All volumes are:
I. Communism Versus Democracy -- This
II. Market, Business, Economy
III. Social Matters And Healthy Life
IV. Sundry Other Things
CONTENTS (Of This Volume I)
00. Short Preface (to the whole collection)
[ Explains why the making of collection was necessary and what it contains (in all cases nothing new, but thematically selected). (2019) ]
01. The Communism As Religion (popular study) -- only I. Similarities
[ This is my first big material with which I have begun my writer's activity. As far as it is relatively big, I publish here only the first part (I. Similarities of the communism with other religions - 15 cumulative proofs for this), with a small Introduction before it. Yet there is nothing lacking in this part, and I have written initially only it (probably about 1992-3), but later have increased it with other parts (and the fourth I also publish in this Collection, in book 4). (1998) ]
02. About the turn to the left -- when nothing is added after the title the piece is from the quite big "Now, Look Here (Publicistics)" book
[ This paper explains popularly the idea of swinging of pendulum applied in the sphere of political orientation of a given country. (1995 ?) ]
03. Five years of devastation
[ The material sums up the mournful result of first five years on the way to democracy in Bulgaria, related only with destroying of the old but without creating of whatever new. (1994) ]
04. Time to draw conclusions
[ Here is treated the question of the importance of having a center in the political life in Bulgaria and about its lack by us, in 1996, as well also nowadays. (1996 ?) ]
05. Are we free, or on the contrary?
[ This material is dedicated to the enslavement of Bulgarian people with the coming of democracy, or more precisely: is it so, why, and is there a way out of the situation. (1997) ]
06. Political gratitude
[ This is sharp criticism of Bulgarian UDF, Union of Democratic Forces, as chief political cause for the botched transition to democracy. (1998) ]
07. About the elections and the demos
[ This material is dedicated to the unreasonability of democratic choice, is it so, and how to cope with it. In other words, could there exist "reasonability in the unreasonability", and in what this is expressed? (1996) ]
08. Myths about democracy
[ This paper lays bare a dozen of widely used myths about democracy and, with this, is useful practically for everybody, but some things duplicate other materials of the author. (1998) ]
09. Requiem for one coalition
[ This is requiem for the notorious Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces, UDF, which now more then a dozen of years exists only in order to remind the Bulgarians about our hasty, incompetent, and botched transition to democracy, thanks to which we are standing more than 20 years now in the tail, regarding the living standard, from all former socialist countries. It is pretty old, but if the things are observed from a reasonable standpoint, how I think that approach the matters as a rule, the things don't grow old. (1996 ?) ]
10. Something more about democracy
[ Here it goes about the inefficiency of democracy, when it came to power, about the dictatorial moments in it, about movement to the right or the left, and other questions. These are still old things, but under similar circumstances they will again turn actual. (1996) ]
11. Convergence, what is this?
[ This material is dedicated to much acclaimed in its time theory about convergence of capitalism with the communism, which, in principle, turned to be right, yet with some peculiar moments, and my view, as usually, is new and untraditional (i.e. it does not fully correspond to either one of the former extremities). (1998) ]
12. About democracy and melioration
[ This material looks at some of the drawbacks of democracy based on the parallel with the treatment of soil, where will it be meglio ('meljo', or migliore) in Italian, i.e. better, depends on the very nation. (1999) ]
13. About democratic phenomenon
[ This is continuation of the previous material about the democracy, about the related with it delusions, and how we are to look at it. (1999) ]
14. Democratic Values -- from "Social Essays"
[ This is an unorthodox article about the morality and the democracy explaining some basic, but nevertheless misunderstood, points about the democracy, in what way it is good and in what bad, why it has no morality, and how we can better it a little. This essay is of later time for the author, so that it contains in brief form other, more profound, works about the democracy. There is at the end one poetical appendix written initially in English. (2004) ]
15. About the democracy -- from "Ten Cynical Essays (Popular Worldview)"
[ This is what is said, with following chapters: I. Great And Unreasonable, II. Zero solution, III. Conditional Advantages, IV. The Real Democracies, and V. Utopian Models. (2000) ]
16. In Bulgaria everything is quiet
[ This paper is of the new ones (after about 2010) and observes the political situation in Bulgaria in the end of 2012, which year was characterized with long-lasting lethargy. It is analyzed the stabilization in political life, the centrists parties, the left-wing ones, the leading then right-wing party, and what we have to do (but we don't do it) in order to better the things. (2012) ]
17. Again sharp turn
[ The material dwells on the coming to power more than a dozen of years ago of King's party in Bulgaria, though it has long since left the stage. (2001) ]
18. Is it possible moderate communism in Bulgaria?
[ Here is explained my viewpoint at the moderate communism, backed up by some rough calculations for Bulgaria. In the beginning is talked about what is this, then what kind of money are necessary for the purpose, and at the end is how this can be realized. (2012) ]
19. The fatal 2013 year in Bulgaria
[ This material discusses political and economic situation in Bulgaria in the beginning of fatal 13th year. (2013) ]
20. Why we vote, when we ... don't vote?
[ This paper is about this, who took part in the elections in Bulgaria in 2013, who whom from the politicians likes or hates, and, generally, about this how the things turned out there. (2013) ]
21. About the fascism from common sense positions
[ This is untraditional look at the contemporary fascism in Bulgaria, and everywhere, from the viewpoint of the reason, as well also about this how to oppose it. (2013) ]
22. How to improve democratic protests?
[ This material takes in focus the question with our inability to correctly conduct democratic protests, so that the population was able to protest, and this helped the governing; there are proposed, naturally, also ways for solving of this very important question, that are valid for all countries. (2014) ]
23. About the Social Ministry in Bulgaria
[ Here is discussed the question about necessity and the main functions of eventual Social Ministry in Bulgaria (as the poorest country in European Community) and is shown that the expressed here ideas can be used in whatever country. (2013) ]
24. Read Chris Myrski (in the sense of political reviews)
[ This paper is dedicated to the political situation in Bulgaria in 2014 and the conducted then elections. There are made interesting and original conclusions, and in the end are given some expert rules for prognosticating of the political situation in Bulgaria, yet not only. (2014) ]
25. Are you ready for the elections? -- Feuilleton
[ This feuilleton explains some algorithms of democratic (i.e. unreasonable) choice and is permanently actual also today. (1999) ]
26. Manifesto of the DDD Movement (Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship) -- without Addendum, from "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ Contains one of a dozen utopian models, that are better than the contemporary democracy. (2000) ]
27. Hurray, Is It Possible (Government of the Reasonable Alternative)? -- Supplement to "Curious Manifestos (politistics)"
[ Contains the 13-th and the most realistic from the invented models of democracy. (2007) ]
28. Essay on the common sense - II
[ This is my last publisictic material in the more serious first section of publicistic papers, which makes complete revision of my first perestroika-stile material (which is missed here as pretty naive dreaming from utopian communist times, yet are followed the old topics), only that this time it goes about the democratic society. The necessity of this material has ripened because the democracy, as a matter of fact, is based on the lack of common sense by the people (with what I do not stand that it is badly based, yet it is good to remind also the true situation). (2015) ]
29. Hundred years later (To The Centenary Of October Revolution)
[ This is my last (at least here, in the big book with publicistic) apologetic of communism in my traditional, what means entirely untraditional style of reasonable and unprejudiced observation. The plan of narration is generally the following: about the Russian Revolution, about Lenin, about Stalin, about the communism, about its future, and some comic moments in the end about the spirit of communism. (2017) ]
30. Actual political dictionary
[ What is said. (1993 ?) ]
SHORT PREFACE (to the whole collection)
Let me explain briefly why I make this collection of non-fiction and what it contains. Well, I make it because it is so done, usually, because one writes and writes on different themes and in various books and it comes, if comes, time when he (OK, sometimes also she) wants to collect the things by themes, this is as if more proper, and an attitude more directed to the readers. So that after more than a quarter of a century literary work, and especially when I intent to try to sell something as books (or ebooks), I have decided to make four volumes with my materials, papers, parts of books, sometimes even abridged papers, on the following themes:
1. Communism Versus Democracy,
2. Market, Business, Economy,
3. Social Matters And Healthy Life,
4. Sundry Other Things.
These topics, naturally, are not strictly divided, nor ordered in the best manner, but now they exist and this is better than if they were not collected in this form. They are not strictly divided because the topics intersect, but not very much, in this way the materials are better located. The ordering of the things is as if chronological, yet not always, because of some local clustering in some sub-themes, what I find unavoidable. But, mark, that in all cases I publish here
nothing new, this is simply a
collection! And what will be in these parts I will not explain as redundant, the names are eloquent enough. Probably it is good to say what I have left aside, how much. Well, about 10 percents (in all cases not more than 20), because I have almost nothing that is not actual in the moment, or can not become such later, if the situation changes; I have left aside mainly things, Appendixes, which look more scientific, or too obvious and elementary.
Another reason, why I make this in the beginning of 2019, is that I have stopped with this boring (for me) practice of writhing in one language and then translating in some others, no, this will happen no more, because in 69 years one has to begin to value higher his time and do just the necessary. And, after all, when I have moved from my native Bulgarian language, to my very familiar Russian one, and then to the contemporary standard for a language, the English, intending also to translate something (the beginning 3 books) in German, I have come to the top, I have nowhere else to move. For a pair of years I write everything first in English and now this will be also the last language for most of the things; the possible exception is if I have to publish something in the easiest for me way (like I have not yet published my multilingual dictionary Explain, in Bulgarian, or probably to translate it in Russian), or if writing poetry in different languages, or, then, if I decide to begin to use also my real name (and this only in Bulgarian). Put in other words, here are non-fiction things that are translatable, or which I intend to translate; the poetry, obviously, is untranslatable for me (I don't mean to be like Shakespeare, or Pushkin, or Dante, etc.), for the enormous
Urrh is impossible to think about translation, the
Letters (to the posterity) is also difficult to translate and I have never had such intentions, the same about not yet published Explain dictionary, the SF-stories (which are not exactly SF things but rather outmoded social SF) are fiction, they have nothing to do with this collection, and whatever new book of non-fiction I will write (like my future 'No problems poses problems') I will write only in English.
So this is, guys and girls, if I were much read I would have adapted to the auditory, but if I am not, I adapt to my easiness and comfort. You try to do something better than this for the people, the word, the posterity, just for free, but I have done what I can. What means that I publish myself on many sites for free, and there I am relatively (for non-fiction) read, and I publish myself for some fee on some sites, and there I am
not read (because the people somehow feel that I say
right things, that are good and moral and necessary and allowed, and when so then they should
not pay, they are used to pay for ... silly or harmful or unmoral things, that's what the capitalism teaches us, alas). However it is, I don't think to become a prophet, I am rather an outmoded preacher, or, then, a thinker gone ahead of his time. Or also: those who are silly enough and need some teaching and instructing and explanations, they avoid giving an ear to me because they don't like to think (and this is
why they are silly), and those who are clever enough to understand me, they avoid reading this because I say trivial common-sense things, nothing really profound, in order to be read as a must in some scientific area. The only salvation for me, or the way to glory, was to preach silly things that people can easily grasp, but I don't want to come so low, or to delude them with invented fables, but I don't want to lie, I am used to seek the truth, not the lie. And it is too late for me to remodel myself, you take me (how I am), or leave me (to perish by myself, like falling tree-leaves with the coming of winter, ha, ha).
Jan, 2019, Sofia, Barbaria, sorry, Bulgaria.
From "THE COMMUNISM AS RELIGION
(popular study)"
Follows the idea for the cover, as well the Contents of the whole booklet.
[ As far as this is a whole book I will give an idea about its
cover. In principle it has to look the following way: on red background, in front under the title there is a picture; in back on the whole page -- too.
On the picture in front: the left part is a corner of a room, with tilted red flag to the wall, on a low table or bench before it stands a picture of Lenin in encrusted (with sickles and hammers, if this can be shown) frame and with two burning candles around; before the picture, on the right, is squatted on a small rug (rather straw-mat) a soldier-Budyonovets with lowed down head (the face can't be seen), who has taken off his cap (with red star), which stays on the left of him, towards the head; on the right of him lies a rifle with bayonet; the soldier's attitude is as in a Muslim prayer, he has bare (and dirty, if this can be seen) foots and a patch on his trousers, where his shoes, torn and ripped, are placed on the left near his foots; all manifests fanaticism and misery.
On the picture in back: on the background of cover is drawn a palm of opened left human hand (with the thumb on the left) with unclenched fingers, in the middle of which is a red star with pentagonal hole at the center and around it by a "chick" (or bent line for marking of what is done, with slightly prolonged right part -- see chapter IV.3) between the rays on the down-left, down-right, and down-middle (i.e. on the whole 3 chicks). ]
CONTENTS (Of This book)
Introduction
I. Similarities of the communism with other religions
II. Differences between the communism and other religions
III. Past and future of the communist religion
IV. The pentaism -- religion of the future
Appendix -- Etymological research (multilingua)
INTRODUCTION
Despite the various discussions about the benefits or disadvantages of the communism, discussions which usually don't lead to undivided conclusions, because each thing depends on the time and place, each medicine -- on the dose, each government -- on the object of governing, each democracy -- on the demos, et cetera, it seems that this consideration is necessary for Bulgarian (and not only) people, or at least for its thoughtful part. It is necessary not so much to find new culprits for the crisis or catastrophe in Bulgaria, but to throw suitable light on the question, because the crisis, as it turns out, has begun
after our rejection of communism, and direct proofs for the advantages or disadvantages of it we, still,
don't have, because we have not the so called "control group", as the medics say, which has always to be present in examination of some medicament, in order to make justified comparison, i.e. we haven't two Bulgarian countries: one communist and another not, to compare the results. The Germans had two Germanies and nevertheless their situation isn't unquestionable, because they have not possessed equal natural resources, nor were equally big, nor equally destroyed in the war, and in addition the eastern part supported to a certain extent the Socialist Block, by the simple reason that in a common lead of horses more than all other suffer the stronger horses (and win the weaker ones -- such like Bulgaria, for example). We have not such proof and can compare ourselves, either with our brethren in destiny: from the former communist countries like Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, etc. -- what parallel isn't to our advantage --, either with our territorial neighbours of non-communist type of state like Greece or Turkey -- what comparison nowadays also isn't to our benefit. Of course we can compare us with the "severe" cases like Serbia, Chechnya, and other regions, where people slaughtered themselves, and we still didn't (though there are reasons for this -- more or less slavish psyche of the Bulgarians inherited as a result of our five centuries Turkish yoke), but in such case why don't compare us with, say, Rwanda, for to feel more elevated?
Our goal, however, isn't to discuss now these questions, but to clear as much as possible the phenomenon of communism, which
carries all significant characteristics of a religion, though the difficulty in comprehending this arises because of our nearness in time, and to a social event one has to look, it seems, always from a certain distance, as is the case with pictures and other works of art, where one has to retreat a bit away in order to comprise the things better. The other hindrance in thinking through the mentioned fact comes from our
delimited understanding about the religion, in sense of whether it is mono- or poly- theistic, whether there exists reincarnation of the soul or not, whether it requires sacrifices or not (of humans or only of animals), whether the dead have to be buried (with clothes or not), or thrown in the sea, or burned on pyres, or embalmed and left in some buildings (be they tombs, pyramids, or something else), whether men have to perform circumcision or not, whether sexual contacts are allowed only between the married pair, or between more individuals (more men, or more women, or more of the both kinds) et cetera, et cetera. But all this is just a
qualification of existing religions, which, as a rule, includes only this what is yet known, and frequently excludes that what is still new and not ordered!
We would have had similar case, when we decide to define, for example, the car as: appliance for transport of humans, set in motion by an engine with combustion, which has four wheels and isolates the passenger from the environmental medium. This is
limiting definition because the car may use not such but another engine, or may be moved by pedals, or be pulled by an external power (as much as just slide down), may not isolate the passenger at all, and as to the wheels, they may be any possible number, including zero (if moves on an air-cushion, or floats in the water). The only thing that we may require from the car is to move in the space (and maybe in the time, too, at least in science fiction), and let me in this sense remind you that in many languages a heap of words on "car- /kar-" and with meaning of some movement, such like: Bulgarian
karam-to-drive or
karutza-cart, Slavonic, Arabic, etc.
karavan /caravan, English (and not only) cart /carting, carcass, carry, cargo, Russian
karavay (round bun or cake, as something that can roll), German
kehren (to turn), and many others, have come from Ancient Greece (but the root is older) and from the mythical
Icarus (who even didn't walk on the earth, but flied in the air), where this relation with Icarus is confirmed by the bus names
Ikarus and
Karossa.
Well, if it's so, then we better begin with our investigation.
I. SIMILARITIES OF THE COMMUNISM WITH OTHER RELIGIONS
0. Definition of the notion "religion"
And so let us try to give some working definition of the word "religion", as:
complete social system of notions and rituals, which is based mainly on faith and is devised in order to fortify and encourage people in their everyday activity and especially in their hard moments, giving sense to otherwise meaningless from individual point of view life. This is sufficiently common and comprising definition, which does not exclude any of the existing religions and allows an easy inclusion of new ones. Anyway, more precise definition would be limiting, as the parsing of similar words tells us, say: Russian
opredelyayu (to define) splits in
o (around) +
predel (a limit) + ending, or their
ogranichivayu (the same, and
granitza is a border), or your (i.e. Latin.) define = de + (make it) final, delimit = de + (set) limit(s), and others, what comes from the understanding that the life is infinitely difficult and we need to
cut something away from it, in order to be in position to take and study the piece. We shall observe further more than a dozen main characteristics of the communism as religion, which taken separately are not enough for similar assumption, but their
cumulative effect confirms entirely our thesis. Together with their presence in some of the religions we shell view also their appearance in the communist religion, but parallels with national socialism, as far as with other types of social structure, we leave to the imagination of the reader.
1. Faith instead of reason
This is the most important characteristic of each religion, but it isn't the single one, of course. Without discussing which one of both things is more important we shall remark that the only thing that the reason can do in this way is to prove in reasonable way that
God must exist, where "must" is to be understood in the way that,
if God does not exist, he has to be invented, because the humans just
want to be some God, for to be something in what to believe and on what to rely, what, in fact, says the very word "religion" in English (to rely on, lean on something)! Similar etymological confirmation of the said is hidden in the word "
pater", which comes from ancient Sanskrit where it have meant "a plank, pillar", and this is the meaning of nowadays rarely used Bulgarian word
pateritza (a crutch; the words may differ, looking at their endings, but important is the picture of the situation, because in Sanskrit
pater or
patir is also a father, and in Latin
patera is ritual cup, but they are from the same root). If one wishes there may be observed other words, like: father, which is
papa in Russian (or also
bashta in Bulgarian, or
baba in Turkish, etc.), and this is the Latin pope, Russian priest which is called the same as father (
otetz,
bashtitze), Slavonic priest which is (also)
svjashchennik what means
svjatoy-sainted man, to whom one goes when feels a need to be condoled and to whom one may believe, the English God (respectively German
Gott), which corresponds with the good and would say "The good (power)" (as much as the devil is, for the common people, variation of "The Evil"), and so on. In any event the religion for the people is what fairy tales are for the children! In it the things are accepted
not because they are true, but on the contrary, or at least this is what says the well known Latin phrase that "I believe because it is unbelievable" (or
credo quia absurdum in Latin), and this is ... logical, because this, what is probable, what happens and can be proved, that
proves, via examples or logical conclusions, and that, about what there are no proofs, can be accepted only by faith.
In the communist religion people believed in the communist victory, in the "bright future" of human race, in the assumption that "all humans are friends and brothers", et cetera. But if the child absolutely wants his or her tale (and it really doesn't matter whether it is a nice one, there may be scaring things in it), then why the communist fable about the bright future should be considered as something worse than the
myth of democratic panacea, for example, as far as both can be accepted only on faith and by their realization in practice turn to be fakes or delusions? What matters here is
the existence of faith, not of proofs, and if something can't be confirmed in practice there always can be found some excuse, like, say, if the ailing person, despite of the day-and-night prays, still could not become well, this does not mean that there is no God, or that even God cannot help him anymore (what, by the way, means that our God isn't a God at all, isn't almighty), but that the ill one has begged not fervent enough, or has somehow messed the words of the prayer! Mark, however, that the more the reality is worse, the more people believe in fables or tales (and what else is left for them?), and not the faith is to be blamed (that people believe), but
the reality (which forces them to believe)! And let us remind you that "the phantom of communism" didn't have started to go around the world from Russia, but from the very center of Western Europe, though in more wealthy countries (like Germany, France, England, United States, Sweden, etc.) small amount of people have believed in the tale about the bright communist future, where in more starved and hungry countries like Russia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, Cuba, etc., there was no other way for the people. In short: faith and reason are both poles of human motivation and there, where the one can't succeed, the other succeeds!
2. Existence of a better world
Each religion presents to the people something better than the existing world, which, as it's known from ancient times, is bad and not just, using for this purpose the notion of the "other world", which comes
to redeem the sufferings of the people on this world. It doesn't matter what are out ideas about the further world: whether it is above in the celestial spheres or in the core of the earth, whether it is in another Universe, or is again on our Earth, but in some other time and our soul has another form, whether it is by the gods (be it by the single and "triplicate" God, or by some unknown Allah -- pronounced simply as a cry of exaltation and astonishment, where from has to come his name), or the souls, notwithstanding their communications with the deities, live apart of the later (say, they prefer to abide around the places where have lived, or were buried or slaughtered). But all religions are unanimous on the question that the other world is
maximally different from this one and exactly in the most significant things, namely: whether this world is finite, the other one is infinite; whether our personal life on this world may influence the other, the "life" on the other world can't show any effect on this one, because the time has only one direction; as much as this is bad and unjust, the other is good and righteous; and what goes to "live" there is not our contemporary body, which is only an envelope for our soul or the most important part of us, but our very essence, the most meaningful
information about us, though in another form.
