radical kind of socialism) and capitalism are oriented on property. Both systems are concerned with property and capital. Under capitalism property and capital belong, as it was already mentioned, to private individuals, under socialism, property and capital belong to the working people – hired workers, in other words the proletariat. Simple, isn’t it?
Pursuing this really elementary investigation, we learn, that before the apparition of Marxist radical socialism, capitalism did not call itself “capitalism”. It did not call itself anything, actually, because it was not yet a distinct social-economic system. The first “capitalists” appeared in England, Holland, North Italy – in Milan, but they did not consider and called themselves capitalists. They called themselves businessmen, merchants, manufacturers, factory-owners. They functioned in States with a monarchic regime. Kings could borrow from their rich, for instance, to wage a war, huge sums of money and never return them. (I intentionally simplify the exposition in order to simplify the comprehension.) The interdependence and alliance of capitals (the world of businessmen) and power happened at first in protestant States: in England and the United States. The emigrant and exile Karl Marx, a German doctor of Jewish origin spent the largest part of his life in England, in London, so to speak, in the epicenter of capitalism where he died and was safely buried in a London cemetery. His grave during all the 70 years of soviet power was respectfully visited by the soviet followers of prophet Marx.