Still in 1993, balloting in the Tver region for the 172nd electoral district, I answered the questions of the electorate: am I for private property or against it? I did not answer by a short “yes” or “no”, but answered that I’m for the effective form of property. It is important that the plant, the factory make profits, so that the workers have a good pay and the government receives its taxes, and who the owner of the plant is, whether it is one man or a workers’ collective or auctioneers is indifferent. Still today I stand on the same position, in what concerns these gloomy, concrete (or old brick) blocks, usually located in the city’s outskirts, called factories or plants. In youth I gave away a part of my life, chopped, loaded, carried metals and ore into such blocks, so I know them very well. By his own will, in this heat, or cold, chemical stench and draughts, nobody would go there. Therefore what should be discussed is not the problem of property (to this mister in stripped pants or to these dozens of types in jeans does the business’ actions belong) but the problem of getting rid the human kind from this filth, which the factories and the plants are.
I wrote about ecology problems already in 1988 in “The Disciplinary Sanatorium”, I even foresaw the appearance of radical ecologist groups, which would protect their beliefs weapons in hands. Although such aggressive groups are not yet registered by the governments or the mass media I am certain in my foretelling of the future. Also I am certain that the question of the form of property of businesses, factories and plants, means of production, not only ceased to be revolutionary (I already mentioned above that nobody will go today under the slogan “Factories to the people!”) but also became a scholastic, meaningless question.
That is not surprising. Human mores always change. The laws of Manu punished by death for the unauthorized displacement of the boundary-mark stone. Today such problems are solved by an exchange of mutual insults at the rural administration, that’s all.
The confrontation of capitalism with socialism from the very beginning was a fiction, invented by professor Marx, on the base of the already present economic knowledge + a bucket of fantasy. In reality the practician, conquistador Marx needed a revolutionary class (or a chosen people, which is essentially the same thing). Since if you get yourself out of the desert, this is banal, and this action will not surprise anybody. But to lead an entire people from the desert – this is a feat.
It is clear that the proletariat, the hired workers, when it only appeared was badly paid and lived terribly. But it was also clear that this was a temporary problem, since all problems of this kind (more salary, more hours, quantity of working hours) – can be solved and are solved in the practice of relations. What helped the workers in the West to cozily settle in life was, actually, the “proletarian” revolution in Russia. It started to heavily press on the minds of the western employers and the governments of European countries. And they tried with all their forces not to drive the hired workers to extremes. Otherwise there would be a proletarian revolution.
It is interesting to compare the slogans of the French workers and the students in May 1968. The workers appeared under the laconic slogans: “40” “60” “1000”. A good style, which dissimulated an insipid boorishness, narrow views, when one sees only the edges of the trough. They had in mind the forty-hours workweek, pension at sixty years old and the minimal salary of thousand francs.
The students put forth truly genial slogans: “No God, no master!” “Be realists, demand the impossible!” “Forbidden to forbid!” “Imagination to power!”
Today when both Zuganov and Soros talk with the same language about property, when some transnational corporation is owned by so much thousands auctioneers, that it can be considered a collective property, the limits between socialism and capitalism do not exist. It never existed at all. As there was no capitalism and now there is no socialism. The intelligent “Moor” only invented the terminology. And the fact that Lenin had won under the flag of Marxism, well, what can one say, throw up one’s hands and say: a genial misfit who assembled a priceless human material under his command, he would have won under any flag. And another commentary. I lived in France a year and a half under the socialist Mitterand. The only visible difference between the two regimes consisted in the fact that under Giscard “Figaro” assiduously printed on the last page pictures of the just guillotinized criminals. Under the socialists a moratorium on death penalty was introduced and the pictures disappeared.
Another interesting fact. As it is made clear from the various memoirs published in the last years, it turns out that few of Lenin associates had read the first volume of “The Capital” to the end. Having learned this I was delighted, because I always suspected that they didn’t. These brain-burning computations of professor Marx were not needed to them, people of action. They needed an exciting, beautiful flag and a few slogans. What can be more exciting than a red flag?
Why did communist and socialist parties degenerate? Because they function with the same categories as the liberals, call for the same goals. But if our ideological enemies preach the productivity of labor, then it is stupid to preach a still larger productivity of labor. Besides, knowing for certain that it works better for them, with mechanical labor and productivity. One needs to preach something different, totally-totally different. The fraternity of people, freedom of man from mechanical labor. Sexual comfort. Right for war.
Lecture 15
Charles Manson – a talented psychologist, insightful playboy with a prison experience caught the souls of his girls in this way: “Charlie undressed me and led me to the mirror. “Look at you, how beautiful you are, what stout, straight legs you have, what an oval, white belly… You were called to offer joy, any man has to feel happiness, immersing into you…” This is told by one of his girls, I think “Squeaky”. Charlie quickly assembled his harem, his commune. He was joined by difficult children of bourgeois families. Those who couldn’t get their lives straight, for whom it was hard to talk with their parents and even more so with the opposite sex. Charles Manson, although nobody taught him that, knew from God what to say to each one, to the most plain, how to greet her. They were all loved by him. “Charlie is love,” they said about him. They are still saying it now, 32 years later.
Manson worked simply – he used sex therapy. The sexual act served as the highest form of affection, served for the removal of tension and simultaneously united the collective of the commune with the most solid chains. There were a lot fewer men than girls in Manson’s commune, somewhere in the proportion of 1 to 5 or 1 to 3. The vulgar imagination calls these kinds of relations “fornication” or “orgies”, in real fact, when after a month or two the felling of novelty and unusualness of the happening falls down, the huge advantages of such an existence in the collective become apparent.
First of all there is no labor-consuming chase after a woman or chase after a man and this is a colossal relief. The chase after the female in the bourgeois society is accompanied by a series of false social rituals: expenses, false promises, preliminary encounters, in short, degenerated ceremonies that had lost their meaning. Both participants in the ceremony play social roles, torture themselves and the partner. Not only the spontaneity of the desire disappears, it is not a matter of desire but only of goal. In a commune everything happens by accident, spontaneously, all the caresses are allowed, there is no refusals. From there appears the sense of a profound satisfaction with life, a profound warmth. Everyone is loved by everybody.