This, what for every religion is the afterlife (or subsequent reincarnation of the soul), for the communist religion was the "bright communist future". But actually looking this is
a more contemporary and progressive view, which requires less preceding faith, because one may ask oneself whether the hell exists and is it really so burning hot there (or, if there is literally so scorching hot, then how the souls may endure it; or, if they, still, may endure it forever, then how they don't accustom to that fire and became indifferent to it); or whether it is so good to drink every day one and the same ambrosia (obviously some doping, but perhaps much worse than whiskey); or a person (pardon me, his soul) to be compelled to take part each day in various public events accompanied by choral recitations and laudations to God; et cetera, but in this, that our children will live in the future,
everyone believes and it is natural for him to wish to make it better than the present (especially than the 20-th century, as regards its "grandiose" mass murders). And what are our children and grandchildren, if not our incarnation, or out spirit, or
our genes, put it in a more contemporary language? Though this is contemporary language, but using old words, because: gene, genetics, γυναικα (read 'gineka') or women in Greek, the
jin from Arabic tales closed in a bottle, the beverage gin as inspiring mischievous spirit in the humans, Turkish
cingibi ('dzhingibi'), what means flexible or elusive, and if you want also the plant ginseng (which in Slavonic is
zhensheñ) what translated from Chinese meant "human likeness" (rather "human shadow", if we split the word in syllables; and that is because in Russian "shadow" is
teñ or
señ what sounds nearer), and others, are all variations on the theme spirit or soul.
3. Objects of the cult and temples
Our conceptions of God /gods as object/s of cult evolve in different religions: from the descriptions of their different incarnations in Hinduism, through the many gods in Greek mythology, through the Christian Holy Trinity, and then through the Muslim Allah, who just exists, has always existed, and will exist for ever, and that is all that can be said about Him, till we come to the time of communism from the middle of 19-th century, where
God simply vanishes, as creator of material world (defeated by the science) but a trace of him is left in every human soul in form of communist consciousness. And mark that the communist notion about the non-existence of God, and the Muslim view that nobody knows how God looks (He is something like being from the four-dimensional world, if this is more familiar for the readers of science fiction), and the understanding of Ancient Greeks about the
agnosticism, as stating that nobody can neither prove, nor disprove, the thesis about the existence of God and, hence, it is a matter of acceptance or
faith, and the "geometrical" (i.e. axiomatic) proofs of Ben Spinoza about the existence and various features of God, who somewhere about the third book turns out to be synonymous with the nature, and the notion used by the great thinkers from Renaissance asserting that the existence of God is a matter of
hypothesis, which one may use if there's a need in this, but may also not use -- all these are analogous and practically equivalent statements. Let us clear the point adding that
the existence or not
of God cannot be proved by the humans simply
by definition, because as far as God is indestructible and omnipotent Creature (or Substance, according to Spinoza) He /It may "hide" from the human beings when and how He wishes, so that the one who thinks there is no God may be wrong, inasmuch as the other who thinks on the contrary! Or we may mention also a citation found in the literary heritage of Michael Ende (
Momo, and other books) on a single piece of paper where was written: "If the existence of God can be proved then there is no God!".
All this comes to show that
the communist rejection of God, as dogmatic notion,
does not mean that under the communism was absent the very idea of God! As far as it is known to the Bulgarian readers our great poet and revolutionary Christo Botev also has spoken about some god, who later turns out to be his conscience; in the same way in the mathematics exists the notion of "infinity" as mathematical equivalent of the ever existing and unlimited, in contrast to the finite variables which we use. Similarly: in the optics is stated that the light always chooses the shortest possible way, what can be used also as "proof" for the existence of God, who comes to show to the ray (whatever it is)
which exactly
is this shortest way, because the ray cannon know it before has gone by it, but it goes by it
after it has chosen it; or the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, which states that it's impossible to know in one and the same time the exact place
and velocity of a particle, and if we know the one thing then we are unable to find the other; as well as the basic principle of probability theory, that "the necessity is arbitrary and arbitrariness is necessary" also allows us involvement of the idea of God, who has to make more concrete the characteristics of each single case and not only in a bunch. All in all, there is wide space for the supporters of hypothesis of God, as also for their adversaries, but our goal was to show that
the absence of God (and even His negation)
could be only a question of definition (or taste)!
While, though, in the communism exists no God,
there are saints and stories about them, as also innumerable
icons (i.e. pictures, busts, and monuments), as well as
cultic buildings (Party Houses), where the religion is to be worshiped. Even if the situation is such, that one cannot carry the temple with himself, he may lay the mat down on the floor, turn to the east (i.e. to the origin of life, it's
iztochnik-source in Slavonic where
iztok /vostok is east) and unite his soul with his God or saint, what in our case means that the communist will take out the red banner, hang it in a corner of the room, which he will name "Red Corner", place close to it a picture of the leader and direct his thoughts to the bright future, when all people will be brothers (or, maybe, not brothers, because they usually quarrel and are envious to each other, having what to divide or contest, but then just as communists). Soon there emerged also "holy relics" of prominent communists and special places (Mausoleums), where they are to be kept, and to which people are to pay homage by most solemn events (as it was done before the Mausoleum of Lenin by marriage ceremonies in the "great and indestructible" state, which now is destroyed). But with this
small remark, that
the irony is not directed to the communists, because they simply used that, what
all religions in the world have used, namely the human naivety and irrationality, so that: who laughs, laughs over himself!
4. Fanaticism in fulfilling of the cult
The human beings, on the whole, like often to put one notion above the other and to maintain that only their truth is valid, and in this sense, maybe,
the greatest sin of the people nowadays is their intolerance! Many religions don't deny the existence also of other gods, but this is only
to emphasize the superiority of their own! People never tire to set one single idea before everything else, and in our blindness we don't see that even the slogan "Humans over everything" is outdated (to say nothing about "Bulgaria over everything", for example) and has to be replaced with "Nature over everything", what either does not give us anything new (if we take the Nature for another name of God), or is a nonsense (if must be understood as "everything over everything"). But when we speak about the fanaticism of communists we should not think that it was spread between the "cultic personnel", more than this, in the recent years exactly between them it was
not much spread (meaning that they did not much believe in the communist ideals, but in some more practical things, like career making, or achieving of personal advantages), so that precisely the ordinary people suffered most from their fanaticism, because they did not receive any additional benefits and, hence, served only to the idea! And surely, the worst thing in the 20-th century was the collision between the two fanatical religions -- fascism and communism -- what was plainly a new crusade, though, because of the enormously enhanced power of the mankind in the last century, this battle was the most bloody and destructive. However one looks at the fanaticism, it, really, is the most harmful seed in each religion (inasmuch as all extremities are bad), but remarkably prone to extremities are exactly the masses, not the relatively educated priests and cultic cadres.
This, that exactly the executives of the cult are not between the most eager believers, however, is not a new moment also in various other religions, where many of these people, some of them very sincerely and others just pretending to be such, ask themselves cardinal questions of the kind whether, really, their God exists, and if He was so omnipotent and good, then why He leaves people suffer because of His own faults (i.e. badly performed work during His acclaimed six days of creative labour, or great laziness in the following millenniums). But even in their greatest doubts about the truthfulness of sacred scripts, the priests of the cult remain convinced that
for the common people (i.e. for non acquainted, for laics or profanes) this, maybe, deceptions are really necessary! Because if the child had not wanted to listen to fables his parents would have not narrated such things to him; if the ailing person had not wanted to be told that he is all right and there is nothing really serious with him the physician would have not lied to him; if the very people had not demanded to be informed that exactly their way is the one and only rightful way and there cannot be any doubt about this (in spite of the fact that one can never be
absolutely sure whether something is good till it did not happen, and even then this is not always indisputable, because it must run some time after that moment in order to appreciate better the things) then their rulers would have not cheated them. What in turn says that
the worst fanaticism was not this of the very communists (and even less of those of highest rank in the hierarchy)
but of the ordinary people, who forced in old times the inquisition to burn the witches, the democratic Americans to practice widely the law of Lynch, and some ordinary people in the communist countries to declare their relatives and friends as enemies of the communism. And it isn't bad if all these, who are always ready to criticize the fanaticism of the communists, consider first what was
the cause for forcing the communism into life (surely the bad capitalism in the given moment) and who were its most fanatical followers (the wide masses of common people, of course).
5. Total penetration of religion in all spheres of life
This is the reason to label the communism as totalitarian order, but
such is also each religion, until somebody does not take the initiative to "tighten its reins", as it was for centuries all around the world, before there have not started widespread fights for setting the church apart of the state and social order. Under the communism, up to a certain extent, the church was really torn of the state, because the state began then to be "the Party and Government", and in this way has taken also all functions of the church, where the official church became in a way heretical for the communist religion. More than this, instead of the communion arose the so called
chavdarcheta (in Bulgaria, from the name of one chieftain
Chavdar), later on pioneers, and so on (
Komsomols in Russia, but not only there), instead of different parts of production process come to life the "hermaphrodite" named "Party, Syndicate, and Komsomol administration", even instead of Christian burying emerged an obelisk with five-pointed red star and new ritual of "communist litany" (it is true that only for those who wanted, but the relatives of governmental officers avoided not to want this). And if these and other new practices have not succeeded to establish themselves firmly (because we succeeded to reject them now entirely) this is not on account of them being worse than the others (to which we now return), but just because they were
more newer, for one tradition often exists not due to the fact that it is better or worse than some other variant, but because it existed as tradition (as, for example, many husbands endure their wives many years not because they are very precious or don't become older, but just because they are used to them; and the same may say also the wives, of course)!
The bad thing in this consecutive
negations of negation is not the very negation but
its totality (though this is, as a rule, unavoidable moment) and then we come to the situation for which our people say that "with the dry burns also the soggy". By the way, for the depth of penetration of communist religion, as much as for the totality of negation, may excellently be judged by the post-totalitarian period of "rebaptism" and accepting of new (or returning to the old) values, in which some nations literally in no time rejected the unwanted and in this process showed that
under the communist religion for them were other (again religious, but in the traditional sense) ideas and values. These nations now proceed calm and convinced forward. Other nations, between which is also the Bulgarian one, were greatly impeded because the depth of penetration was not at all small and, what is worse, under it in the souls of Bulgarians occurred to be
merely nothing (i.e. nothing really valuable, for which is worth living and struggling). Such nations now either kill one another, or still divide in "battle units", or begin just now to perceive the plain truth that
one should never deny one religion unless there is another one present, which is more desired!
Speaking about the total penetration of communist religion we should not overlook its influence over all the arts which were, as it's said, engaged, or dedicated to the "great idea", but this theme is discussed many times, so that we shall content ourselves just to mention that
each religion also conducts the arts, which must inevitably be morally appropriate (according to its canons), but this, without doubt, dates back to the times of Homer, because then also was accepted that each work of art (be it a sculpture, tragedy, comedy, musical piece, etc.) must in some way show also the life of gods; even the public speeches, important fights, merriments for people, Olympic games, and other sporting events also were somehow set in correspondence with the mythology. Surely even preschool children know that the Olympic games are named so in relation with the mount Olympus in Greece, where they believed their gods lived. And shall we in this case wonder that the communist religion wanted the same out of creators, artists, sportsmen, even of scientific workers (where there shouldn't have been place for bare faith and reverence at all)? More than this, as the first
scientific religion (i.e. scientifically developed one) the communism has its own economy, what isn't true for other religions in such extent (there the priests contented themselves to take their tenth part of all produced, but had neither practice nor theory of economical science, what is to be explained, of course, with the absence of such science in the times of old religions)
6. Appearance of the cultic personnel
This section is in a way related with the previous one, if we take that the appearance of cultic workers is result of the total penetration of religion, but on the other hand there are many non-religious institutions which also have some established moral norms and appearance (say, in the army, courts, etc.), so that we put it as separate. Typical for each religion is
the asceticism, or rejection of earthly acquisitions in favour of more valuable ideals of the cult. Naturally, the asceticism of cultic personnel does not mean that they are "poor as church mice", as it's said, but they don't use for themselves and for personal benefits the present valuables which the church establishment possesses (churches, cathedrals, Party Houses), but for to obey to God and "work with the masses"! This means that there can't be any religion with influence, which does not possess valuables with great value (because if it has influence over the people then this influence is confirmed by various donation and taxes, which often are converted in valuables), and this applies with full power also to the communism, where the biggest building in each town, and exactly in its center, was a precious Party House (with capital letters, obviously) and all party Congresses occurred with many pomposity and solemnity (as much as the church holidays). But this does not mean that the very priests live in wealthy houses (
compared with those of local merchants and bankers, for example), or that they sink in excessive abundance. On the contrary, similar cases of affluent way of life between clergymen were always criticized by everyone (even by the very priests), so that they are just exceptions of the rule, and such was the case with the communist "priests" (where, if we return to our comparison with the merchants, then there an exception would be exactly a poor merchants).
The moral Codex of the communists was, really, very similar to that of other priests and reduced to the assertion that everything on this world is vanity and there will leave nothing of it in the future, excluding this, what is directed to performing of the cult, and, hence, there is no need to surround oneself with material things, as the non-clerics usually do, but to think about saving of one's soul in the future. By this, however, one should not confuse the honour and reverence, with which cultic officers were met, as much as different donations and exemptions, which they received (mainly by foreign organizations), with their personal salaries and acquisitions! Many are the religions where their officers receive free house, domestics, or transport (and the same is true also for many companies), but with abandoning of the post these privileges cease, and
precisely the same was the situation with the communist cadres.
But the appearance of the cultic worker, obviously, is not only moral, it is also physical or external, and it, too, as a rule, is extremely different than that of the ordinary people. Often this is achieved with rejection of some specific personal characteristics (like hair and mustache, for example) and adding of special "working clothes" or uniform robe, which must be both humble and emphasize their rank. The communist "priests" might not have had special attire, but they could have been easily distinguished by their
komsomol-type head-wear. It's interesting to remind you one typical for all religions peculiarity, namely that their personnel usually cut their hairs "number zero" (in order to stress on their ascetic life style) and this is linguistically fixed back from the times of Babylon. In any case, the English word "monk", although coming from Greek μοναχοσ, corresponds with the word ... monkey, and in Bulgarian these animals are
maymunky (
maymuna, in sing.), what is related somewhere in the ancient Sanskrit and the region of India (because neither in England, nor in Bulgaria teems with monkeys; and, on the other hand, why the English have to cut the whole first syllable of their word, for in Turkish it is
maymun, and in Greek μαιμον?). In other words, the monks cut their hairs or carried hoods and in the eyes of common people looked like monkeys; and as another confirmation of this let us mention the so called Order of Capuchins, and a capuchin is really a breed of monkey. But well, for the monastic appearance there exist some motives, where for different contemporary or ancient modern head-wears there is no other reason, excluding the exhibitionism of the young people (mostly) and the lack of reasoning in their behavior.
7. Common usage of goods or existence of communes
The communes, where from comes the name of the communists, are not a new element for any of the religions. From very old times people have grasped that our world is a world of the strong, and the single salvation for the weaker ones is if they also become stronger in order to survive, but the easiest way to achieve greater power is the joining of many units or individuals in one bigger and more powerful unit with common goals and tasks, as much as with common possession of the material values, without which the life is impossible. At a first glance this may look sufficiently non-progressive, or like returning to the primitive society, but the reasonableness of such decision is undeniable, the whole human evolution is one
incessant returning to some previous state, what, on one hand, is necessary for to permit evolvement (not explosion), and, on the other hand, makes it possible to reevaluate the pluses and minuses of some old decision, because on this world the benefits and drawbacks go hand in hand (or, if you will, we may state the maxim, that: "
the worst thing in the bad ideas is that there is something good in them -- and that is why they excite the people; as much as the reversed statement, i.e. that
the best thing in the good ideas is that there is something bad in them -- and because of this the things change, don't stay on the same place!").
So that the communes were natural decision of the question for the communists and they were applied not only in farming -- the Russian
Kolkhoses (about which they had the funny remark: The
Kolkhos is voluntary matter, if you don't want we shall make you to!"), but also in manufacture, as well as by supporting of party institution, et cetera. One of the main errors of Bulgarians in understanding of democracy and free market was in the underestimation of
critical mass of the manufacturing or ideological units, what fell on our heads like sword of Damocles, because by the transition to society with greater freedom and autonomy we did not start from the position of aggregation of our production at the moment, but from the power of the single individual, what was, frankly speaking, pure madness (but what had we to do when various "dissidental chicks" have "pecked out all our brains"?). The freedom, albeit there is much spoken about this, is highly relative notion and one could have felt a lot more free, in different aspects, in one commune, than we feel now in the conditions of unexpected deficiency and misery, because the intention of each state is to make people work
one for the other (a problem which has arisen with the emerging of first professions), and not one against the others.
If the commune stays on the one pole, then the anarchy is on the other, and we, fleeing from not at all real communes (as, for example, has stated Plato in ancient times, where all children should have been owned by the commune, not to live with their families), jumped to the other pole only to realize the need of compulsory deprivation from the unneeded freedoms, but now under the dictate of the well developed western economies in the face of the Currency Board, which deprived our
lev (the currency unit in Bulgaria) of its freedom, and the working people of their rights to want higher salaries (i.e. standard of life
at least as from the times of communist rule), and the small companies of their chances to overcome this
monster called market. Because the not unknown
Otto von Bismark, who by no means was a communist, had said in his time that "the free market will always be a weapon in the hands of more powerful economies", something in what we now convinced ourselves out of bitter experience! To put it briefly, the question wasn't at all in the avoidance of communes, because the world, anyway, moves to them (the so called multinationals, or European Union, or NATO, the different societies and coalitions), but in making of more reasonable and better motivating the individual groups, united around more effective ideologies, what was the main goal of all religions, and what justifies their existence up to this day, in spite of their multiple minuses.
8. Dogmatism and denunciation of heresies and other religions
As easy it is to accept something by faith and without judgement, so it's perilous to remain long time in tight dogmatic limits, but for each religion this is an
unavoidable evil, meaning that the religion is dogmatic just because otherwise it should have been very easy to undermine the very belief! Let us remind you that in a territory, where rules the faith, there is
no way for logical or experimental proof whether an assertion is true or not. For that reason in the times of Sacred Inquisition, in order to retain some imaginary experimental acting, as well as because of the unclear nature of the witches, in general, was applied the rule that if the convicted person is a witch, then she will succeed, alone, or with the help of some other ghosts or demons, to flee out of the tortures, what shall prove that she is a sorceress, i.e. it will be at least
one-sided proof, and if she isn't a witch -- well then, she will perish, the woman, but what have we to do, when there is no other way for examination; it is true that this is a "destructive test", but if she is innocent, then at least in the "other world" her residence in the paradise will be "sealed and stamped", so that she must be even
glad. When there is no way to check whether the church is right, then
something has to be taken by faith, and it is entirely natural to accept that
exactly the church is right! This does not mean that nothing can be proved or examined, on the contrary, may be proved whether some statement can be derived from the sacred books, different Papal bulls and decisions of church conventions, but
only this, and nothing more.
Such was the situation under the communism, too, where in the science, in the technique, in various sports, in different arts, in the production -- everywhere must have been cited the resolutions of later Party Congress, as also what have stated Karl Marks, Lenin, and the living in the moment chieftain about the question.
The ambiguity of criteria for truthfulness was changed with their total lack on account of the dogma for infallibility on the summit! From the height of the gone away years it is very easy to state that this was erroneous (quite more so that this really was a mistake), but this was imposed because of the very nature of the communism as religion, where fundamental was the faith, not the reason; this has followed from the very centralized ruling, where one should not meditate but perform (but isn't it so in army?), and may be thought when and where this is appropriate (say, on a party meeting, or Congress, if one is brave enough to put his head on the cutting log).
At the same time, however, we must add that many of the evils of dogmatic solutions come out of the
shallow-mindedness of cultic workers, and not because it is impossible to check whether some now assertion contradicts to major dogmas and if so is heretical, because if the things were taken into more profound and impartial consideration there may, in many cases, turn out that the heresy
may be linked with the dogma! So, for example, is stated that Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake entirely needless, because the rotation of Earth around the Sun
does not contradict to the existence of God (for God might have made the Universe of whatever kind He wished it to be, and might have
deliberately not explained the truth to the humans, because He knows that they are poor and finite beings, and if, in any event, all is relative, then this isn't of special importance for them). But, remorsefully, one of the unwelcome consequences of the dogmatism is that
the mere officers of the cult become also fist victims of the dogmatism (though not victims in sense of human lives, but just as mislead), because it, naturally, leads to loosing of the capabilities to think (as far as they are not applied in practice).
In this sense the cultic personnel of communism did not succeed to perceive that the most important was the idea, faith, social justice, national wholeness and
reasonableness of this new religion, where the "heresy" of private property, multi-party system, democracy, liberalism, et cetera, are not such bad things, if one approaches the problems in a right way, because, for example: ownership of shares or bonds of given companies does
not change the main owner (normally about 60% of each company is kept by one person, because otherwise it becomes ungovernable, and the fact that someone has had 1/10,000 or even millionth part of a given big firm does not at all influence the policy of its management); the common property, in principle,
does not exclude the possibility for competition (which, admittedly, makes the production less effective, but in the same time more adaptive); the existence of various parties, which change on the
principle of seesaw -- one beam propped in the middle and two persons (here parties) seated at its ends (there may be also one in the middle), so that when one of them falls down, the other one is heaved above, and then the other way round (but
not because this, who was raised above, is in some way better than the other, just because
that, who is below, is the worse for the moment!) -- is sufficiently good model of management, and the bad thing in it is only until the politicians become used with the thought that they are like the artists in a theater (or the clowns in a circus, if you like), and if they give slaps one another they may make noise but not cause ache, or, what is even worse, make the people or the country suffer from this; the democracy, however, is a question of lawful establishing and
reasonable compromise with the centralized governing (as the worldwide experience and our democratic way in the last years shows) and isn't at all heretical with the communism; the liberalism is a question of historical moment, and in the recent times we are moving to more and more wide liberation, so that there are no problems in legalizing marriages also between homosexuals (the earth globe is, anyway, overpopulated, and if some people have no other worries and it is more interesting for them in this way, then why not?), in a sense that this also does not impede the foundations of communism as religion (and in spite of this there were times when the communists sent to compulsive labour for wearing of miniskirts and forbade listening of The Beatles); and so on.
9. Existence of inquisitional body
If we take for granted that certain religion is rightful, then without some organization for compulsion we would have come to
the most unjust thing on this world -- the impossibility to force the rightfulness! And even more such body is needed if the religion
is not right (because, if the good really wins, then it shall never prevail, but it is
our religion)! This has been understood by the personnel of all religious cults from very ancient times and has caused the chase after heretics and burning stakes, the demonstrative persecutions and inquisition, the religious murders and expulsion from church, and other similar things. More contemporary communist and nationalist religions use also some modern methods like concentration camps and/or gas cameras, and as smaller (and palliative) measures -- extradition, denial of education, 5-10 years jail sentences, etc., but this side of totalitarian regimes is adequately considered by many authors, so that there's no need to discuss it also here.
It is necessary, however, to turn your attention to one important singularity of the communist inquisition, which makes it differ from the others, and this is the fact that
the communist religion sets no obstructions for everyone to join it (without difference of race, gender, age, education, material resources, etc.), a thing that is not true for national-socialist one, for example (because no Hebrew could have became Aryan -- without deception or concealment, of course), nor could certain aristocrat in the times of French revolution cease to be such and in this way escape the guillotine (a contrivance with which the French were especially proud then, finding it very humane, in such way as nowadays some find the neutron bomb). In this sense the greater part of victims of communist inquisition are in sufficient extent (though it is not quite appropriate to say so, but there is significant truth in this) victims of
their own personal qualities (be this persistence in their selfish ambitions, hate to the poverty-stricken party members, high self-esteem, or at least reluctance to submit to the powerful at the moment, what, frequently, is an indication of unreasonable behaviour). In any case, it may be boldly asserted that a body for enforcement and submission to the central power has existed in all historical times, where even "the biggest" democrats (or at least those who highly boast to be such) in the present times, i.e. the Americans, have their CIA and FBI, their ostentatious law suits and political murders; as also extraordinary martial laws for fighting of racial disorders when needed (they have even battled for several years in order to prove that the Negroes are also people -- something what was clear to the people for centuries back in
all civilized countries).
It would be very nice if the humanity
at last could become civilized enough and cease to use crude power and enforcement in governing of the people, because this is the meaning of the word "civilization", i.e. authority of civil persons and, consequently, not using force but in a cultivated way and via the method of persuasion, education, help, and so on, but, alas -- at least at the present day there is
no one civilized country (in this sense) in the world, because there isn't a country which does not possess some repressive body for maintaining of internal order, as well as an army for "keeping contacts with foreign countries", when needed! Regretfully, this is the truth, and everything else is an Utopia! So that the question about the existence of inquisitorial body depends, first of all, on the population, after this on the ideology which it defends, and at the last place on the reasonableness of the employees in this body. To influence the population is utmost difficult; if the ideology is total, or if this is some ruling religion, such corpus
could not be absent; and what concerns its staff then for this
is needed time (for to change gradually the people, and from them also the cultic staff, because they, anyhow, are people from the nation), something what can easily be observed comparing this body in different periods (say, tens of years) of communist ruling (be it in Bulgaria, or in the former USSR, or where you like it better).
10. Censorship, secrecy, and opposition to the knowledge
In order to support the faith, unchangeability of the dogma, as well as out of some moral reasons (which we shall clear soon), each religion takes for its obligation to protect and censor the information, which it possesses.
This is unavoidable and dates back to the ancient eastern religions, goes through different forms of Christian beliefs, via the Muslim religion, and comes to the newest communist religion. When the religion dominates everywhere in the society then each knowledge must first pass via its organization, for to check whether this isn't something heretical, and even if it's not, then it is important to decide whether it will be of some use for the masses, or vice versa. The deep and, possibly, paradoxical for many people nowadays meaning of biblical fable about the apple of knowledge isn't at all in its sexual hue, but exactly in the assertion that
the knowledge isn't appropriate for God (because it isn't useful for the people, of course)! This is so because of the very human nature, for which
the knowledge, as a rule,
does not bring happiness, something what is confirmed unquestionably by the whole 20-th century, for which one may debate whether it is progressive or not, but the millions killed speak about whatever else but
not about happiness.
Of course, each extreme assertion is perilous and, maybe, we had to explain that it is better to say that each knowledge may be as well as useful for the humans, also harmful for them, or that only
untimely received knowledge is harmful, but such sentence tells us nothing definitely, because now isn't clear what means "before its time" and what not. And exactly
to make this clear comes the necessity of censorship! No careful mother will permit her 4-5 year old child to play with matches or lighters, or to watch horror or masochistic films, or will leave him or her to travel alone in the town, for example; no self-respected religion will allow to distribute between people materials, which have not received its approval! If something can be done about this question, that it is to search for
more educated and cultured censors, and even better if the very populace becomes educated enough for to be in position to censor itself
alone using some democratic institutions, and in this aspect the communist religion had more to achieve. If the people, unfamiliar with the Latin, object against the word "censorship", then it could have been changed (and it have not been called so); if the secrecy consists only in efforts not to allow to understand that we were left extremely behind (as it, perhaps, was with our secret organizations), then there wasn't big need in secrecy but in some other measures; if certain knowledge (for instance, about the splitting of nuclear cells) isn't beneficial for the human race as a whole, then some impediments for its propagation must be set (in this case, to hinder the obtaining of actual technologies for producing of nuclear weapons; and let us not forget that the communists wasn't at all between those who first have begun to evolve secret plans for producing of nuclear weapons, nor between those who first became bold enough to use them). Concisely,
bad is not the very censorship or secrecy, but the bad and improper censorship and secrecy!
The forbidden fruit is usually more delicious, what is known from biblical times, and that is why sometimes using certain censorship or prohibition to distribute a given information is possible to make people
learn something in a pleasant and interesting manner, just overlooking the matter and allowing some leak of information (what often is also unavoidable). It was so with the rotation of Earth, when some time has flown from the discovery of Galilei, in this fashion was maintained the fight against dissidents (in Latin
decido means to fall down, sink, i.e. these are people who were discarded from the group of those set around the state's dining table and highly irritated by this) in the 70-ies and especially the 80-ies years of 20-th century, and the known Gorbachev's
perestroyka eliminated entirely the unneeded secrecy, when he began to propagate the
glasnost-openness. But the paradox is that a decade after the
perestroyka the people began to be much less interested in this, what was hidden earlier, than at the time when such things could nowhere be officially read, and in a certain extent even before Gorbachev, in the times of fight with the dissidents (not in the times of Stalin, surely), the population began slowly and gradually to move towards some moderate understanding of socialism, as mush as the very socialism wasn't then the same as, say, in the first years of its existence. In this sense may be spoken about some toleration to the dissidents due to the perception of their positive influence over the society, though not with the power of their ideas but rather having in mind their
weak counteracting of the official proclamations, because oil in the fire has to be to dripped
gradually, for to prevent arising of big conflagrations, because when the masses begin to deny something outdated they, as it is known from the dialectic of negation, jump from the one pole directly to the other, by the reason that reaching of the golden middle point, alas, is highly complicated thing for the people. But a middle position is always necessary, what is easy to be seen also by the similarity with the sexual freedom, which does not lead to stronger feelings, i.e. a pair of centuries back not naked legs, but a mere woman ankle, and even in a sock, has excited men more than nowadays, I bag your pardon, nude breasts of the girls from the ads for paid sex services.
It is good to add to the above-mentioned also that the absence of special organs for censorship
does not mean lack of censorship on the whole, because then is applied the so called vulgar (or common, vernacular) censorship, by which this, what people don't like, is not propagated; as well also the censorship of the capital (i.e. is spread this, for what someone gives the money)! But nobody may be sure that this, what common people or the big business like, is really useful for the people (take as an example the narcotics) and then there arises a need of some special commissions, which must decide on the question. So, for instance, from the times of Freud on the whole West, and now also in Bulgaria, blossoms and spreads (just that it can not give "fruits") the wave of homosexuality, but this does not mean that there were not intensified discussions (some of which still continue) in various Parliaments, as also between competent scientific commissions, in result of which was accepted that it is better to legalize something harmless (for the people around), than to forbid it (in order to increase the interest for it); besides, in the contemporary overpopulated world this is one of the ways for enhancing of birth control (a question, which, according to the author, will be most central in the future 21-st century, unless we self-destroy ourselves, of course). Similarly stays the question with the erotics, which, quite naturally, cannot substitute the sex, but it brings good money, and that is because in present times it is considered legal. So that disrespect to the censorship may show only that one, for whom it is not useful, but this not at all always is the population as a whole.
11. Utopianism of religions
Each religion, in its efforts to change the human nature,
becomes unavoidably Utopian! No matter how strong a certain idea is, when it begins with "if ...", then it can not be realized "until ...". In this respect the communism was not an exception, because a human being can not
not start from his personal interests, but from those of the others (it may even be said that the main reason why the humans suffer mostly on this world is, not that they don't look for themselves, but that they
don't know their interests); nobody can know
exactly what is good for the other person (it often happens that this "other" also does not know this, but he has, still, the possibility to feel it in time, if has misguided the direction); in many languages is present the saying that the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, i.e. that the good intention rarely lead to good results. In the same time, however, the Utopias exist from times immemorial, for the humans can't reject all ideals only because they are impossible to be accomplished! People
need the ideals as milestones in their movement in the time and don't bother at all about the fact that they are not the very reality, or, said differently: there can't be a reality without ideals and Utopias, at least for the purpose to distinguish the one from the other.
In the first moments of collapse of the communist socialism many communists have thought (or at least pretended to have thought so), that the others wanted to take away their idea, but this was
pure demagogy because
an idea simply can't be taken away, for it does not exist in reality (i.e. it exists just as an idea)! In this sense even the very failure of real socialism (i.e., of worldwide communist system, because some may argue that this was not
yet communism) not only did not take away the Utopian communist idea, but on the contrary --
separated the idea from its realization, in order to preserve it for the future! Shortly said: the very utopianism of the communist idea (in contrast to the capitalism, for example, which is pure reality, because there is
no idea at all in it), is one of the strongest proofs of the statement that the communism is a religion! Even, if one puts a bit more efforts to think about, in the highly rumoured nowadays democracy there
also is no idea for the same reason, because the democracy is just a matter of legal regulations and obeying the laws (but in a situation of total penetration of information media -- and that is why, by the way, on the West they call the present-day human beings
homo mediaticus -- not observing the laws for a longer period is merely impossible). As far, though, the idea is not hindered by the reality and v.v., there are no problems for peaceful coexistence of communist religion and democratic reality.
12. Refuge for the weak
Here is the place to remind you the well known from the Renaissance epoch slogan that "
the religion is opium for the people", which remains valid even today just because it is true! The religion, as we mentioned this in the beginning, is something on what one relies when he needs some support, because have lost every consolation and is in hopeless situation, and exactly then to the ailing person is given opium to avoid the pains (caused by the reality). So that this is an entirely normal and useful comparison, or better put: the religion is
exactly that opium which the people need (and if some cultic officers don't understand this, so the worse for them)! In other words, this is exactly the refuge for the weak, but the humans are weak, as our God has said, so that why not to seek comfort then? In this sense the communist religion was a refuge for the weak, enfeebled by two national catastrophes, poor and small Balkan people called Bulgarians. This is the main reason why they have believed in this new religion, in which did not believe, neither the Englishmen, nor the Frenchmen, nor the Germans, nor the Americans, et cetera, et cetera. What says that the faith strikes roots there, where the life is unhappy and miserable and people look for some faith, so that maybe there are chances in present-day democratic times even for the Bulgarians to become
really believers, after convincing themselves that
the capitalism also is bad (or, as they say, have answered Radio Yerevan to the question: "Is there life on Moon?" -- "No, there also isn't!").
In the same time we must not confuse the negation from the communists of every (
other) religion with the assertion that the communism is also religion, because the former one is simply an unavoidable requirement (as we have said). There is no religion on the world which, albeit it recognizes the other religions and gods, does not state that precisely it is the best one and their gods and saints are the most authentic. And let us not think that if the communists say that there is no God but a Nature this changes substantially the things (as was discussed in section 3). Generally,
let us not think that the atheists are unbelievers, because according to the principle of agnosticism,
the atheists simply believe that there is no God, ergo, they
are believers! And as to the intolerance of communist "priests" may be said that no religion may boast that it has not come to extremities (and even
substantially greater then those of the communists) in persecuting of other believers (even Islam, as one relatively moderate and tolerant religion, according to various declaration, has its religious wars, to say nothing about the sanguinary Christian crusades, Bartholomew's nights, etc.). The unbeliever, or the infidel, as it more often is said, is one who believes
in nothing and lives for the present day and only for himself, without any thoughts about the future, what in no case may be applied to the communists. And this, that they have not searched refuge in other religions -- well, they have their refuge, where to heighten their spirit! Up to a certain extent they were weak (when believed), but at the same time were stronger than the Christians or Muslims, for instance, because they believed in the most plausible.
13. Hindrance of the progress, and stagnation in the evolvement of society and personality
Based on all said till now is clear that
each religion, when opposes the reason and knowledge, will hinder the progress (as far as it is not clear whether it will bring happiness or not). In the same way, however,
each religion stops also the regress, i.e. it
causes stagnation in the society. But wasn't the same situation of thorough (or total) stagnation of progress and evolution in the whole western world after the massive pervasion of Christianity, and this not for a pair of years, nor for a pair of decades, even not for one-two centuries, but
for more than ten centuries -- obviously recognized by all, lasting many centuries, delay for millions of people (something like the winter hibernation of bears), which has justified, afterwards, naming of this new time Renaissance in French (literally "new birth", a kind of resurrection)? But then, come to think of it (or even not thinking much but just looking how terrifyingly fast now, around 1996, the things in Bulgaria change, so that several Parliaments could not have finished to the end their mandates), one must have inevitably come to the conclusion, that not in vain the exclamation: "Oh, time, wait, the moment is so pretty!" was preserved to the present day, because this, what is good, it becomes preserved (usually, in democratic conditions, but, though not so easy, also under dictatorship or tyranny), when that, what changes very rapidly, it turns not to be very good (because, if it were good, then it wouldn't have changed so fast, right?)!
And wasn't it exactly so also in the become proverbial "years of stagnation" in the communist countries? In any event,
the stagnation is unavoidable for each ruling religion, because the totalitarian, or at least centralized, ruling is
the most effective one, and the goal of each ruling, were it in the animal or in the machinery (as the cybernetics says) is just to preserve the conditions, the status quo! What has to say that there not only is nothing strange in the fact that the communism caused delay (for such is the goal of each religion), but that there would have been strange
if it wasn't so, and that, generally taken,
this society has done very well with the task of reaching of stagnation. But there is something else in this case what is essential, and it is that there
isn't an indisputable answer to the question, whether a stagnation is something good or bad, and everything depends on the particular situation and before-set criteria (compare, for instance, the restrain in incessant armament, or the delay in developing of certain illness, or of nearing the old age, respectively the end of the civilization, in what moment we nowadays live, for the civilizations are born and die as each living thing). Respectively the progress also may be something good, but may as well be something very bad, however, such is the dialectic of evolution.
Corresponding with the question of development of the society is that of evolvement of the personality, in which case
each religion (again), as social system uniting the people not only territorially, but
also in the time,
unavoidably suppresses the evolvement of individual personality in the interest of society (because the personality goes away and the society is what remains). This question is discussed many times and the only thing that may be done is to search always for the so needed state of equilibrium between the personal and common interests, but for this purpose the person must somehow free oneself from the everyday and inescapable cares for his survival and attend to his development and self-improvement. This follows from the understanding that the human being is permanently "wanting animal" (the Slavs, by the way, feel ashamed to be called animals and use always the word "being") and has five hierarchical levels, which, from the lowest above, are the following: food, shelter, propagation of his gender (what from the point of view of the individual reduces mainly to sex), personal manifestation (i.e. career making, or finding of suitable place under the Sun -- or the Moon, for the Muslims), and at the end is development and self-improvement. The author does not think that the communist ideologists were aware exactly of this gradation, but the conclusions are the same, namely: satisfaction of the lowest three levels (which are recognized as basically necessary) for all, and difference between individuals only on the highest two levels. And as far as the satisfaction is always a matter of equilibrium between wishes and capabilities, so there are two fundamentally different methods for its reaching: either delimiting the wishes, or enlarging the abilities.
We must not twist our minds concealing the fact that the communists preferred mainly to constrain the wishes, but this was caused by their capabilities, because: it was easier to say that one must not be careerist, or, if he so much wishes it, then let him make career but first in the party ranges; it was easier when the shops were ill-supplied, so that one felt glad when sometimes (on big holidays) he could find also something better; it was easier if one gave up his ambitions for material benefits, as way for providing his personal manifestation, and in this way finds good self-expression in what the Party and Government have left him as possible, than to prepare for each one enough funds for personal manifestation; et cetera. But, on the other hand,
the capitalism does not care at all about the human beings, unless then, when the wealthy ones are forced to take care for their possessions, and if in doing this turns out that they care also for the weak (for to eliminate the unneeded bloodshed, because when one has nothing to eat he is capable of everything), or for the building of one wider group of "middle" citizens (which must have enough money in order to spend them
in interest of the wealthy) -- well, so much the better. In any case, the greater possibilities for personal manifestation under the capitalism (and this only under the well matured one), than in the times of communist ruling, are explained
not with some better qualities of the social order, or with some special cares for the development of personality, but
just with better developed economies of the leading capitalist countries (which for that reason are called "leading")!
14. Main goal -- happiness of the people
Every religion is invented and exists
in order to give some variety of happiness for the people and its main symbols (the Christian cross, the Muslim half-moon, the fascists swastika, the red communist star, etc.) are all symbols of happiness. The dances around the fire, performed by different magicians and shamans in the primitive tribes, the religious mysteries of ancient Greeks, the church rituals, pageants, and carnivals of every religion, as well the communist and national-socialist mass meetings, are invented above all to bring some entertainment to the people and serve for their happiness by the way of suggestion (or delusion, what is practically the same). In contrast to the common sense, however, which requires changing of the idea, when it disagrees with the reality, the religious fanaticism requires
change of the reality with its chimerical similitude!
The Hinduism, for example, having come to the conclusion (and this many centuries back), that the bitter multi-centenary experience of the human race puts in question the meaning of material progress, decides that one must simply change material reality with non-material (and this, according to them, was easily done repeating several hundred times "Rama-Rama ...", or the like) and in this way, via meditation, was possible to reach the "absolute truth" (or the pure love to God). To similar hallucinations have come also different followers of Christianity after long-lasting diets on bread and water, accompanied eventually with self-tortures. Analogous meaning of
comfort with your own conscience has the proverbial Christian rule that if one slaps you on one cheek you have to turn to him also the other one, because the world has suffered long enough from the escalation of force (and this twenty centuries ago, and what are we to say now?) and if you may swallow the insult, then
you will feel better thereafter.
The same "transcendental Universe" pursued also the communism as religion -- constructing of such environment, in which every human being to be friend and brother to the others, and where, if not exactly we, but at least our children, will be happy. This was pure
manipulation, but
in interest of the people and for their happiness, where the supreme chief behaved in the same way, as would have done also the good physician, who does not tell the patient the truth for his condition and in this way exercises positive influences over him (besides, the suggestion is a known method for medical treatment). The lie or deception, or, even better,
self-deception, is a common method for achieving of happiness between the believers, and, though seeming strange from the point of reason, this
really very often helps, so that let us stress that it isn't so important whether we are being manipulated (because the present-day media also do this, and very skillful), but
in which interest this is performed.
15. Religious moral
Each religion is inevitably moral, demanding such behavior from the believers, which can be called rules for good coexistence. Usually one knows what is good for him
in the given moment, but as finite being he can not comprise, neither all other human beings (or rather the whole nature and environment, too), nor all previous and future generations, so that this is the main moral obligation of the religion: to make the individual feel like a part of the whole society, or like a dust-grain of reality flowing in the river of time! Maybe on this place we must give in march one non-limiting definition of the term "morality" as:
system of rules intended to unite the people in the time and in the space. If we look now more precisely at the things it will turn out that uniting of the people in the space, at any rate, may be achieved (at least using force), but before the time without the religion (or some primitive moral norms) the humanity simply feels confused! A group of people not united in the space are usually called "savages" (because they may bite through their throats like a pack of wolfs -- either for a female, or for a bone, or just to show what "heroes" they are), whether a group of people not united in the time are frequently called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don't know how to act in order to leave behind a good memory for themselves, nor are convinced that they must leave whatever memory at all).
It is entirely obvious that as religion the communism made all possible to unite the people in the space and the time, gathered together under the common goal of building the communism (if possible in the whole world). Was this done via worldwide revolution (or using some existing armed conflict or world war), or by gradual evolution, depended on the specific situation in the moment. This unity, however, set no innate differences between people, so that communism might have arisen also on the Moon, if the situation there have proved to be suitable. But have not Christian missionaries in their time gone really around the globe (and even now by each useful situation try this possibility again)? And if some social system contains also the moral, then nothing hinders it to become ruling one (if this is allowed to it), in the way as in various times and countries for centuries have ruled religious governments, so that the communism sets no precedent in this aspect.
Let us finish with this the multiple similarities of the communism with conventional religions and continue our investigation.
ABOUT THE TURN TO THE LEFT
(OR PULSE POLITICAL SCIENCE)
Hardly nowadays exists highly commented question in our political life than that about the eventual turn to the left: for parties and movements, for the country as a whole, when and will it happen or not at all, up to what extent to the left and for what time, and so on. One can bet about this, and not without reasons, of course. But, still, I can't get rid of the feeling that this is again political machination (with which we have become painfully accustomed), because the question is
not set correctly. Because the question is not "will we turn to the left", but "
when will we turn to the left"? The more important arguments here are the following:
a) The truth is in the middle -- statement, about which we have information for more than 25 centuries, but what, surely, was known earlier. In a dynamic environment, if the situation was not such in regard of some parameter, then we should have reached to one of both ends, and having once taken this value the things would have simply not depended on this parameter (but here is quite obvious that many things depend on this, will we turn to the left or to the right).
b) This movement is one ceaseless oscillation. Having in mind that even the ancient Greek philosopher Platon was, in fact, greater communist than Lenin (because he was not only against the private property, but thought that the families, too, must disappear entirely and people must live not for themselves, but only for the state), as also greater utopist, of course, then it is clear that the leftism wasn't born yesterday. And what concerns the right-hand extremities, then not a few rebellions or revolutions have burst, for to cope with them. Because however just it seems, that only in the garden of John rained and grew the cabbage and potatoes, where in that of his neighbour Peter -- not a drop, and only the family of John could eat their full, then it comes time, when the neighbour Peter becomes bored to look at his hungry kids and rejects this justice (one shell not forget that in English, German, even Russian, right as just and right as not left is
one and the same word), and he revolts to seek social justice on the other, i.e. left (as it exactly is in English) side. So that, in short, neither one, nor the other, end is something set once and forever, and the nations always oscillate, where the governments try to balance between these extremities.
c) The historical example in the development of ex-communist countries, which are before us in economic aspect, unambiguously shows (for the moment) tendency to the left. And if this tendency is not to be observed in some countries, then this is only in such like the former "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, which country has still
not yet moved enough to the right! And before the facts even the politicians have to keep silent.
In order to sum up these three moments is easiest to use the
model of damped oscillation (that of a pendulum, for example), which is multiplication of exponential and sinusoidal functions and is shown schematic on the figure
* (Fig.1.), with the curve "0" taken for basic. Of course, in sociology can't be spoken about such exact relationships and is not possible to define
how much to the left or the right we are (i.e. the amplitude of oscillation) in the given moment, because we haven't two ideally pure left- or right- wing parties in the Parliament. Neither is it possible to establish exactly the period, so that if from the first utmost left point (say, in the upper part of the figure) to the second such one have gone 10 (conditional) years, and from the second to the third -- 15 years, then this can be observed as sufficient precision. But this, that we can't use this method for good quantitative estimates, does not mean that it is bad in
qualitative regard, because it accurately reflects gradually decreasing oscillations around given steady state value, which is naturally to accept in the middle.
[ * The picture, alas, is missing, so that you are forced to believe blind to my explanations (but it was not pretty accurate, because I have drown it with the mouse only). ]
What is good in this qualitative model, above all, is that based on it can be made interesting
conclusions. The first and most important observation in this case is that there exist two alternative ways for diminishing of the steepness of movement (according to the horizontal time axes), namely:
1) via
shrinking of exponential enveloping curve, which defines the rate of damping (not shown on Fig.1.), what corresponds to the curve "1" (the blue one), which falls down more smoothly, because it has the same period, but does not reach such great amplitudes; or
2) via
extending of oscillatory process on a longer period, what corresponds to the curve "2" (the red one).
Both ways lead to relatively equal slope (steepness) on the
corresponding parts of curves 1 and 2 (or from the beginning to the first semi-period, to the place where the dashes with the numbers are put, where they fall down; or later on, from the lowest position till the end of the first period, where they rise up -- but everywhere on linear regions they move almost in parallel). Again must be clarified, that it can be argued about the point how much the slopes are equal, but in all cases they are less than the corresponding slope of curve 0 (the black one). And we pay such attention on the slopes, because it is natural to accept that the goal of each movement is to reach maximally fast damping by
minimally possible steepness, i.e. to have smoothly and crisis-free movement to the new steady state value (to the horizontal axis). And, hence, such movement can be had, either when the curve is damped (its amplitude falls) absolutely faster, i.e. the curve 1 (what is the best variant), or when it damps relatively faster, i.e. the curve 2 (where its amplitude diminishes less, but then for a longer period of time), what in fact happens absolutely slower than the other variant (but is also painless).
Let us now look more precisely at both variants, calling for help the pulse technique, where is explained that
the period of oscillation is characteristic of the system (e.g., for the pendulum, of its length), where
the damping of the exponent
is characteristic of the environment (e.g., for the pendulum, this means whether it oscillates in air or in water). In our political case the "system" is the whole nation, the given country, from the point of view of its economic abilities, social consciousness and unity of the voters, of its natural conditions, traditions, and so on, i.e. this is such thing which can't be (at least this is not easy) changed. On the other hand the damping of the exponent depends on the environment, and in this case it is political, i.e. these are the parties, which help (or hinder) the given nation to reach the steady state value of equilibrium, and on this environment is possible, and also
necessary, to show influence and change it.
In other words, this means that in countries, where the political environment converges faster to the center, is possible to reach smooth transition also by relatively short period of oscillation, what speaks about powerful economies, socially conscientious and united voters (for example, in Hungary the semi-period is about five years, in Czech Republic and Slovakia, if we subtract a pair of years in view of their separation, as additional problem with which they have had to cope, it may become again so much, or a bit more). At the same time, in countries with worse convergence of political powers, the single possibility for smooth and crisis-free transition consists in longer period of oscillation (i.e. the adaptivity of their system is worse, what is related also with bigger social disagreements, which expresses themselves in worse convergence of political powers, as, for example, in Poland, if we take for beginning of the movement to the right roughly 1985, what will give a semi-period of about 9-10 years). Where there are also countries in which the political environment is so confronted, the social unity of masses so weak, that the single possibility to hold the situation from catastrophic slumping during the period of transition is in the multiple extension (slowing) of the oscillating process (for example in Russia, or rather in the former Soviet Union, where the desert of the great "Gorbi" is in this, that he succeeded to significantly
slow down this process in the first several years with his
perestroika, otherwise, by practically zero-valued exponent, should have happened obvious slumping in the civil war, which, for the moment, they nearly managed to avoid; so or otherwise, but there already a
quarter-period of oscillation, even taking out 2-3 years for disintegration of their empire, has reached 6-7 years, what gives an expected semi-period of approximately 15 years). One may boldly state that, as it seems, the semi-period by the worst possible conditions
can't exceed one generation (20 - 25 years).
Let us now return to Bulgaria. Judging by a number of indicators (economic, social, ethnical, and others) we are closest to Poland, and by semi-period of about ten years can be expected, that also our next Parliament will still be right-wing, but somewhere at the end of the century, maybe, we will turn to the left. At the same time, however, I think, that we must not aim at the level (period) of Czechs and Slovaks, so that one turn to the left of the Parliament, but remaining still
on the right of the center, would have been in my view an expression of awaken popular masses in the given moment. This is, maybe, the best for what we can hope in the coming elections, because there were times (and there will again come such times) when to the right meant good, but in the moment more to the left means better, more reasonable and mature!
As an additional touch in this review one must also pay attention to the fact, that in the political case (in contrast to the mechanical) the environment (the parties) are not independent from the system (from the population), because they are part of the people, so that it is possible also influence from the part of the political forces on the people and vice versa. In this sense, the better converging environment leads to faster economic development and to more united social consciousness of the people, what enables reaching of a shorter period of oscillation, what, in the end, gives even faster damping (i.e., some positive feedback).
And one more detail: the faster the convergence in the Parliament (and, respectively, amidst the people) is, the bigger is the help on the part of the West, because it is natural, when one invests money in something, to require also some guaranties for peaceful and crisis-free evolvement. In other words,
the Western investments depend not on the direction of our deviation from the center (to the left or the right),
but on the magnitude of this deviation, i.e. on the convergence of political powers. This is the only reasonable position, because when the divergence is not big the direction is of no importance.
Saying this in other way: if we do not help ourselves, even God will not help us!
1995 ?
P.S. As the Russians like to say for something well guessed, I
as if have looked in water (as a kind of magic mirror). Everything I have said 20 years before is right in broad lines (not in details, maybe). About this incessant oscillation, about the economies, the political life, the quiet or on the contrary evolvement, about the slowing down (delaying) of the Russians, et cetera. But I will try to restrict myself from further remarks and retain only those from the time of Russian translation, because the goal is to allow the people to read what I have written and not boast how clever I was and (as a result of this, mainly) have not been appraised in time.
2015
FIVE YEARS OF DEVASTATION*
[ * Published on page 2 of the newspaper "Anteni" from 26 Oct 1994, shortened to the half but in this spirit (under a fictitious pseudonym A. Z. S-ov, decoded as Atanas Savov, what is entirely wrong guess).
There have gone five years from the time when our "Bai Tosho" have come down from the political scene (helped by his fighting comrades), five years when different political powers (parliamentary, extra-parliamentary, and backstage) have ruined everything what was possible to be ruined in our long-suffering homeland, and with "enviable" success! Conscientiously or unintentionally, reasonably or not, aiming at political or personal favours, but these five years (there's one word, by the way in the Slavonic languages, something like "fiveyeary") can be rightfully named
five years of the biggest devastation: devastation in the "Party and Government", devastation in the Trade-unions, devastation in the Church, devastation in the army, as also in the militia-police, devastation in the science, devastation in the culture, devastation in the education, as well as in the healthcare, devastation in the center of Sofia, as also in the periphery, and in other towns, devastation in the villages, devastation in the scientific institutes and in the factories, devastation of the nature, as also in the human souls! Five years of devastation right and left, up and down, devastation amidst young and amidst old! But, still, each rule has its exceptions, namely: there has flourished moral laxity, has flourished crime and corruption, has flourished human stupidity everywhere where possible. From Balkan countries we were, maybe, the most educated, although the poorest state -- now we are only the poorest (after Albania)! We have rejected the totalitarianism with total devastation -- hurrah, gentlemen!
It is another question whether was necessary to destroy all this (and what exactly) or not, but the fact is that we have destroyed everything. Many can object that one can not build a new house on the rotten foundations of the old one, that it is necessary first to demolish them (maybe in order to build a new "factory of our life" -- how has put it our poet Nikola Vaptsarov), that all this is valid for all totalitarian institutes, that they could not have reformed from within and it was necessary to crush them down and substitute with new ones, that as our science, so also our education, and medicine, and army, and militia, must have been created anew. This might be so, gentlemen, but when it is necessary to demolish our old house, then where will we live
until we built the new one? What reasonable owner destroys his old house not having secured at least a temporary home? And our "temporary home" have become the campgrounds -- both, literally and figuratively! We have rejected the red "bright future" in order to substitute it with blue one, but changing of the colour
does not remove the utopia, it only creates turmoil on the "building site" of our life. The having become proverbial under the totalitarianism pun, that the errors of growth have turned to growth of errors, continues to be valid also today!
Whereas in some other countries it
does not happen so! And I am
not speaking about some distant and exotic countries but about some of our "brotherly", and even Slavonic, if you want, countries. And really, why it did not happen so in Czech Republic or Slovakia, and in Hungary, and in the Baltic countries? Why when in the other countries people have done gentle revolutions, in Bulgaria have happened "rough disorders"? Why when the other countries (well, surely not all of them) have rejected the communism, in order to show that they
have realized its falsity, we have stuck to it as if have grasped a bag with gold coins, and later, when the same countries have begun already a turn to the left, in order to show that they have
matured enough, for not to come to extremities in the negation, we continue to turn to the right and will we continue even more in this direction? Do we, really, like so much the poverty that
still can not jump over the level from the times of "Bai Tosho" (with our about 50 US$ average monthly working salary nowadays), or are we chasing the level of Somalia? And why the Czech crown for five years has devalued roughly twice, while for this period our lev has done this at least 25 times? Well, we are not like in Russia or in Serbia, but we have also not their problems.
So that, if we are
wise enough to perceive that we are silly (as have said the ancient folks), then we should have looked around first in Bulgaria, for to convince ourselves (if we have still some doubts about this) that everything is collapsing, then abroad, for to convince ourselves that it
can be otherwise; and then to think a bit what a thing we can do in order not to give reasons to the civilized countries to laugh at the "drunkenness" of our whole nation (as has called it in his time our Renaissance writer Ivan Vazov), what has already begun to look like
chronic alcoholism, because continues for such long time.
In the moment, in fact, we hesitate in which direction to move: to the left, when the "bright communist future" turned out to be complete utopia and the way to it -- total stagnation, or to choose the right-wing capitalism from the
beginning of the century, which proved to be quite cruel for our poor nation, and also amoral enough. But who looks for the truth at the ends he will
not find it there! And the question also is
not in this to avoid the oscillation (because this is impossible and would have been our next utopia), but to lessen its amplitude, to search for the state of equilibrium, to stick to the axial line of the way, to float in the middle of the river, or how you want to name this centralizing, what is just a
question of reasonability. Otherwise it becomes free oscillation. Such oscillation, what we would have had if we take a wooden plank, fix it motionless at one end, deflect its other end to the left (for example) and leave it -- then the free end will move initially in the right end position, then will return to the left, then again will move to the right, and so on many times, where most slowly it will move and most longer it will stay
exactly in the end positions, which are the worst, while with greatest speed it will pass exactly the state of equilibrium, where it must finally stop. So that this is what would have done a
wood or a tree, but we are not trees, gentlemen! ... Or, maybe, we, still, are trees?
Oct 1994
TIME TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS
Briefly said, the situation in Bulgaria is clear -- there is no center. But the point is:
why there is no center? Why there are by us very small number of politicians with influence, who have succeeded to restrain themselves not to become "red" (meant are the former communists), neither "blue" (the "only" democrats, according to them), more than "needed", when already the ancient Greeks have written on the temple of Apollo at Delphi the slogan "Nothing above measure"? And if we ask ourselves this question then it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that moderation, worldly experience, and wisdom, these notions are to a great extent synonyms and are associated primarily with the mature age. And really, in our dissolved Parliament, according to my modest opinion, the average age was about 40 years, where in the times of our "Bai Tosho" the average age tended to 65 years, or our Parliament has become
significantly younger.
Surely, in sports, sciences, and in many other activities, existed age barrier, and even if it is not obligatory, still, the top achievements are possible most often up to 35 (rarely to 40) years. But these are activities for which usually fast reflexes are necessary, while in the politics, in practice, is
exactly on the contrary -- important is not the speed, but the reasonability of the decisions, which comes
after the age of the "dashing" youth, or up 40 and above. And in our Parliament, maybe, only a third of the members were on age above 45 and, I think, again more or less as many were below 35. This, exactly, has determined the colour of our former Parliament
not as blue or red, but as
green, in sense of
unripe! Precisely this was our trouble. In this was our main unnecessary striving and if we can realize this even now -- it is still good.
The next moment is related with the
way of centering of political powers, what are pretending to be doing both, the red and the blue ones. But I can allow myself to have some doubts in this, because we are coming to the old proverb about the wolf and its skin, and, besides, centering can't be done from one side only, it requires
simultaneous movement from the both ends, otherwise not the Parliament is centering, but the center of Parliament is shifting, what is not the same thing.
We must remind ourselves that the blue party have emerged because there existed the red one, similarly to the emergence of communism in the beginning of the century, and of the fascism, too, in order to oppose the cruel capitalism of that time, and also one another. Now the right-wing powers in the Parliament have returned us so successfully in the wild and cruel capitalism from the beginning of the century, has happened such stratification in the society, and such impoverishment, that the voters with good reason turn again to the left, i.e. the history as if begins to repeat. But this is not centering, this is battle of ideas! On the other hand, our people must be glad, that
only for five years they have succeeded to convince themselves that
neither the left-wing reality (45 years is enough -- the well known slogan of UDF, the Union of Democratic Forces),
nor the right-wing alternative (there have passed less than 45 months, and this also is enough) are good. The ideas sound very nice, but their
realization is limping, for the reason that the truth is not at the ends, it is in the middle, and, hence,
both poles just
must converge!
In worldwide scale it happened exactly so: the capitalism, as more adaptive, has succeeded for more than half a century to move quite to the left and to socialize itself to such extent, that in a number of contemporary countries this socialism, about which we have talked so much, is largely built; the socialism, for its part, has tried to turn to the right, but because of "right-wing phobia" and organic incapability it just collapsed. Somehow or other, however, both ends have met, regardless of the terminology. It remains only to hope that in our Parliament, too, will happen some similar movement from both ends, as they say, "with the help of God".
One question, which our Parliament has not succeeded to solve to the end, because it has
not wanted to do this, was to change the minimal barrier for participation of political powers in it to the really minimal, i.e. to one person, or, say, to three persons, in order to avoid some occasional errors. As far as both political colossi stand at both poles, the existing system is directed to elimination of
all levels of moderation. But we should not forget that a river does not consist of its left, neither of its right, bank, it is what is
between them! Otherwise the river splits in two arms, and when one nation divides itself in two parts it is obvious what happens, so that if our readers want that there were, still, one river in our political life, then they are just compelled to look for party in the middle. Even if the chances for putting of such party in our Parliament are very small, nevertheless we must try to do this. This is simply the only
reasonable alternative for our country.
But let us also not forget the piquant idiosyncrasy, that everybody learns
from the mistakes of the others, but from his or her own -- does not want! Because of this our political powers cal learn
only when they stay in opposition (for then they can not make errors alone for the reason that they don't take whatever decisions, and the errors of the others are so many that they can be, as we say, shoveled with a spade)! In this situation the only way for some party or coalition to straighten and improve itself (if it is really viable) is to go in opposition. From what follows, my honorable readers, that if you truly care for parties at both poles, then the single way to
help them is
not to vote for them! If this happens then, you can be sure, in the next elections they will shine in a new light, else they will continue to "smear", either themselves, or one another.
In the end let us imagine some cowboy from the Wild West having lots of guns: one has served him faithfully more than 45 years but lately has begun to fail and shoots much to the left, in spite of all smearing and the changing of its whole hammer mechanism; another gun has emerged not long ago, it has modern design and is with dark-blue colour, it was recommended to him by the best Western weapon experts, but it shoots much to the right; the other guns he has not yet tried, trough some of them he has even not once shot. But time has not to be lost and expert commissions to be appointed, he must shoot because he is encircled and the bullets are running out. How you think, dear readers, the cowboy will behave?
1996 ?
P.S. In 2008 is seen quite clear (but it was seen also ten years earlier) that the question about the center is highly important, and because the left- and right-wing poles are centering itself very slowly it remains only the possibility of emerging of new parties, which have to be centered as much as possible, or at least that they wouldn't have reasons for fundamental tensions between them only because of this that, hmm, one of them cry "uhh" and the others "hurrah" (in what, as if, consists the main difference between our UDF and BSP -- the latter are the former communists). The new more or less centrist party was the emerged in the very beginning of 21st century "Tsarist" party, because, at least in theory, our people thought that the Tsar will think about them (and not about his land holdings, as it, basically, turned out to be). Well (if we take aside the question with his lands, which just "pocks the eyes" of the Bulgarian), they are up to some extent a center, if not for other reasons then at least because during their mandate they were "anti" both, the blue and the red ones, so that they have no other choice left to them, but this is not exactly that center, which the author has in mind, and which our people seek.
The proper centrist party, of course, is, before, as well as now, the Turkish party, MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms), without which no one Parliament can do, which, it turns out, is just
forced to be centrist, for the simple reason that it is not party in the conventional meaning of the word! It is not classical party because this about the rights and freedoms is no special platform or idea; its single platform is that it is ethnical, and in this case it must be liked by all Turks in Bulgaria. Yeah, but all Turks are like
all Bulgarians -- there are among them poor and wealthy, intelligent and simple, and so on, so that their leaders can't avoid to try to please, as far as this is possible, all of them, and the easiest way to do this is via moderation (by which nobody wins much, but also nobody loses much). So that it turns out that the ethnicity is not such a bad platform for a political party, as many in Bulgaria present this; and also, in the end, maybe it is better if we were taken by the Turks (not that they show special desire to do this, because this, what they most of all want, and this for more than a century now, is to enter in Europe, so that everything that can spoil their image is obviously undesirable for them), than the Chinese or Americans, because with the Turks we have at least common tastes (and understand their, hmm, curses, where with the Chinese we have still no experience, and what concerns the Americans -- for them we are simply the next "white Negroes").
But in addition to this BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party), as much as it succeeds in this, also centers (even the ...
causa perduta, UDF, too), and then what else remains to this party, when it has entered in incredible coalition with "Royal courtiers" and "Ottomans". The bad thing in this process of centering is only ... our nation, because the common people are those who
require their extremes, even if some of them "smell" of fascists, what impression have made, at least in the beginning, the comrades of "Haiduk Sider" (i.e. Volen Siderov, but "
volen" means free, like a haiduk); they can also not be downright fascist, for the reason that the ideas of this movement, at least according to the author, have no ground by us, but this is another topic (it, looking soberly, in a poor country like our, can exist ground only for the socialism, but we are all running away from it like "the devil from the incense", so that let us not count us for big experts on "soil science").
At least on the question of age we are moving in the right direction to the average one and above it, but there may be simple explanation of this -- the "youngsters" in the politics have grown up now (if we do not count the attacking "storm troopers" of "Ataka" of just mentioned Siderov, but they also will grow old with the time).
And generally, it is easy to make conclusions, everybody can make them having a bit of common sense (and people do them, if we judge by this that now half of the population does not vote), the bad thing is only that the voice of people is usually vulgar (what are nearly synonyms for the Western world).
2008
ARE WE FREE, OR ON THE CONTRARY?*
[ * It is published highly shortened version of the material (chiefly of the first chapter) on the 8th page of Bulgarian newspaper "Continent" from 02 Nov. 1998. ]
I. Ascertaining of the enslaved condition
as subordinated and degrading condition of compulsion to do this, what other states dictate us, not what we could have wished as a free nation. It must be noted that nowadays the slavery is significantly evolved in comparison with the time of pharaohs, for example, and is expressed mainly in
economic compulsion, but as far as the capitalism is power of capitals, then also the compulsion is proper to be only economic, or such that in the end enhances our economic dependence. Despite the fact that this dependence is not always perceivable it existed and is something like the remote control in electronics, yet this does not make it weaker, just more concealed and, therefore, more treacherous! But let us list the most important features of this enslavement:
1. The external economic enslavement
is expressed chiefly via the foreign debt of the country, which must be now somewhere about 1,500 US$ per capita (when it goes about several
times the exact calculations can only disorient us). It has not grown absolutely more than on 35% in foreign currency in the democratic years, but taking into account that in the last totalitarian years one minimal monthly salary (MMS) was roughly 200 US$ (not only according to the official rate, but also in relation to its purchasing power, or measured with some consumer basket), and the average salary was about 350-400 US$ (and a working person could definitely buy himself, for example, a
whole ton of milk with his monthly salary, if only he wanted), and under all of the last Governments MMS has varied about 25-30 US$, and the average -- between 60 and 80, then this shows lessening of about
seven times of our ability of paying out our foreign debt by the transition to democracy (i.e. before it was about 1,000 US$ per capita or roughly 3 averaged working salaries, and now it is nearly 2
yearly salaries).
2. The internal economic enslavement
is expressed in possession of property in our country by foreign people and organizations. The so called inflow of capitals by us, naturally, is expression of enhanced economic dependence, but here it does not go about small sums or percentages of our national wealth so that to discuss the point, and when you give everything valuable what you have in order just to survive, this is pure enslavement. In the first half of 20th century the well developed industrial countries have led devastating wars for to divide between themselves the influence over the lagging behind countries; they were then
quite "silly" for to reach agreement as gentlemen and have resorted to the
ultima ratio (or the last means), though they have preferred that the others "pulled the chestnuts out of the fire". Now the Great Seven (or how many they are there) have simply decided to apply to the dividing of the world the
principle of joint-stock company and have built various international financial institutions, where they can invest their free and not used in the moment capitals, and with their use to buy "ideal parts" of many, left much behind themselves, countries. Even if we also have some advantages of their help they have much more advantages (political, and from here also economic, and the peacekeeping forces of United Nations cost much money), but this does not change the fact that we are bought, and, hence, enslaved. All foreign capitals in Bulgaria mean export of capitals from us across the border, not only influx (initially).
3. The choice of incommensurable with us master
is the next characteristic of this enslavement. Here it goes about changing of Russophilic trends in Bulgaria with Russophobic, what could have been questionable thing if we were Eskimos, for example, but as far as we are Slavs it is logical to choose for us Slavonic "center of rotation" (or "bigger brother" if you want). When we wished so much to run away from the "gravitation" of the Russians, then why have we not adhered to the Czechs (which were leading country in Europe before World War Two and now are again manifesting themselves as such, and, besides, they are also Slavs and Cyril and Methodius in their time have gone from our lands and come exactly in theirs); or, if the ethnical side is not so important, then to the Turks or the Arabs, because they also, like us, want to enter in Europe, only that they are much wealthy than we are, but in recompense for this we
live in Europe, so that we have common interests (and in addition to this by us approximately 20% are ethnical Turks and roughly as much are Gypsies and such orientation would have been quite natural)?
Anyway, it is clear that such small country like Bulgaria can't be entirely independent from the others and must turn around some greater power, but it is very important that there existed some commensurability with the master, in order, figuratively speaking, to can sit down with him at one table, and in the time of Russian "domination" of our country only by us from all socialist countries were not placed Russian army troops, and the whole Russian population considered us as "utmost their" people. As in one team of horses the most discontented are the stronger and faster horses (because they are who do the major work), and most of all gain the smaller and weaker horses, so also from the socialist "horse team"
we only gained! At the same time now, however politely behaved toward us, the Americans, Germans, French, and so on, their relations to us can be only such of a patron to patronized person, and these are relations of cultured slave owners to their slaves, or, if you like it better so, of
caring master to his cattle -- they will feed us, and water us, and entertain us with various contemporary media, and will give us all their old things (still working but obsolescent for them), because it is a pity and not Christian to throw something useful away to the garbage (where to give it to some pauper is another thing -- in this way one can at least earn some indulgence for the afterlife), and will give us present-day technologies for to make it possible to develop our chemical industry and other harmful branches, and will help us even in the nuclear energy (because when something happened by us the wind asks nobody whereto to blow), and will also beat their breasts and trumpet that they do this only out of sincere love to democracy.
Never, though,
will they accept us as brothers (and be it as bigger brother to the younger one -- why not, when it was really so?). Albeit more backward in regard of living standard than United States, for example, Russia is, still,
great empire, which is respected by this very US, but for us now this isn't so and we prefer (in our foolishness, for there is no other explanation) to be slaves, instead of to sit at one table with the Russians (what does not necessarily mean that we must "gulp their broth", because we can alone mix our own concoction).
4. The selective emigration
of most capable and pushy part of our youth in the developed Western countries, the so called "
brain drain", is the next point in our examination. While in totalitarian times there were much talks about this but it was not mass phenomenon, nowadays there is not much noise but roughly half a million Bulgarians (out of less than 8 mln), mainly young, are permanently (more than 10 months in an year) out of Bulgaria. Gathering of the elite or "cream" of a nation is guarantied method for placing it in dependence on others, and the fact that the "cream" only gains by this does not mean that the country does not lose! All programs for help in the science and education in our country on the part of the West are directed to attracting of young and talented Bulgarians to their countries, what, under the situation that our living standard now is
30 to 50 times lower than by them, means that at least 3/4 of them will afterwards emigrate in the developed countries, and those who return, if they are still in reproductive age (and if they are older than 35 then the West, as a rule, does not accept them, neither for study, nor for emigration), leave there their offspring. In a sense this means that we are becoming, so to say,
factory for genetic material for the developed countries, what is even
worse than the enichars in times of Ottoman Rule (young boys taken to be trained for soldiers), because then were taken only very young boys (for them to be easy to forget pretty soon their parents and serve faithfully the new masters, a thing, which by the exceedingly high mortality rate in that times, was accepted as natural disaster), while now emigrate already brought up and of full age citizens, in the interval of 18 to 25 years, when their parents can not thing about more children, and the state has, in one or another degree, taken care for them and has all reasons to require some repayment of the investment.
5. The tragically low living standard
is the next moment that in maximally direct way supports the increase of economic enslavement. However bad we have lived earlier we have never reached such, worse than "African", level of living standard, and our minimal salary has not fallen below 80-100 US$ in month, while now we have reached even to the curiosities of less than 20 dollars. It is clear that when it goes about survival we are ready to kiss hand (or whatever they give us), only to secure our everyday bread, but exactly by such low standard of life comes the most dangerous and long lasting slavery. More than this, when the state deducts taxes from people with tragically low incomes, then it can't find anything (or finds almost nothing) for the traditional state sectors like: education, healthcare, army, forces for keeping of internal order, strategic sectors, sciences, unprofitable but needed industry, even agriculture (because who has some arable land he does not work it, or sows only for himself, and who has no land he has nothing to cultivate). The poor person can be bought by everybody and exactly in this way the Board has bought us, where the irony of the situation is in this, that we even have
begged it on our knees.
6. The adoration of everything foreign
(also called xenomania), is by itself expression of obvious discontent of the individual from the environment in which he is placed, but this is also another sign of enslavement, because there is no slave who is contented with his situation and will not be from the "others". As a small state we have often tried to accept something from abroad, but, having in mind that we have given the world Slavonic alphabet, to fall so low not to want to buy, were it clothing, we it even toothpaste, if it is labeled in Bulgarian, and to fill our language with a heap of foreign words, just
because they are foreign (not because they are better than our Bulgarian ones, and, you may bet, not because we are much cultured, when very often write them with Bulgarian letters), leads to gradual
assimilation! And by this I don't at all think that the major contribution of Cyril and Methodius was in the devising of the alphabet (because this is just some symbolic, combination of Greek and Latin letters, a thing which even
hinders communications in present days), but in the
preservation of Bulgarian spirituality; neither am I speaking against foreign languages, just against the spiritual enslavement of our country. It may be silly to be proud with everything ours only because it is ours, but this is at least natural, where to be ashamed of everything ours (again by the same reason) means reconciliation with the slavery.
II. Causes for the enslavement of Bulgaria by the developed countries
It must be obvious that the enslavement (without any reasons for this) became possible only
through the fault of our
transition to democracy! First of all, out of reasons of general character, is clear that, as by the people, so also by the states, are possible two ultimate conditions in regard of the freedom -- one is the whole independence of the others (or anarchy), and the other is total dependence of the stronger (or dictatorship). But this implies the evident conclusion that under the utmost freedom of personality (respectively, of state) reveals himself only the stronger one (in one or other aspect), where under the dictatorship the more stronger suffer at the expenses of the weaker ones, what may not be quite correct (right
recht, etc.), but, in recompense, is
justified (different, left, i.e. what remains besides the right -- such is the etymology of these words and it is good to remind it, because in Bulgarian it is not like in the other languages -- for us the right side is called "
djasna", and the right things are "
pravi" or "
pravilni", i.e. the roots are different)! But the weak people (or states) have also their right of existence (because the diversity is the most precious thing in our world, which makes it interesting). So that it was clear (and this was proved) that from the former Socialist Bloc Bulgaria, above all, has gained, while now we, generally, lose, due to the fierce competition with the other countries.
But let us look at the reasons more profound and divide them in: internal and external, and also in objective and subjective, as it was done for many centuries. The external causes are these, which are outside of our country, and, naturally, we can consider as external objective reasons this, what is out of the abilities of people, i.e. some natural disasters like spontaneous conflagrations (as in Australia, for example), or earthquakes (as in Japan, for example), or landslides and floods (as in China), or stories like in Chernobyl, or such droughts where for 3-4
years in succession does not fall a drop of water (like in some regions of Africa), and similar things. It is clear that nothing of the kind has befallen our heads (except some industrial accidents, due to incompetence of the management and grown old equipment, but even they have not exceeded ten human victims). We live, really, in a blessed by God corner, which, however, have succeeded for the initial democratic years ruin to such an extent, that maybe now even God could not succeed to help us more! The next causes are external subjective, i.e. some foreign enemy, some country has declared war to us, or at least has
intended to do this -- but then it must have been mad, for in such case it should have been obliged also to feed us!
What regards the internal objective causes, then these could have been some civil wars (as in our western neighbours, for example), but even this has not happened in Bulgaria (thank God!), maybe because we are peaceful people and by us still existed one good (although defeatist) saying that "the bent head is not cut by the sword". Be it as it may, but the national question, about which was much noise in its time, has passed away peacefully and quietly, and this, that some people have panicked -- well, there is, generally, nothing good in the panic --, and quite many Bulgarian citizens have left our country -- well, but in the recent years much more Bulgarians have done the same. There remained only the internal subjective causes, i.e. that some evil dictator or gone crazy monarch has remained for so long on the throne that he was not to be moved from it "even with a cannonball" -- yes, but no, because for the last democratic years we have changed whatnot governments, have tried also with caretaker ones, and without governments at all, but the damned governmental cart still does not move properly! We have not changed before his term only the President (well, we tried it in the beginning of 1997, yet he did not want to leave the post), but this is because we have given him such "feeble" powers, that he can only rename some street or other.
And, for to finish with the causes, let us give one more argument -- the comparison with the others ex-communist countries, as our brothers in destiny. If we look around us in Europe we will see that in the given moment we live as if worse even than the Russians, who, roughly 30 times more than us, must be also very difficult to be governed, but it is not exactly so. And about the other European countries like Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and so on, there is no need to speak, but well, let us leave them -- they at least are nearer to the "navel" of Europe (to Vienna). So or otherwise, but for the moment we are on the second place in poverty after Albania (in what there is some reason, for they are before us in alphabetical order, right?). As it happens in practice, the free democratic development of Bulgaria is mainly
harmful for us and will be such until does not emerge some stronger (dictatorial) structure, that will unite the weaker strata of population and support them. But mark: not structures in which leading role play wealthy and developed Western countries but
vice versa! While we try blindly to enter in Europe we will continue to stay at the end, and when we enter then will only confirm our outsider position
**.
[ ** From 2007 this became reality. ]
III. The way out is possible
only through actions in the opposite direction, i.e.
via strengthening of the dictatorial principle in governing of the country. It is worth to remind you that the truth (already since the times of Ancient Greece) is somewhere in the middle, and to speak about
pure dictatorship or democracy is at least naive and childish. Neither our totalitarian ruling, especially after the 60ies of this century, was genuine dictatorship, nor our contemporary situation is pure democracy, so that the question is not in the name -- it usually is one-sided -- but in the core of the things, and the very existence of Presidential institution is already expression of dictatorial elements. Maximally pure democracy has existed in Ancient Greece and for this reason it has
not lasted very long and was changed with dictatorship (called then tyranny), so that
the changing was performed in the time; generally speaking, when one can not find the middle point in a given aspect, then he willy-nilly,
finds it, but swaying to the ends, so that, averaged in the time, arises illusion of the middle point! The contemporary democracies, since a pair of centuries in England, and now all around the world, reach this compromise via combining of incompatible things, i.e. of dictatorship with monarchy or with Presidency (where the President is an easily changeable Monarch). And let us stress that the democracy is ruling of people (with all their human shortcomings), but chosen between the whole nation, i.e. just the pool (and you know that this means also a puddle) is enlarged. And let us also not forget that the
democracy in ancient Athens was introduced
precisely by the Tyrant (such was the title of rulers in those days) Pisistratus, what means that it
is advantageous for the rulers, too!
In other words, if in the moment in Bulgaria is more advantageous to strengthen the dictatorship, than there is nothing bad in this, because the talks about democracy have started from the stronger Western countries
for to weaken us and make us easy prey for them and they have
already done this, so that if we can counteract somehow to this tendency, it is to be done through its contrary one. Depending on the strength of this impact, which is, generally, in direct proportion with the speed of changes and in inverse one with the quietness in the country, are possible the following variants:
1. Gradual "bringing to reason" of the system population-politicians
Let us first clarify that it is accurate to look at the people and their politicians as a system (something like the
egg and hen), where each of both parts shows influence on the other, because, as says one Latin proverb: silly people -- weak state! This method is the slowest and it can continue for centuries (and it continues, because there is not a state on the West where its politicians were this, what they are bound to be, and in which have not happened, from time to time, various muddles, or in which the democracy has not been fiercely criticized by its eminent personalities). Some success in this regard is seen even in our country, where approximately 1/4 of the population
does not vote, but this is the normal situation in other countries, and as far as we are not from the "normal" ones then everything normal is not very normal for us, and in order to become such is necessary for this percentage to reach the half
*** of all voters! Slowly and gradually our people see that the democracy is something like football match, for example, and if you like it then you can watch it, but if you are sure that it will be the same boredom like the last time then it is not worth trying to attend to it.
[ *** Judging by the elections in Bulgaria in the very beginning of 21st century (till 2007) even 50% voting is not enough for us. Well, then maybe 25-30% of the voters will suffice for to provoke this bringing to reason. Let us hope it will. ]
Little by little the politicians also in Bulgaria begin to differ mainly by the ties and colour of the shirts (as on the West) and not by something radical in their platforms, but the bad thing by us is that there show up primarily the drawbacks of democratic system (first of all that many people
hardly can take reasonable solution). Putting it otherwise,
the democracy is maximally ineffective form of ruling and the meaning of its application is mainly in providing spectacles or shows for the people, not in this to really perform some governing (where in each Ministry, besides the politicians, exist also persons who do the needed work), but when the survival of a nation with 13 centuries of history is at risk is necessary to leave the shows and do the work, for to be possible for all rulers to draw the state's chariot in one direction (preferably the right one), not whereto each one desires. So that, instead of to try to bring the people to ballot boxes, it is better (and exactly that is the reason why this is not done, because it is more correct so!?) to leave the people
not to vote when they see no sense in this, for the politician is like every
actor, he can not play on a empty scene! In other word:
if we want to support Bulgarian democracy we must be against it, and this is not a demagogy but the natural course of evolution of the things, and that is the reason for the existence of opposition -- in the counteracting of the ruling parties. Only that here we are speaking about contradiction to the
whole ruling
system****, when exactly it is that "skids"!
[ **** And this, that now
every second person does not vote, means that every second Bulgarian is
openly against the system, and I would have added that out of the remaining half of the voters
again every second does not agree with it, but does not dare to declare this in the open due to misunderstood (and officially propagandized) patriotism or civic duty. The biter truth, however, is that our people at last, after more than 10 years, were disappointed and have begun to sober up from the "democratic euphoria". ]
2. Strengthening of the Presidential institution
This is a matter of legal settings and presents stronger social impact in the right direction, but, as if for the moment, nobody in Bulgaria gives a thought to similar decision, and with each flowing year it becomes more important. The division of powers and the requirement for not more than two Presidential mandates is quite sufficient in order to secure us from the other extremity, out of which we run, as is said, like "devil from incense". It is not so important how the President is being chosen, will he have blue blood (or dress in blue shirt, for example -- what is allusion to our blue UDF, Union of Democratic Forces), the important thing is that he personified the dictatorial principle in government, that he looked like patriarch of father of the nation (well, it might also be like mother, if she happened to be women), that he was allowed to dissolve the
Talking Shop, I beg your pardon, the Parliament, and appoint new elections when he shows a desire, as also to set tasks for it and deadlines for executing, that he has right of veto on each decision of the State Assembly (Bulgarian Parliament) when sees it necessary (and not just once but many times), that he was consolidating personality with big experience of life, not in youthful age (he is not, in the end, neither sportsmen, no wunderkind, no Christ, to be in his age), and so on. The powers of our President are such, that he is more symbolical figure than the Queen of England in the past century, only that then existed by them also House of Lords, who were neither without rights, nor incompetent, and who watched that the "plebs" have done no harm about which later all would regret. In short: the democracy is a good thing, but without centralization there is no go!
3. Military coup
This is the roughest impact in this direction, but when the democracy does not take necessary measures (the former point) and the population turns to be very weak (the first point), then the only remaining way for strengthening of the dictatorial principle in democracy happens to be the very dictatorship. This would have been not very surprising in our conditions, because our people are used to extreme forms of action (like shocking therapy, for example), but it is wrong to think that each dictator is a wicked evildoer, like the serpent from the fairy tales, because such person will not be in position to rule for a long time. Most often
the dictators are fanatics of a given
idea, which is supported by a significant part of
the nation and if the historical moment requires brute force instead of empty debates, and if the masses are pretty intemperate for to search a compromise solution, then they support in their souls
each dictator! The cruelty of dictatorships comes out usually
of the very population, not of the dictator, and in addition to this, condemning the dictatorship, we must not forget that
the reason of big cruelty is in this to prevent people from necessity
of bigger cruelties! Each power has to be respected for its strength, otherwise there is no meaning in its existence, so that it is logical when one does not respect it to suffer from this, more so because the dictatorship comes after the condition when the democracy has proved to be incapable to cope with the situation (and it has happened exactly so till now in the human history). In relation with this I would have even said that the main advantage of the democracy is in this, that
only it can convince the masses that there is
something good in the dictatorship, likewise as the main advantage of the dictatorship is in this, that it succeeds to make people believe that there is something good in the democracy! For the born approximately before 1960, who are able to compare both variants, the above statement must be conscious (but, maybe, not expressed in words).
And let us one more time repeat, that who can not find the middle point in some aspect, then he
again finds it, but in result of many fluctuations and averaged in the time, because, as states one
Shopp's (around our capital Sofia) wisdom: "What is needed, it requires itself"! The difference is only in the social price of the transition (or the peacefulness in the country).
In conclusion,
If we come back to the initial idea about the
economic enslavement of Bulgaria by the wealthy Western countries
without any reasons for this,
except the democratic delirium of our folks, and if we want to stick to the reasonable middle point, is necessary to remark that the slavery has also its good features, especially if the masters are civilized people or simply good hosts, because they will care for us, look that we were satiated and did not rebel, and in this world the stronger always keeps the weaker subordinated, and that this is one natural process, something like the ailing or growing old, no matter whether we like it or not. ... Only that we
will not be free, and in such cases is accustomed that one
fights and overcomes -- the illnesses, and the stronger masters -- because the freedom is so sweet a thing (as people have understood long before that moment when Don Quixote from La Mancha has indicated it to them)! Otherwise our assimilation has already begun: via emigration, via ethnical increasing of "swarthy Bulgarians" (i.e. Gypsies, because the educated is rarely born and more difficultly brought up), via mixed marriages with Western people, so that the
Bulgarians in Bulgaria progressively decrease in number.
Naturally, any prognoses for longer period ahead are perilous, because nobody knows how long the existing tendencies will remain unchanged, but if we rely only on the first way out of the situation it is entirely possible that after about 10 to 20 years the citizens of Bulgaria will stop somewhere around five millions, out of which ethnical Bulgarians will be roughly two millions, and also about two millions Bulgarians in nationality will live outside the borders (where for half a century more they will come from time to time as guests to us). It is true that the humans on the globe have become so many nowadays that any reduction in their number will have only beneficial effect in
global for the planet scope, but, still, the question is: why exactly we should do this when we are so few? And is it necessary, when our state has existed for so many centuries, and we have sustained so many foreign invasions, to surrender us so easy and exactly now, when there are no other reasonable causes for this, except that the wealthy western counties
have changed the policy of the "stick" to that of the "carrot" (according the well known saying)? And, anyway, instead of only to speak about democracy (which is just a matter of legal settings and which existed by us for seven years), isn't it better to restore our stable state, which we had during the totalitarianism?
***** Otherwise we will remain slaves, no matter that our distanced economic chains are not to be seen, because slave is who fulfills everything that his master tells him to do (and not who, just for example, has less lions -- which are our symbols, they are present in out state coat of arms -- on the lapel), and other countries will "collect our offspring", when it reaches maturity!
[ ***** Well, you may be sure that our "free-living hayduk Sider" (as I call him -- Volen Siderov, but "
volen" means free, and we have had some hayduk Sider in the times of Ottoman yoke, leader now of Bulgarian fascists -- but don't get agitated much because he has never gathered more than 7% of the votes) was not familiar with this material, yet he would have approved it, eventually, only partially (as the devil the Gospel). Still, the expressed here ideas have clearly "floated in the air". ]
October 1997
POLITICAL GRATITUDE*
[ * This material against the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF) can be observed as politically engaged, but the truth is that not a single political force has rewarded the author for this his "engagement", so that it would have been more correct to call it
anti-engaged. In any case, it must be clear that if UDF has not hurried like "calf before its mother", as is said, to perform the transition to democracy, the communists, as they have begun with the perestroika, so for 10 years till the moment would have finished it and forgotten about. Yeah, but the dissidents would have been again left with finger in the mouth, right? And that's the point. ]
1. I thank to UDF so much,
That pushed they us just in the mud,
because, if in general each change is dangerous, then the most dangerous is the
hasty one, and if there existed exceptions of this rule, then these are such cases where the transitional period is very painful but after it we expect happy "paradisiacal" live (like, for example, when we have toothache and the aching toot must be taken away). Only that by us neither the process of transition proved to be shorter than some
reasonable transition, nor the "paradisiacal" live has already come, when our average level is still roughly 7-8 times lower than what we had in the times of our totalitarian leader "Bai Tosho", and if there is a question on which all political powers have consensus then this is the thesis that under the totalitarianism was bad (in fact,
if we give credence to UDF that there is nothing worse than the communism, then it comes out that
the democracy is the utterly worst thing, at least for Bulgaria -- from what follows that "the devil is not so black as they paint him", or that one should not believe to what UDF says, or, eventually, both things). Besides, about to the question of living in the paradise may be argued, be it because the notion "paradise" is not less utopian than the communism, be it because, if the democracy was the best thing on the world for all times and countries, it is not clear why we should have waited whole 25 centuries for to it come to us from Ancient Greece, when we are their immediate neighbours.
However it is, though, our people patiently endure shock after shock: be it in prices; be it of loose moral; be it of unpunished crime; be it of paid education of healthcare; be it on the question about possibility for personal enrichment on the background of poverty-stricken population; be it that selling us to wealthy Western countries we will have greater gain than if we associate with nations of similar with our affluence in economic aspect and/or with alike languages; be it because it is better, as our writer Ivan Vasov has put it, "to go wander in countries foreign"; be it the most heavy shock -- of meaningless life, because the personal enrichment has never been something especially worthy for the generations, except for some eminent UDF ideologists; and so on. And it happened so that, after we have long ago "reached the bottom", we continue to dig deeper and deeper, "dumbfounded" by the myth about democratic paradise and having lost every orientation! But one does not know what is better for him until it does not happen even
worse, for what I, with all my heart,
thank UDF!
2. To UDF my adulations,
That made us fools before all nations,
because if earlier all countries of the former Socialist Bloc were with more or less similar standard and hardly someone could have supposed that, at least in economic regard (i.e. judging by the devaluation of our lev) we will turn out to be approximately
1,200 (one thousand and two hundred)
times worse, and not the Germans, or Americans, or Frenchman, etc., but the Czechs, who are also Slavs as us and the brothers Cyril and Methodius starting from our lands have gone directly to theirs, and they were forced first to solve some national differences, but they have "divorced" so civilized, that even the Western democracies have taken their hats off to them, while in Bulgaria (thanks to the UDF, of course) the term socialist (and if you like read it like "communist") still sounds obscene, though people all over the world more than 20 years now (at last) have understood that bad are
not the communists
,
but the conditions which have brought them to power, i.e.
the capitalism, and have engaged themselves (much earlier) to reform it, because, wish we this or not, but the "ghost" of communism has gone around the entire world and for long time the socialism is reality on the West, only they don't call it so.
If the question was only in the moral aspect, i.e. what meaning put UDF-ists in the notion communist or socialist -- OK, this is only human (saying that their human malice makes its way out) and maybe they are not to be blamed, for they don't know what are speaking and doing, but they simply have decided that when it is difficult to converge the communism to contemporary capitalism, then they can just return us
back in the time! And they succeeded! No normal person, when he decides to raise a new home, does pull down the old one not having at least a plan for the new, and having not provided himself with "temporary home", where we destroyed everything: governing of the country, trade unions, army, forces for maintaining of internal order, education system, healthcare, church, our relations with other countries, morality of the folks, and what else not, and continue to live "
in tents".
Our democratic revolution, since our people fell in "delirium democraticus", under the influence of prominent dissidents (i.e. people who have not
sat themselves well, judging by the Latin origin of this world) and pop singers (maybe because the scenes for singers and for politicians are similar, were just the "show" good and brought it heaps of money), was performed according the plan of rural feudal revolts of Middle Ages -- it was necessary to pull the king down, but who will take his place, we will think later. It was important to create
chaos, and the order will come alone by itself; it was necessary to muddle the water, for to catch the tiny fishes (and the bigger, too). But if there were not our UDF the world would have never seen to what extent unorganized we are, nor our people could have perceived how bad a thing
can the democracy be, and for all this I most enthusiastically
thank them!
3. And UDF reached funny goal,
It sold for nothing us at all,
because, if there was necessary sometime to fix the rate of our lev (for it turned out that the free market is a good thing, just
not for our lev), then it was hardly necessary to do this exactly when we have become so poor that there was nowhere more, and has begun never heard of before in human history thing: when our humble currency
defeated the US dollar and it fell down
whole two times, after the moment when, as a result of massive UDF demonstrations in January 1997 for
national ruination, called,
exactly for this reason (?), meetings for "national salvation", it has reached absolutely unreal prices -- inasmuch as each currency is a kind of "mint" (what the English speaking readers know quite well via their two meanings of this word) and its price depends first of all
on the confidence in it, and what confidence can one have to a country where live people who can not sleep quiet if, either not set fire to some public building or other, or at least not smash a pair of windows on it (for there were left no more monuments for "repainting")?
So that, if, therefore, we should have sold ourselves at all, then it was hardly necessary to wait until our democratic lev has shrunken, even not to cents (one hundredth of a normal monetary unit), but to have become as "millims" (one thousandth, or one
milli-German-mark -- but in Bulgarian "milinki" are a kind of small buns baked in a bunch), and only then to call the "auction", because the Money Board is just selling out of Bulgaria to wealthy Western countries, joined in international financial institutions but on the principle of
joint-stock company -- i.e. where the profit is divided according to the invested money, and it doesn't matter which exactly part of Bulgaria is already possession of USA, which of Germany, which of Canada, and so on (in the same way as when one pays rent for a flat in a multi-storey building, or buys it, he is not interested which exactly part of the elevator is his own and can he fit in it). Something more, this was such a deal for which the currency was
not paid in full, it was only
promised to be paid if there will be necessity of this, because this Board, by God, has no need for our money (neither is it a charity organization) and now it (i.e. the Western capitals which stay behind it) simply changes them, buying where finds some cheaper company, house, piece of land, et cetera.
As a result of this we are in the moment better only than Albania, but this is not clear how long will last, because since the Board has
fixed our poverty on a less than one US dollar as minimal daily payment we have not big chances to "shine" with something good (now we are not more in condition to "beat" the dollar, for example, due to the fact that this is not allowed to us, else we could have done it long ago, by these low prices -- compared with the international -- of many basic foodstuff and other products) and it happened so that at the moment
we are moving from poverty to misery, what we call democracy! It is very easy to say that the communists have taken abroad all the money and ruined Bulgaria, and "Bai Tosho" has made our debts, but if one tries to scratch a little his head it is possible to "scratch out" the thought that our external debt under the totalitarianism amounted, in fact, to approximately three average for the country salaries (about 1,000 US$ per capita, by nearly 350 US$ average salary, because then one lev was equal to one US dollar -- to 98 US cents, if we want to be more precise -- and this was
true, if we compare it with the prices on bread, milk, meat, transport, housing, etc, or with some consumer basket, how it is done), and now it has reached 25 (
twenty five) average salaries (about 2,000 US$ by average salary of 70-80 US$), or it has
grown roughly eight times for less than eight democratic years!
Not one of the many tiny private companies (where work less than 10 workers and it has less than, say, hundred thousand dollars actives) were built with democratic money and not with "totalitarian" (the other bigger companies, with the exception of left here and there state ones, are now foreign ownership). Neither the socialists wanted that we turned our backs to the single Slavonic great power (because
if Russia was not a great power, and this
according to the West, the latter had never have changed the policy of the "whip" with that of the "carrot", as the English put it). But then, if there were not the UDF, our people could have never come to the thought that we can become so poor as we are now (I have in mind Bulgarian possession, not such that is in Bulgaria but is not ours), and grasp how bad it is when "you have not a cow but want to drink milk", and are left with the only possibility to "stay and look" (according to one our proverb), so that I thankfully
genuflect before the UDF!
4. So after UDF has won,
Morality by us has gone,
because there are two things which make out of a group of people inhabiting one and the same territory a
nation and these are
uniting in two aspects:
in the space, i.e. the commonality of interests between all of them, independently of the differences on whatever parameters, the feeling that one lives not only for himself and for his personal benefits, the feeling about the
other one close to him, on whom he can rely to do some work for him, not only to deceive him being a big swindler, the consciousness of national unison (not of ownership, for example), the wish to make our country a better place to live in, not just to look at the foreign possessions (goods, social structures, habits, etc.), for they will always remain
foreign, in general, the wish to do something good in the relations between people, not bad one, not to spit on the others and contempt persons thinking otherwise (or just thinking
about the others);
and also uniting
in the time, i.e. the consciousness that the human is just a fiber in the canvas of history, that life has existed before him and will exist after him, no matter whether we will call this rebirth, afterlife, bright future, or with other names, but this will be our own future and we must learn how to live in it and
for it, it must give purpose to many "meaningless", from the point of view of the current moment, deeds and join the generations, not oppose them and divide, in short -- must create one dynamical structure, standing on the already reached, not denying it entirely (for the reason that, in his narrow-mindedness, he can not understand its meaning)!
Without such unity can't exist a nation but only some gang, herd, or flock, where each one looks just how to "fill his gizzard" or to cheat his neighbour, while the development of personality is guarantied better when it is in the interest of society, not on the contrary. And this can't be reached without some
ideals, i.e. without something
nice but unattainable, because if an ideal can be realized then this means that it is not really ideal, it ceases to be more ideal! Such are the ideals of equality (when the very God has made us different then we can
not be equal, else we could have been no humans but robots or clonings, what, however, does not mean that we should not create equal
opportunities for expression), of freedom (the absolute freedom is not only a fiction, but it is contradiction in the definition, because it hinders the others around us, so that the freedom is just one permanently changing point of equilibrium between our wishes and those of the others), of brotherhood (it is not only impossible, but also wide away from the best, because the closer are the links between given persons, the deeper are the contradiction between them), and so on. But without ideals one can not live, because, as far as he is not God, he
must have before himself goals, in order to know where to move. And at the same time the UDF has just taken our human ideals of thousand of years ago, substituting them with some, not invented, but imported from the West, notion about
democracy, which
neither is, nor can someday
become an ideal, by the simple reason that
it is reality -- in a sense that in Bulgaria we have democracy since at least 1991, and this by the acknowledgement of the
very West, for this is a matter of legal settings!
If we want to be accurate, then we have had
some kind of democracy even under the totalitarianism, but not in the contemporary meaning of this notion, although, as far as everything in the world is a matter of finding of equilibrium in every moment, we may argue a long time about the point, was it the best one for our country -- we can argue, but
not prove
, at least because we have not had the so called "control group", i.e. there were not two Bulgarias -- one really democratic, and one "totalitarianly-democratic" --, for to were able to decide where people have lived better! But we can still see (well,
if we can do this, of course), that under our democracy, at least for the moment, we live worse, and this
not because
some natural disaster has befallen us, or some other country has declared us war, or a civil war has broken (as it happened in other post-totalitarian countries), or some incapable dictator has sat for a long time on the throne (the truth is even such that not a Government has led till the end its mandate), or then, in the end, we have come to the democracy after devastating wars and national catastrophes (as it was when we have started to move to the socialism), not after prolonged period of the so called "stagnation" (i.e. peaceful and
happy development) and with quite normal foreign debt of three monthly salaries per capita.
This, that some people in Bulgaria don't like our democracy and say that it is
not yet "real" democracy, is like the crying of a small child, when his (or her) mother spanks him for some bad behaviour and he yammers that then she is not more his mother, not because she is not such but because she in not good to him, according to his understanding, and, hence, she can't be his mother for a mother is always good. But who has said that the one thing is necessary related with the other? So, and to our question: if we do not like our democracy, then this is because we can not yet find the suitable for us democratic form of governing, due to the fact that the imposed to us by the West is not good for our country as a whole (and in addition to this it is not appropriate also for the individual). In any case:
democracy we already have, but stating of this fact is not profitable for UDF, because if this is so, then
this Union is not at all necessary in our political life. All parties in Bulgaria aspire for some democratic form of governing (even if in their names the root "demo" is not explicitly present), and this, what we
now do not have more, are ideals and living goals, amalgamating us in a single unit, because we have forgotten the fable about Khan Kubrat and the bundle of sticks, have forgotten the slogan written above our National Assembly ("In the unity is the power"), have forgotten everything except how to beat our breasts and cry aloud that we are democrats!
And something more: if we take for granted that the socialism, and the fascism, and the communism, and the capitalism of past century (or the end of this 20th, if it comes about Bulgaria), and the present-day capitalism (because it, anyway, has drawn its conclusions, from the great economic crisis having begun in 1929, and from the World Wars One and Two, and from the existence of the world Socialist System and its
victory on the stage of peaceful coexistence,
despite of its disintegration as outlived its time but having
bettered the capitalism, for if it were not so the wealthy Western countries would have never lent us a hand, or would have not changed the policy of embargo and cold war, or the "whip" about which we have spoken) are all different forms of capitalism, then it was obviously very unwise to move from the pole of centralized state economy at once to the other pole -- that of the fragmented and small private property -- only to become convinced that the power is in the joining of capitals, or that it is
impossible to have capitalism without capitals, and when they are not enough (for it is not necessary to be economist in order to know that we are small, poor, and, due to its position at the crossroads of different paths, often plundered country) then the solution is only in diminishing of the number of owners! We as if have understood this (let us hope so), but after we have sold ourselves off to the foreign capital and have ruined everything what was possible to ruin, including the morality of the nation, but then: how else we
could have learned this, if there was not the UDF to make us do so many
foolish things in one go, for what I with my whole conviction
give my thanks to it!
Let remain and survive in people's memory the name and deeds (if not as good example, then at least for
edification) of UDF, JDF (Joined Democratic Forces), BDF (Bulgarian Democratic Forces, maybe?), FDF (Friendly Democratic Forces, I suppose?), and what else succeeds them! Let every evil be for good, as our folks say and (help God) we become wiser at last, because when God will punish somebody He first takes away his reason! In the end, it is well known from ancient times that there is nothing new under the Sun and the world has always moved forward because of the collision of good and evil, and then (if we wish to be just)
the evil is equally necessary for our future movement to the good, so that
let us give our thanks to UDF for this, that it teaches us what is bad and what we
must not do, if we wish to be good!
Because
the good people are not our followers, but just those
who think first about the others and then about themselves; those who are glad when the others are glad, not when they alone benefit in detriment of the others around them; those who know that life is unjust and
exactly for this reason it has to be done just; who know that right is not the stronger (he, in fact, is
not at all right, he is just strong) but the weaker, and even the stronger (when he is strong) must work for the weaker, not vice versa, and that our world is sufficiently complicated for to allow to each one to look only at himself without taking the others in consideration (then he simply does not think about his future). It does not matter whether one comes to these truths by the way of belief or by the way of judgement -- the important thing is for the person to be good! Otherwise we not only lose ourselves as nation (though with 13 century of history), but in addition to this must
again return to the socialism, yet this time as slaves of the wealthy countries! Because, want we this or not, but
the future belongs to the socialism, and the democracy is only an instrument for reaching of this goal!
The world can not ahead proceed
Ignoring doing of good deeds,
So that the UDF, its belly,
Will burst in pangs of bitter malice.**
[ ** How it also happened, it dissolved itself bit by bit, approximately about the year 2000. But, in the end, guilty are not only the leaders of UDF, guilty is the entire Bulgarian population, which has called them, raised them up, and still endures them. (The case is more or less similar with the question: why the prostituting women paint themselves so, that from a distance could be seen that they are, I beg to be excused, whores -- well, because the men like such types of women!) ]
January 1998
ABOUT THE ELECTIONS AND THE DEMOS
Every election, performed in a big group of people and by incomplete information,
is, as a rule,
unreasonable and represents itself, in fact, a
procedure for confirming of the unreasonability! Although at a first sight this sounds like a paradox the allegation is true. By many nations exist sayings in the sense that the choice is a torment, but our assertion is that in the majority of cases this tormentation is also meaningless! It is another question when one thinks to buy, say, mince meat or cheese, or to buy nothing at all, because it is cheaper so (with the current prices). Or when
a handful of people -- a Board of Directors, or some Bureau, or Commission, and so on -- chose between several candidates, because then the choice is used to average the voices, and the very commission in this case is
competent enough and has the necessary information. The more, however, the group grows, or the information becomes insufficient, the more unreasonable the choice turns out to be.
This has to be obvious, by this formulation, because the reason is something objective, something that can't be consequence of the
meanings of a group of people, and if there existed some exact procedure or consequence of actions (algorithm, if we make use of this more contemporary terminology), applying which we can get the right decision, then there is no need to conduct a choice, using which we may even miss the right decision! Said otherwise, this means that the admission of existence of reasonableness in a multi-parametric choice, under conditions that we are not clear about neither the methods of assessment of each different parameter, nor the ways for "weighing" of all parameters together, seems quite doubtful, but if this could have been evaluated, then it is
necessary this to be done. Yet if such evaluation can be performed, then our choice becomes entirely redundant, for the reason that must be applied exactly this algorithm for evaluation and not the common choice.
So for example, who can formulate exactly how long the nose of a given President must be or how high he must cock up his nose; or also what is more important: the number of his shoes or his tertiary education; as also what is preferable: that he was gynecologist, or meteorologist, or musicologist, or to be, as usually is said, man of the people, i.e. the tertiary education is of no importance? Surely, when one gathers together many people it happens averaging of the opinions, what many people wrongly accept for reasonable, but this is just an
averaging of the stupidity, and can't add more reasonability!
Together with this, but looked from another side, it turns that the choice is an
alternative variant of the lot or divination (and it doesn't matter whether on coffee grounds, or on legume beans, entrails of sacrificial animals, or in some other way) -- methods applied from deep antiquity in cases when one is not in condition to take reasonable decision, were it because one has not all necessary information, were it because one is not able to process it in the right manner. This is in sense that here and there we are confronted with unreasonable decision, but in many cases it is just necessary to take
some decision, even not quite reasonable, and, naturally, that in such cases one chooses the lesser evil or the less unreasonable decision.
This phenomenon, let us call it "
reasonable unreasonability", was marked in ancient times, for to make possible the coming to us of the fable about Buridan's ass, what animal (not what some of you might have thought), posed before two entirely equal haystacks, could not have made his choice to begin eating from the biggest one, and being, after all, an
ass and as obstinate as an ass, at the end simply died of hunger. We cite these judgements in order to convince the reader that in many cases (i.e. in the majority of everyday situations)
the reasonable consists in the unreasonable, but what are we to do -- such is our world! In other words, some "higher reasonability" ("divine" intervention, or a lot) can change some unreasonableness into its antipode, so that, generally, we are not to be much bothered by the not-reasonableness of our, or of the others, behaviour, but, still, the very ascertainment of this fact is useful.
If we now look at the general democratic elections, where
people who do not understand (i.e. they don't know the subject area, were it of the governing, were if of the jurisprudence, or economy, etc.) chose
people who they don't know (one lives with somebody a dozen of years and in the end it turns out that one does not know the other well enough, and what remains when one has never been able to ask the other one personally about something what interests him or her) and this
not requiring whatever
document for their qualification (for there is no obligatory tertiary or even college political education), then it is quite normal to agree with the above-said about the obvious unreasonability of such elections!
And in addition to everything else these elections are pretty expensive (at least for our poor country) and practically unnecessary because each more or less good sociological research (where are computed also the percentages of errors via using of several control groups) costs at least
thousand times less and can do the same work. The
higher reasonability in this case is purely psychological:
nothing "shuts the mouths" of the people so good as the opportunity to express their meanings (despite the fact that the common people are not very competent)! This was clear to the more wiser rulers already at the dawn of democracy in Ancient Greece and is stated that the it (the democracy), in fact, was introduced initially by the tyrant Pisistratos, not by the very people.
However, it must be stressed that the fact of unreasonability of the democratic elections does
not mean that they are unnecessary and have to be boycotted, or that it is necessary to leave the others to vote instead of us (because this, at least in our view, will make them even more unreasonable, for one usually does not doubt that
he alone behaves reasonable), but that one has to take them with the necessary dose (unreasonable) reasonableness. In the end, it is not so important for whom you will vote, because, anyway:
according with the demos goes the -cracy!
I would like to evolve a little my thought with the known sentence of the
Shopp (they are living around Sofia), that "the wife must be cheated, for otherwise she will go to some other to be cheated". This wisdom is valid even stronger for the politicians and the people (or for the pastor, meant as shepherd, and the flock), so that one political figure "must be able to cheat (or deceive, delude, bamboozle, etc.) the people" ("But he is surely able!" -- will say our Shopp) and here is necessary to mention that the point isn't in this are the people manipulated (if we use this contemporary, also in the Bulgarian, word), but is this done to their advantage, and, first of all, is this delusion well thought or the people find it very easy (because we all
know, reading some book or watching a film, that this isn't the actual reality but only some fiction or fable, yet this is interesting for us and we are satisfied if the fable or manipulation makes us happy).
And not only the politician, each one of us, in a democratic society has the right (well, not that also the obligation) to deceive, bamboozle or manipulate, ones neighbour (and what else is the commercial advertising, if not the next manipulation of the people?), even only in one's own interest (although this is not explicitly written in our, or in some other one, Constitution)! This may not be much reasonable, because if everybody deceives then life becomes very complicated, but it
already is such and the higher reason in this case is in this, not to stand strongly against the human nature. Anyway, instead of citing our Shopp we could have quoted the similar Latin sentence which says that:
Mundus vult decipi, or, translated in English, that "The world
wants to be deceived!".
But let us return to the elections and remind you that, as alternative of the arbitrary choice, if the situation is very complicated (and in Bulgaria it, as if very often, is such) they can be simplified with some other alternative method. For example, it is necessary to vote and you see that as the left-wing, so also the right-ones, are not capable to better the things (or as have put it our eminent compatriot
Bai Ganyu, from the novel by Aleko Konstantinov: "all are swindlers and scoundrels"), the "non-ethnic" (at least in their own view) center has not enough influence over the people, the peasants, as usual, can not live without "field boundaries" and always have not succeeded to divide something between them, and non-UDF democrats (at least according to them) do not exist, or else they don't succeed to enter the "
Talking shop" (translation of the word Parliament). So if the situation is so entangled can be proposed one quite attractive method, which, however, can turn to be very suitable for Bulgarian bipolar political model.
The recipe is as follows:
a) if you are man, and have to vote, then in the election day you stay up, wash yourself, shave, breakfast (or not -- according to your income), put your new clothes for the occasion, go out on the street and move to the premises where have to give your voice, but before to come there you look to what side you have positioned ... your "instrument" in this special day, and if it is in the left trouser leg you vote for the left-wing, else if it is in the right one -- for the right-wing (and surely the probability that it has stuck exactly in the middle is practically equal to zero);
b) if you are woman then the procedure in the beginning is the same (without the shaving, is supposed), and then you cast a look at the symbol of masculinity of your husband or lover (as it befits a woman), or choose yourself some man on the street (as it also befits a woman) and vote in accordance with what you find to be the case. Who knows whether in this procedure some "higher" reason is not hidden?
If this method does not suit you then you can apply one rule known, possibly, since Roman times, which we will call for shortness the "rule of the husband"
*. It is based on the method of
elimination and is the following: if you are married husband and have to make some important choice, which you can't do alone, then you ask your wife and act as possibly
on the contrary to this, what she has advised you; if you are man but unmarried -- use your girl friend or neighbour woman for the purpose; and if you are woman then just make the opposite of what you have
thought to do (as it also often happens with the women). It is surprisingly how good results this method can give in a wide number of cases.
[ * The algorithms of choice are elaborated in more details in the feuilleton "Are you ready for the elections?". ]
October 1996
MYTHS ABOUT DEMOCRACY
The millennial human history has proved many times that when people have not enough knowledge about some phenomenon they begin to invent all sorts of delusions, beliefs, or myths, for to complete with them the motivation for their actions. Some of them are useful because they provide easy explanation of complex facts, or also harmless, or bring some satisfaction and momentary happiness, like for example: the fairy tales about evil witches and wizards, which make children to be obedient; the myth about Santa Clause, who brings them presents; crossing oneself or knocking on wood, for to drive the devil away; the belief in afterlife, where will be recompensed all injustices on this world; the righteous God, who does everything out of love to us, although this seems doubtful; the notion that the Earth is center of the Universe and even the Sun rotates around it (more so because each one sees this with his own eyes); and others.
But there exist also such myths which are definitely harmful for the humans, at least by prolonged use, and their harm is revealed fast and causes turbulent reaction, as, for example: the fables about the blue blood of aristocrats, by which they differ from the common people; or bloodletting as healing method used for sufficiently long time so that to undermine people's faith in the abilities of medicine; or the narcotic intoxication as way for reaching of happiness; or the chaos as the best regulator in nature and society; and so on. With the time many of harmless myths became dangerous, or are rejected by the people with accumulation of more knowledge.
Similar is the case with the
democratic myths, which, little by little, begin to be recognized and to confuse us, and many people now ask themselves the question: is the democracy really a good thing, when one thing is what is hammered in our heads by politicians and media, and quite another one what happens in practice. For this reason it seems correct to reveal some of these delusions in order to reach to their core, because the knowledge is
not at all
obliged to contradict to the belief (as many people naively think), in the similar way as a child, after becoming 5-6 years old, stops to believe in the tales about Santa Clause, but this does not hinder him (or her) to listen to them with joy; or how under the totalitarianism all liked to use, in the right place or not, the phrase about the "deserves of Party and Government", although they were surely convinced that if somebody has lifted the barbells higher then this has happened not because the Central Committee has strained together with him; or also all like the coloured eggs and Easter cakes, but this does not necessary mean that they believe in the immaculate conception of Virgin Mary or in the resurrection of Christ (all the more because there are no exact data proving his existence); or to add also that one will not stop playing lottery after he finds out that with the bigger sums he plays the more sure he will lose the half of his money (or even more than two thirds of them -- it depends on the regulations of totalizator); and other examples. In other words, the
wish to defend the democracy forces us to throw light on the myths about it, not the desire to humiliate it (though by perfunctory reading one can get such notion), or rather the conviction that earlier revealing of some misconceptions could make us look more favorable at them, while their belated realization may lead to more stormy reactions.
One part of these myths are "necessarily inherent" (as the economists say of some kind of expenses) to the very real democracy and in this case they are widely spread also on the West, while some others are born on local ground and show their intoxicating effect only on Bulgarians and some other nations from the former Socialist Bloc, but no one of them is entirely innocuous for the common person for to be neglected. Without pretensions on particular exactitude and completeness of presentation we will choose the beloved by Christians number of twelve. So that, let us begin.
1. The democracy is ruling of the people
Maybe the widespread mass delusion, even on the West, is that the democracy is ruling of the people, but it is just ruling of the
politicians, or of persons
chosen by the people. If it were ruling of the population we should have had situation similar with that by the choice of court assessors in United States, for example, who are chosen amidst the common people, and by this is looked that they
were not acquaintances or related in whatever way with the given lawsuit, in order to be maximally impartial. This means that if in Bulgaria the voters with tertiary education are, say, 15%, then as many percents must be they also in the National Assembly (our Parliament); if the part of voters in the interval of 18 to 40 years are, for example, 30%, as much must be also the Members of Parliament in that age limits; if 20% of the electors by us are of Gypsy origin, then the same must be the percentage also in the highest democratic institution; and so on. In other words, the
Parliament must be representative sample of all the voters, but such thing neither existed somewhere, no somebody thinks to implement it!
But even if we reject such extremities then there are no problems to ask the people about nearly
everything via some kind of phone cards (like those for phones, or for ATM machines for taking money from an account), where everybody wishing to express his /her meaning must be in position to do this within a month by simple choosing of one out of 5-6 alternatives. This is easy to be done and would have been a real ruling of the population -- about the question of prices on bread and milk, for example, and about the legalization of prostitution, and about the fight with criminality, and pro (or contra) the Money Board in Bulgaria, and about what only not. Yeah, but, again, nobody even
thinks to do this, because such questions must be thought profoundly, not like by a gathering in the pub.
2. The democratic choice is the right method
If we give some thought to the method of choosing we will come to the conclusion that it characterizes with this that:
people who do not understand (i.e. they don't know the subject area of government and management, as it's said now)
choose persons who they do not know (i.e. they have no personal or professional contacts with them), and by this they
do not require whatever documents for their professional qualification and length of service (i.e. there is no higher, or even secondary, specialized education for politicians, there are even no age restrictions, as some relative guaranty for live experience)!
Something more,
this method is not applied anywhere else, where are chosen persons capable to do a given work, like for example: by appointing at some post in a given company, in the sphere of education, healthcare, army and police, and so on. Not out of theoretical considerations, but out of practical experience is clear that the persons chosen by such incompetent way will not be able to perform the necessary work,
but in spite of this
the method in question
does the work, as the millennial human history shows it! There are only two variants when persons chosen in this way can do the work for which they were chosen, and they are:
a) they alone do not do the work (or at least its most difficult part) but some of their assistants; and
b) everybody other alternative candidate
could have done the same work (as they also do it, when their turn comes). Such trivial and uninteresting solution, which is always present and makes the procedure of choice meaningless, is called in mathematics "
zero solution" -- it
is a solution, but is not at all necessary to be the best one. The democratic choice, of course, has also its advantages -- psychological, and a possibility for easy change of the rulers -- but this is
not a correct
method of choice of suitable persons, no matter that this myth is widespread in the Western democracies.
3. It is chosen the best party or politician
This is the next widely spread on the West myth, despite the fact that there are no reasons for such conviction but rather on the contrary -- the democracy
is based on the presumption of
impossibility for existing of best party or politician, because if such party has existed, then after its choice every other choice becomes absolutely redundant or formal (as it, really, was under the totalitarianism)! Even if it is possible to choose a good leader or party in the
moment, then, as it is well known, every power corrupts the person (due to the worsening of his feedback with the society, which is necessary for correction of his behaviour), so that his change, or his moving in opposition, is
obligatory for his preservation as normal, i.e. averaged individual with adequate reactions. Besides, by the democratic choice in the Parliament are represented, together with those of the "good" party or coalition, also those of the "bad" parties that build the opposition, but both MPs receive
equal salaries and bear
equal responsibility in the governing (or at least it must be so), and in the same time there is no other choice where the losers are rewarded on a par with the winners. This is done in interest of the discussions (in which the truth is born) and for this reason the opposition is necessary by the democracy, but there is no point to consider that one party is better than the other -- just they all perform
different functions, but are equally important!
4. This is a good form of governing
Another widespread myth is the statement that the democracy is a good form of governing, while in reality it is good predominantly by performing of some
change in governing,
not in the very governing! The multiplicity of views, although they lead to finding of the truth in various questions, most frequently confuse and slow the taking of necessary decisions, what is expressed in this, that
the democracy is quite
inefficient form of governing. When is necessary to act it is in such extent bad, in which it is good when it is necessary to discuss and tackle the question; the taking of decisions in presence of opposition and their bringing to fulfillment is much slower and more difficult than in conditions of autocracy. This must be well known and obvious, but it isn't so, for which reason the people often want from the democracy things that it is
not in condition to offer them, due to its nature.
For better illustration of the dynamics of functioning of democracy is useful to apply the simile of this movement of the parties in the time with the common
children seesaws of the kind of a beam fixed in the middle on some a bit elevated place, where on both ends stay both wings of the Parliament, and if there exists a center, then it stays in the middle and puts pressure to one and then to the other side. This party, which at the moment is on top, has risen there
not because it is the best, but because
the other one is worse or has "fallen in the mud", so that the ruling party has to be just grateful to the opposition for rising it to that high level! This is very important to remember and understand, as by the politicians also by the population, for the overused boasting can bring nothing else except self-obliviousness, while the goal of democratic government is this oscillation never to cease.
5. Under the democracy exists freedom of the media
The existence of free media under democracy is the next bluff for the population, because the majority of them are financed by the big business and in this case they work according to the imposed to them strategy, which is reduced chiefly to maximal gain (what not at all means maximal information and impartiality, although in some cases such exceptions can happen), and the left ones serve the ruling institutions, were it because of their official duties, were it out of :sympathy" to the strong of the day. Following the example of the West now also by us in each decent organization exist the so called public relations services, and the media are, in fact, such services but at a national level. We can argue for a long time on the question of their objectivity in presenting of the information, but the truth is that
their existence is necessary in order to bring to the masses some complicated political decisions in such way that they will not provoke stormy reactions in the people, what means that concealment, silence, or whatever other milder form of lie you choose, are
allowed and recommended for them!
The classic simile in the case is with the good physician who does not tell the patient all truth, if this can worsen his health condition. So or otherwise, but
the media are not free, and can not be such at least for economic reasons, and, moreover, they are just
obliged to fulfill many propagandistic functions (to a great extent similar to the situation under the totalitarianism!). Like we this or not, is another question, but for the moment this is the best solution, which is used all around the world, where some degree of objectivity is obtained on the basis of
partiality of different media, which, providing for different layers of population, offer them what the audience
wants to find in them -- this is not necessarily the truth, but at least a
pleasant way to it. The solution, naturally, is trivial (but for that reason hardly achievable) and it is in this, that the
people show that they can listen to the truth, not to the political manipulations of this or other party.
6. Democracy means market economy
This myth is as if more spread by us than on the West, but this is explained with the fact, that in the Western democracies people have not had the possibility to live under some planned economy and because of this they don't know that it can also be bad, and see only the drawbacks of market one by them. But anyway, this is a big delusion, at least because some form of market has existed even since the times of Babylon and, hence,
has nothing to do with the democracy as political form of ruling! But even the statement that the market is better than the planned production is sheer delusion, because
it can be advantageous only for those,
who can show influence on it, i.e. for the
big producers or buyers, while for the "small fry" it is entirely unjust form of exchange of goods.
If we look at the
small buyer, for whom the market is, generally speaking, something good, then this is basically an illusion, because under a good planning can be had on the market the same products and for the same prices (as it also happens in reality on the West, because at least two thirds of the goods in a given branch of industry are work of the big producers, who can not do without advance planning and without some agreements between them, and the smaller producers are just orienting by the bigger). It can even be said that, whatever thing one has bought, if he will later check well the prices, he will find that he was doubtlessly cheated, because could have bought the same thing cheaper, if has searched longer, or could have found something better for the same money, so that in all cases he can regret his purchase.
As to the
smaller producers, then they have long ago marked that the market is inclined extremely unfriendly to them (a thing that by us will be only now realized), because when they decide to produce something what is not offered in abundance on the market, and while they collect the necessary money and organize the production and bring the thing to the market, then there is already teeming with that product, for the reason that, quire naturally, the big business has outstripped them (due to the abilities for better planning by highly qualified persons) and offers it cheaper (for the large-scale production has its unavoidable advantages). Not that there are not exceptions of this rule, but they are of the order of a pair of percents by well-saturated market economy, to which we aim. To avoid this the producers unite in some cooperatives, in order to become larger and have some influence over the market, or else work for bigger intermediaries, that establish in advance fixed prices for buying of their production, so that is turns out that the market for them
ceases to exist. This is extremely clear, and the myth about the advantages of market economy is propagated by the big business, because the later always becomes winner in this unequal fight. In the particular case of currency market we, after long debates, have accepted that, at least for the moment, it is not a good thing and have introduced Currency Board, which is a kind of centralized regulating of the prices with preservation only of some
semblance of a market.
7. The capable always succeeds
This myth, similarly, is supported by the stronger in society, and under the capitalism -- by the wealthy, because here the power is in the capitals (what is clear for the English speaking by the different meanings of this very word). It is refuted elementary by the method of assumption to the contrary, namely: if we take for true that the able always succeeds (to multiply his money, for this is the classical understanding of success under the capitalism) then the wealthy one will soon find out about this capable person and will hire him to work
for him and multiply his money, but as far as they are much more by the wealthier than by the just able one, then if will happen that the succeeded will be exactly the wealthier, not the able one, what contradicts to our assumption. There will be no contradiction if we go out from the statement that succeeds the wealthy one (or the feudal ruler -- under the feudalism, or the nomenclature -- in a totalitarian state, etc.), what corresponds entirely with the truth. Besides, this myth again has nothing to do with the democracy as form of political ruling.
8. Paying for the things is expression of the freedom of citizens
This myth is in a great degree masked and is not expressed exactly in this way, but is implied this
meaning, stating that under the democracy one can pay for to receive, for example, a better education (where this was impossible earlier by us), or better health care (which earlier by us received only high party cadres), or some other advantages, what is indication for the freedom of personality. This, of course, is expression
not of freedom but of
dependence, where
in the world of capitals the only dependence is this of the money, but this delusion is popularized on the West, because it is useful for the wealthy layers of population, and, for example, in England, the private schools are called "public", while they are not at all for the wide public but for that (limited) number of parent, who can afford to pay such money for their children, and the so called Open University (now also in Bulgaria) is not at all open for everybody who has the needed knowledge to enter into it, but
only against payment!
The bad thing by us, however, is that, because of our, frankly speaking, high misery, these things do not stay as a matter of taste or of choice (say, to buy oneself ice-cream on the street, or to drink a beer) but become vital problems. In our naivety we think that for payment one may get something better, while in the same time even in one very wealthy country like United States hardly more than ten percents of the students (or their parents) pay
really for their education, no matter that it is entirely to be paid! The things are regulated with the use of various sponsors during the education -- be it of private funds, be it of big companies, be it the War Ministry, or state scholarships -- where after the end of educational degree the specialists must work for some years for that company with which they have signed the contract, i.e. the well known from our totalitarian past system of distributing to places. These, who alone pay for themselves, i.e.
buy their education, are predominantly in the area of management, what is quite logical, for if some parent has a good business then he can take care to give a good diploma to his children, even if they are lazy enough to learn. The freedom in the Western countries in this respect means
freedom in the moment of giving the service -- as health care so also educational -- and this is the really important moment, not compulsory payment without well devised system for its compensation (as it is nowadays in Bulgaria). And again, this has nothing to do with the political democratic system, but with the social measures in the society.
9. Democracy and socialism are incompatible
This myth is generated on local grounds (or in some other ex-communist country), because, as we have stated this many times, the democratic organization of political power has nothing to do with the social settings in the society, and there, where it has something to do, this is in sense of strengthening of the social programs of each self-respecting party in the countries with Western democracy. Even if we make a brief survey of some classical democracies we can establish that in the half of the countries at least one of the first three most popular parties contains explicitly in its name the word "socialism" (or work, labour, social, etc.), and in the other half this is presupposed via defending of massive social programs, not for other reasons, but because in highly developed countries this becomes
easy to be implemented and is the best way to attract more voters! So that the truth about
Western democracies is such, that they
not only do not exclude socialism, but presume it in some degree (though they don't use this name because the former Socialist Bloc has frightened them using this word), and there are no reasons to stay apart of the world tendencies only because our socialism was not wholly democratic.
10. The democracy is good for the state
It must be obvious that the democratic form of ruling is good first of all for its possibility for individual development and personal expression of its citizens, not from the point of view of the security in the state! One can find many examples of this, beginning in Ancient Greece, and also during the twentieth century, when some danger for the given country has arisen, always was established some strong centralized and militarized governing, which, even if it has preserved certain
appearance of democracy, was not exactly this, or at least was not more democratic than the well known to us democratic centralism, which exactly for this purpose was invented in its time, because the wealthy Western countries have not yet changed the policy of "stick" with that of the "carrot", as the English say.
The democracy by its nature
is disuniting force, on the contrary to the dictatorship, what is pretty clear to the politicians, and that is why always is secured some legal form for entering of martial law in case of necessity. In Bulgaria the transition to democracy has begun only then, when all possible dangers for the countries of the former Socialist Bloc were lifted, i.e. then, when the totalitarian governing has became inadequate to the international conditions.
11. The people alone have overthrown the dictatorship
This myth has arisen also on local ground and its refutation is reduced to the so called
contradictio in adjecto, or contradiction in the definition, because if the dictatorship is really strong centralized force, which does not allow any intervention from below, then it could not have been so easily and bloodless overturned from below! What means that, either the totalitarian ruling in the last years has not been real dictatorship (what practically corresponds to the truth), or it has been overturned from below for the reason that it
alone "has wanted" to be changed (what is even more true, for the not unknown "Gorby" has conducted for whole five years the "artillery preparation", so to say, for this purpose, through his
glasnost and perestroika, which, as you see, are written exactly so in English like in Russian). The truth is such, that the totalitarianism was overthrown because at the reduced international danger, which always has been mobilizing factor for the existence of totalitarian state and commonwealth, and under the increased property conditions in the countries of former Socialist Bloc, was created opportunity for internal tensions and struggles among the nomenclature, which has begun to search new possibilities for individual expression and enrichment (a question which has been discussed already in ancient times by Platon), as well also for recognition in the Western world.
This, that the things have not happened fully by the communist script, must not lead us to confusion, that the former nomenclature has lost remarkably much in the result of this transition;
those, who have lost most of all, naturally,
are the common people as a whole, because for them was left to blow at the fire and "burn their eyebrows", while the spark was lighted by the very nomenclature. But if somebody especially insists to imagine, that the meetings and tents have been the real reason for overthrowing of the totalitarianism, then nobody hinders him (or her) in this, although the right way to look at the things is that the nomenclature has objected only pro forma, for to give more pleasure to the masses of population (in the manner of some young girl, which does not yield to the persuasions of a certain man, whom she, anyway, likes), and also because of the understanding of the necessity for some counteraction, in order not to happen so (how
exactly happened) that, as is said, "instead of to paint the brows to gouge out the eyes".
12. The transition to democracy is a good thing
This myth, up to some extent, is only a quibble, but the truth is that
the transitional period is, as a rule,
worse than any of the final states, where in this sense our situation today is still worse than it was under our ruler "Bai Tosho", and it is not at all clear will we be able to stabilize in the near future at the new level. When the transition occurs unreasonably (and the situation by us was exactly such), it runs chaotic and on a bigger social price. The situation would have been entirely different if before introducing of the market prices we have found some way for providing of the population with basic foodstuffs; or before we have begun to give the land back to its owners we have decided how to keep the old level of production of agriculture; or before introducing of private practitioners in the healthcare we have resolved the question with preserving of health in similar way to that how it is solved in West-European countries; or before legalization of paid education we have fixed the question with the payment of expenses for it; or before the restitution we have distributed some part of national property to
every citizen; or before the crash of our lev we have taken some serious measures for its fixing; and so on -- in short: if before to demolish our old home we have tried to build the new one (or at least some part of it), or, as the English say, have not put "the cart before the horse". But how could have we done this when the democratic intoxication has muddled our brains? This condition still continues and the listed till here myths are still spread among the population, turning the "inebriation of certain nation" (as our writer Ivan Vasov has put it) in chronic alcoholism or, if you will to sound more scientific, in
delirium democraticus.
And, generally said, it is long ago time to understand that
the democracy is not panacea for the society, and as form of ruling it is
not at all
ideal,
but it
is lively and can be incessantly bettered by the population, what namely makes it adaptive and stable for a long period of time. Only the setting of democracy via laws means still nothing, and what character it will have depends on our politicians, or, in the end, on our people.
The democracy is not solution of our problems but only an environment for their solving! If we continue to be consoled with myths about it we will get to nowhere, when de facto it turns out that our living standard is still significantly lower than in the last totalitarian years. And this having in mind that we have absolutely no excuses for our current-day condition because: neither some foreign enemy has attacked us, nor God has sent on us some plague or disaster, as they say, nor also we have fallen in some civil war, like this has happened with some of the others ex-communist countries, nor some politician (or party) has so firmly clutched at his desk that even with a cannon ball he was not to be moved aside, but rather on the contrary! And also not that we have not enough examples of other countries where this transition proceeds easier and more painless. There exist, unquestionably, certain objective economic reasons, as also some national specifics of our "Balkan" democracy, but the less myths we use, and the more common sense ant patriotism we show, the better the things must go. Or at least this is how they look to the author.
August 1998
REQUIEM FOR ONE COALITION
When somebody decides to build a new home, or to demolish the old, he usually calls his friends (and followers) and makes a
coalition, scientifically speaking. After building the house, or, respectively, demolishing it, he may drink his drink with these friends, or make new coalition (for building or destroying, say, of a summer cottage), but the old coalition, in any case, does no longer exist. It has been so from tines immemorial, it is so now, and it will be the same in the future! Otherwise, coalition that stays too long monolithic, begins to be like an irritable old man, for whom all pray to God to take him faster to the other world (how it really was with our well known Fatherland Front in the recent Bulgarian past).
In other words,
the only evolvement, which some coalition can endure, is to
its disintegration! Like we this or not, it doesn't matter, for such is the life! And the only things that can be said about somebody who leaves the life are good words. So that let us forget the bad and recall us only the good about our not unknown coalition called UDF (Union of Democratic Forces), because it has done many good things for Bulgaria.
The first thing, about which we have to thank the UDF, is that it has
helped the troubled and inflexible BCP (Bulgarian Communist Party) from the times of our "Bai Tosho" to change to a modern left-wing party, what without help from outside was very difficult and almost beyond the power of BCP. The main advantage of multi-party system is this, that it does not soften the critic of opposition, and UDF was strong and young opposition: so strong for to be able to take the power, and so young for
... not to be able to keep it! Exactly such uncompromising opposition was necessary for BCP in order to reform it in the initial moment.
Further, we must express our gratitude to the UDF for this that
it, really,
was a coalition, and in this case it has begun very rapidly (even
before its coming to power) to disintegrate. It now also does not want to become a party and continues to disintegrate, freeing in this way quite painlessly Bulgaria from the useless bipolar model, leaving only one pole and a group of modern young opposition parties for its balancing! UDF is a modern opposition, more then this, it is the
eternal opposition to all left-wing parties, no matter is this good or bad for the country in the given moment, and in the same time it is sufficiently weak for to change something, what is pretty good. In this sense UDF is
the ideal opposition and, when in a near future it will fall down to roughly 15% of the seats in the Parliament, it might become necessary to take some measures for its preservation and conservation for the future!
On the third place, but this is as if the most important issue, we must thank the UDF for this, that it has helped to a big number of people to
perceive the benefits of left-wing idea and understand that the socialism, really, is the only future of the mankind! Yet not socialism of fascist or communist type, but exactly
social-democratic socialism as the best, at least for the moment, variant of compromise between the immoral capitalism and the utopian communism. This ripening of Bulgarian people could have been reached in two ways: either allowing mass emigration, which after a time will unavoidably show to the emigrated that Bulgarian proverb "you have a cow -- you drink milk, you haven't one -- you only look" is not justified for Bulgarian nation (as it isn't justified also for many wealthier nations in the world); or trying to built in
our country the rough capitalism from the beginning of 20th century, in order to allow the whole nation in shorten terms to become convinced in this. Our UDF has done
even both this things! In this sense UDF providently has "dug its own grave", where, however, it will take its
honourable place in political life.
And
finally, UDF has given the main push for establishing of
multi-party system and democracy in Bulgaria, conditions which best of all show the
advantages of the real socialism, reached in many Western countries! No other political power except UDF has had the necessary influence to show that
only ideas (say, about democracy, multi-party system, lawfulness, freedom, etc.)
are not enough, due to what is often said that the way to hell is strewn with good intentions! Anyway, in addition to the good ideas is necessary also a good party which can achieve this, else it happens that the freedom, for example, is expressed mainly in freedom of pornography and criminality. In other words, the awareness of the need of freedom, as
balanced middle point, has become possible only owing to the bad example of realization of (otherwise good) blue idea.
So that let us take the hats down and bow our heads before the heroism and self-sacrifice of the UFD, sirs and comrades. Amen!
1996 ?
P.S. As every politically engaged work this material also is unavoidably prejudiced, but in broad outlines it is true and indicative for this, that each coin has its two sides. The mentioned tendencies continue to exist. But there is one peculiar moment for the thoughtful people (though the whole population isn't such), namely: even though the people from UDF are idealists, they have
no idea, because nobody does deny now the principles of democracy (only their particular realization), nor the inflexibility (not to say the ossification) of old communists, et cetera, so that when the novelty of their movement passes away even the "green" young enthusiasts already begin to abandon them.
Surely, it can be raised also the dual question, especially after the flowed time of the red Zhan Videnov, but the truth in his case is such, that he tried, as far as this was possible, to restrain the devaluation of our lev with
our own means, and up to significant extent he succeeded, because all, who have had some money in the gone bankrupt (or, rather,
made bankrupt) banks, have received their money, and if there were not the winter marches of the supporters of UDF we could have done without the
untimely introduced currency Board. Well, it is true that (under the influence of UDF) also the BSP (Bulgarian Socialist Party, the former communists) have not succeeded to find the decent average age for its politicians, because "Zhancho" was simply Komsomolets. And also other, as we say, "wooden chips for cutting". But there are already enough requiems for BCP (resp. BSP), so that this is not interesting topic. Instead of this the author has something like apologetics of the communism as a new
atheistic religion, but this is in a separate booklet.
Anyway, if one begins to comment all his earlier thoughts there will be no end of this, so that it is time to stop here.
2001
SOMETHING MORE ABOUT DEMOCRACY
The democracy is the
maximally ineffective form of ruling and this must have been clear to everybody who has asked himself this question, while on the other pole -- the most effective ruling -- obviously, stays the autocracy. As much as we do not want to accept such view this was known from deep antiquity, and this is the most important reason for existing of all: tyrannies, despotic rulings, absolute monarchies, and various forms of dictatorship (where the question is not, excuses them the author or not, but why they have existed and still exist).
This, that the democracy is the most ineffective form of ruling of some state, naturally, does
not mean
that it is a bad form, because every event must correspond with its time and place, and must be applied in the
necessary extent! Otherwise all looks pretty naive and childish. For if the democracy was the best possible thing in the world and if it has had
no drawbacks at all, then for 25 centuries since its instituting in Ancient Greece (by the tyrant Pisistratos, as the historians say) there would have been today not a single state where it were not the single and unquestionable form of ruling, because people, even if they are uneducated, never forget to look after their interest.
If we take a more precise look at the contemporary democracies we will see that in them exist
elements both, of democracy (Parliament, or
Talking Shop in translation), as well as of dictatorship (Monarch or President). Exactly these dictatorial elements in the democracy allow the contemporary democracies to exist for several centuries and be not mutually exclusive neither with the strong institute of Presidency, nor with the Monarchy. While at the same time in Ancient Greece, at the dawn of democracy, there have simply alternated 5-10 years of democratic ruling with a similar if not longer period of tyranny. In other words,
the subtlety is in the compromise between these two extremities. And if a person or a nation can't find the necessary level of compromise, then this level ...
again is met, only
in the time, i.e. via fluttering between both ends!
The history of every nation, in one or another extent, shows that authoritarian ruling was set only then, when the nation was confronted with some serious danger, were this foreign enemies, were it internal disorders, were it natural disasters, and in the expiring century because of global economic problems endangering the nation -- in brief: then, when was necessary that the nation was united and pursued some
vital goal. And then
when there is no such
main goal, or, put it otherwise, when the main goal is just
to live well,
then was established some form of
democracy, or at least of more liberal ruling. Exactly in such cases the democracy was and remains preferred, because together with more freedoms for the personality it provides more amusements for the people.
It is so not only in Bulgaria today, it is so in every other democratic country where each new elections give the people new chances the make various bets about politicians, in the same way as with the horse races. In the end, it is known long ago that, as the English say, people want bread and circuses (what we translate in Bulgarian not quite correct, according to the author, as "bread and entertainment"). And when the people want their "circuses" then why not give them to the people? Yeah, but when the bread is guarantied.
"But the bread is scarce, the bread is not enough, children", as has said our poet Nikola Vaptsarov in a time not much different from this very moment. And when there is not enough bread for everybody then emerges an important goal
to survive, keeping the standard of life from at least the times of our "uncle Tosho", no matter that it was significantly lower than that in the "normal" democracies. And when an important goal exists then the people can't endure this ineffective form of ruling. The Western Parliaments can allow themselves to discuss questions like, say, this: should homosexuals be allowed to conclude marriage contracts or not, but by us such debates are not necessary (not because we have no homosexuals, of course). Speaking more clearly: in heavy for the nation moments must be strengthened dictatorial elements in the ruling.
This can be achieved legally: either by choosing Parliament and President of one colour (in these elections we have not agreed to go entirely to the left, but, as the UDF like to say, the future time is ours, so that it may happen that relatively soon we will move completely to the right), or else strengthening the Presidential power (a thing that we always can, and possibly must, do, although this requires changes in the Constitution).
Some of the Western commentators state that we are the first of ex-communist countries having finished the first oscillatory motion and having gone to the second period (i.e. they take for true that we are moving like
damped pendulum, what is a model quite near to the reality, though in Bulgaria this thesis is not received with special enthusiasm, either by the politicians, or by the people, but maybe from a distance one sees better), only that very fast movement happens to be characteristic for bigger lability of the system
* (put in technical language), or for
hopelessness of the situation (put in common language).
[ * This point is elaborated good by the author in the paper "About the turn to the left (or pulse political science)". ]
Our
Shopp (from around the capital Sofia) has one clever thought, namely: "what must be done, it begs to be done". I don't want to be a prophet, but if we do not succeed to reach some stable, united ruling in the critical moment, in which we are now (no matter whether we will call it crisis of catastrophe), then ... well, we will again reach this, but in some more
turbulent way. And as far as
according with the demos goes the -cracy, then only we alone will be guilty in this process!
Nov. 1996
CONVERGENCE, WHAT IS THIS?*
(or about the difference between social capitalism and capitalistic socialism)
[ * It was published almost without changes on page 8 of the newspaper "Kontinent" from 16 Nov 1998. ]
In literal translation the term "convergence" means joining of two tendencies in one, or two ways in one -- something like the joining of two parallel lines in the infinity. The theory of convergence of capitalism to the socialism was very acclaimed about 20, and even more, years back, but at that time the communists very resolutely denied it as reactionary. It isn't that one can't understand them, because then one of the fundamental assertions of Marxism-Leninism was the thesis that the socialism is a qualitatively new
step in the evolution of society, and if so a new step has no rights to merge sometime with the previous one, for it will become then that there are no steps at all in this social staircase and, what is even worse, that the socialism can begin at the end to slide down to the capitalism.
From the height of the passed almost 10 years from the transition to democracy it is obvious that our socialism definitely has slid down to the capitalism. And there is an easy explanation of this, because the socialism, or communism (like also fascism), are just variations of capitalistic form of economic organization of society and, no matter that there exist differences, they are not exactly new steps but rather sides (more or less left) of one and the same step. Now this causes no doubts in anyone, but it is, still, necessary to focus on some points of this convergence, which in each of the former communist countries proceeds in different way.
The first peculiarity that strikes the eye is the nearly instantaneous speed of our convergence to the West, so that we
have simply stuck to the capitalism,
and so strongly, that the developed capitalist countries now just wonder how to get rid of us! There have passed only 4-5 years from the time of demolishing of Berlin Wall and it has already become necessary to raise the Schengen one, which, although not made of bricks or concrete, is not less strong than the former. What means that now is imposed to us the question: whom mostly has the Berlin Wall protected -- the East from the West, or vice versa? Similar was the situation also with the "mass swimming across" the Adriatic, and with the "Regattas" Cuba - Miami Beach. From a formal standpoint this is not pure convergence but a
degenerated form, in which the one straight line has just broken towards the other. Something of the kind could have been expected due to the more powerful "gravitation" of developed Western economies, but the real extent surpassed the forecasts of the very West.
Another characteristic moment, especially for our country, is the
returning back in the time
to the period of rough or green capitalism from the beginning of the century. It is true that for the existing of capitalism are needed capitals, i.e. much money in few hands, and as far as nobody wanted to give his (or her) totalitarian savings (for they, however unseriously small, but were the only savings by us), then the "more capable" were forced to take them away from the others, once in legal, once in illegal ways. It is true also that one can't build a new home without destroying the old one, only that we lived pretty long time "in tents". It is entirely clear, at least from the examples of some of the other "former" or ex- socialist countries, that we could have converged a bit more smoothly and not going back in the time -- as in regard of our standard of life, so also in the sense of moral values, which we had earlier -- but we out of strong "partisan" predilections, stubbornness, unjustified pride, fraudulence, and so on, have not done this. Not that we have not heard that the capitalism is like a medlar and while green is not to be eaten, but we apparently had little brains, from what follows that now we have to have strong backs, else we shall see no advantages.
Our degenerated convergence, however, does not mean that the West has stayed with arms crossed during the existence of former Socialist Bloc. While our nearing to the West was impeded by our totalitarian governing in the developed capitalist countries there were no obstacles for
gradual convergence to the socialist ideas.
And the West has converged, only more smoothly and moderately, what means reasonably! For what are the various social-democratic Western flows during the last at least half a century if not attempts (and quite successful) for creating of one more humane and socially rightful capitalism? What else if not deliberate convergence, i.e. borrowing of the positive and avoiding of the negative of the real socialism? Each self-respecting Western country has some pension, healthcare or for labour accidents insurance, as also accessible by all, i.e. free of charge in the moment of receiving it, education, while in the past century it was not at all so.
It can't be that the major part of the readers have not heard the phrase that
the main gain from the communism was that it has made the capitalism better,
only that many of those who have heard it still take it for an extravagant declaration, while it is the naked truth, in a global historical perspective! Because the real socialism, anyway, was one global experiment for this how to cope with the shortcomings of capitalism. This, that it turned not to be very fortunate, does not mean that it has not produced results. And in addition, one should not ignore the local economic and social peculiarities and think that if in United States, for example, there was no socialism, then it was unnecessary also in Russia, because the tsarist Russia was very backward in almost every respect country. When the Reds stormed the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, in United States were nearly 100-storey skyscrapers and the conveyor of Ford has throwing out cars in ceaseless stream, in France loomed the Eiffel Tower, In Germany was long ago built the Cologne Cathedral, in Czech Republic the castle of Hradcany, and so on.
And one should also not forget that the "ghost of communism" has emerged for the first time not at all in Russia, but has succeeded to get around the entire globe and has remained there, where in that time were good living conditions for it. But it affects all countries and causes unavoidable convergence of all kinds of capitalism to one more humane and contemporary social order with stronger social elements in it. Yet will we call it social capitalism, or capitalistic socialism, or just capitalism, or in some other way, is not quite substantial. This ghost is now traveling somewhere in the Third World countries, but it has not entirely disappeared, for the simple reason that the ideas about socially just society exist since Ancient Greece, from the times of Platon, or they coincide with the dawn of democracy.
Interesting for mentioning is the fact that while
the residents of Western countries are convinced that the capitalism in not a good order,
and exactly because of this they incessantly try to better it and make it more up-to-date, we behave on the contrary and think that now we have reached the paradise on the Earth. That is the reason why our capitalism will for a long time remain green! Maybe this is consequence of our totalitarian past, to think that this, what we are doing, is the best, but we have pretty fast forgotten that the capitalism is always accompanied by series of crises and needs precise centralized regulation in order to work properly. It is inadmissible to forget about the world economic crisis of 1929, which has prolonged itself for such a big time that has resulted later in the World War II, yet we as if have forgotten this. We have forgotten even the quite recent crisis, which has begun in the beginning of 80ies, but which, at any rate, has added the last touch to the atmosphere of disarmament between the East and the West, forcing the developed countries at last to change the
policy of stick with that of carrot (from your "stick and carrot approach"). The collapse of socialist system has solved for a time this crisis, because there emerged new markets for the Western, not only new but also outdated for them, or second hand, goods. But we are already witnesses of several crises in the Far East, of unsolved problems in the ex-communist countries, led by Russia, know also our own problems, so that it is high time to come to the Western view that the capitalism is a bad order, but there is not known a better one (or said in the reversed direction).
The recognition of the real situation could have helped us to find also a cure for it. Otherwise we are left with nothing else than to think that the democracy is to be blamed for our accursed situation. What isn't entirely true, because
the democracy is one contemporary tool for reaching of the goal,
but will we use it correctly depends on our entire population. Denying the natural processes of convergence between the capitalism and the socialism, what in our case means denying of all our achievements from the period of socialism, and rushing headlong to the green capitalism with paid education and healthcare and myths about fast and easy enrichment, can bring us nothing but troubles for the country!
It is hard to find a western country in which at least one of the three leading parties were not pro-socialist, or at the least had not a properly developed social platform. The name is not the most important thing in this case, and in many countries they still are running away from the word socialism, so to say, as "the devil from the incense", but throughout the Western world is spread one or another from of socialism, one or another symbiosis of capitalism with the ideas of socialism and communism.
In one strongly developed and "highly" European country like Austria, for example, by tradition is celebrated the first of May as day, how they call it, of "planting of the May tree", which is one quite interesting custom and I will allow myself to explain it briefly. It goes about raising of one high, at least 10 but maybe also up to 20 meters, pine-tree, decorated with garlands and flowers, which is fixed at the level of ground in some special contraption -- something like a carriage mount -- so that it can move in one plane only and there were no danger that it will fall to the side. The very raising is performed with united efforts of about twenty common citizens in entirely
primitive way, namely using poles and beams, with propping and shifting forward the beams, accompanied by shouts like "c'mon, go" (or "hey-uhnem" of Volga boatmen), until the tree is raised vertically and then it is fixed in this position and stays so about two weeks. During the raising, which continues maybe an hour, all the local people are gathered together, devour grilled chicken, drink beer and rejoice. But what else is this custom if not a holiday of creative labour, or one typically socialist holiday, which we in Bulgaria were so foolish (for this can't be named otherwise) to reject as a relic of totalitarianism?
And one last touch, which we would like to underline: the joining of two poles, or the convergence between capitalism and socialism must unavoidably be expressed in
bringing of the left- and right- wing parties one to the other.
This must not be very difficult for us because the main part of our political figures consist of diverged in their time members of former communist party, who have simply decided to seize the opportunity for making of political career. Yet for this, that they are still not doing this, are to be blamed not they alone, but our nation, which makes them to play this game and even take pleasure to shout at mass meetings "uhh" or "down". The politicians are kind of artists and they can't "play" on an empty stage, and when so then they willy-nilly "dance to the flute" of people. If sometime out people grow so wise to become tolerant to the meanings of the others and to look at the democracy as at some attraction,
only then it will cease to be just an attraction! However strange this may sound it is true, because it is confirmed by the practice of Western democracies.
Nov 1998
P.S. Ten years later this is still absolutely true. Will it be so after hundred? Let us hope it will. But it is important that our nation succeeds to grasp this elementary truths
before the elapsing of a century (when for a decade has not yet understood them well).
2008
ABOUT DEMOCRACY AND MELIORATION*
[ * This and the following materials were thought as consequence, intended to explain popularly the meaning of democracy and the causes for our problems with it, but the main part of the things are repetition of ideas expressed in some of the others papers for journals, as well as in other places. (In addition to this can be said that in Bulgarian the title sounds better because we have taken more directly the Latin originals of both words and they end on -tsia, while the English approach is as if more whimsical.) ]
The democracy is a good environment for many different social processes, but it is
only an environment, not solution of the questions! It is very important to understand this because, good or bad, we already have it and will hardly reject it. For this reason the good understanding of its essence is especially necessary for our country. Figuratively speaking
the democracy is like a fruitful soil: what you plant in it -- that is what will grow up.
But this metaphor suggest to us that quite not always "grows up" this what we want to, more than this: that what we do not like often accompanies many democratic undertakings, for the reason that on fruitful soil survive also many weeds! They, the weeds in Bulgarian (though also in Russian), are called
buren (
burian), what wants to say that they grow very
burno, what is stormy, proliferating, so that they are steady and resistant and grow everywhere, but are especially "eager" to grow on fruitful soils, where are propagating in such scale that directly choke the cultivated plants (and there is another word for weed in Bulgarian /Russian,
plevel, what comes from the
pole-field and says that there is no field without weeds, which for their part have to be
polonit-eradicated). And in Bulgaria as if it happened exactly so, because hardly someone will begin to deny that nowadays the criminality has grown several times higher than the totalitarian level, and our poverty has reached earlier unheard of proportions, and our moral norms have "gone to the movies", as we say, and whichever party comes to power it brings to the people only new pains and burdens, and other similar things.
The traditional consolation that the Bulgarian finds in this situation is to choose for himself some political colour (most often according to his age preferences) and to begin to curse the colour of the opponent and blame his party for all our troubles and misfortunes. The people usually are big masters in their efforts to explain
one and the same facts from different positions,
and this so, that the opponent's part is always to be blamed, where ours is always the right one! They are not at all bothered that this is entirely illogical, where on the highest pedestals stay, naturally, our political leaders (for the simple reason that the word "party" is from the root "part", hence each party is
unavoidably partial and nonobjective!). Such behaviour can help for some time -- works like tranquilizing medicament --, but when it continues quite long there have to be taken measures for real treatment, not only for elimination of the pain.
If we return now to our analogy with the soil it will turn out that in order to have some decent harvest exactly of cultivated plants is necessary to lead some fight with the weeds, to use some "herbicides", that must make the democratic field not so fruitful for the weeds. In the same time we, in the inebriation with "delirium democraticus", have decided that when there are many freedoms now then everything is allowed.
Because of this we have now not only freedom of pornography, for example, but
propaganda of pornography and prostitution (for they bring strong financial profits), while in numerous Western countries they would have not allowed publication on title pages of newspapers of various genitalia and sexual intercourse. When some people need such "reading materials" then they could have been sent by post, and at least without obscene covers.
Or also we have decided that when the former "State Security" has compromised itself with a series of anti-democratic incidents, then the best thing is to close it altogether, what as a consequence has turned us in a country without any security and protection! But then even the Americans, with whom we like very much to compare us, have their CIA and FBI, notwithstanding many scandalous incidents with them, and they have no intention to close them, only to reform them if necessary. Denying the centralized totalitarian machine we have simply renounced the centralization everywhere, but
without centralization no state can exist!
Or we have also decided that the market is all by itself enough to provide abundance of goods, only that it has provided affluence of different prices for one and the same goods and possibility for unjustified (although legal, in many cases) enrichment of trade intermediaries, not of the producers! While on the West, at least between the rulers, is known that without centralized monitoring and reasonable intervention is impossible to do today. It was necessary to come the Currency Board in order to
eliminate, in fact, the market of our lev and to fix the growth of salaries, for to make us to grasp (yet we have as if still not grasped this) that the freedom is not form of anarchy but a question of self-restrain.
Or also our politicians have imagined that, in order to make the state's coach move, it is enough if they stay in the coach and cry "Gee, go!". But the reasons for our troubles are chiefly economic and with bare cries the situation can not be improved! For our poor country the substitution of centralized management with dispersed one has only worsened the chaos of transition, so that for nine years after its beginning we are again on the same level of our development, with this difference that, having spent our totalitarian savings, we are now
4-5 times poorer than before. Our politicians have rightly scented that with the coming of democracy they are to split in opposing groups, only that they still can't understand that
these contradictions must not affect the economy of the country.
If some enterprises and banks must have been sold to foreign investors then this should have been done continually and in portions, so that not the whole management was transferred in foreign hands, but also not only think how to keep "our bone" for ourselves, no matter that we do not "gnaw" anymore at it, as says one Bulgarian proverb. But we, on the contrary, for a long time have done like the dog from the proverb, and then at once have decided to sell also our "kennel" if we can, only that then they gave us ten times less for it than before.
And so on: we can speak also about the muddle with restitution, with privatization, with paid healthcare and education, or about our sharp turn in the foreign policy and economic ties, and other things.
Our main error, however, was that we have hurried too much,
although we have known the proverb about the "hasty bitch" (who gives birth to blind puppies). And when so, we have entirely forgotten about the necessity to use correctly the democratic "field", and have left it to develop alone uncontrolled. In our elections, for example, take part 30 - 40 parties, while it is clear that more than 4-5, anyway, will not succeed to enter in the ruling. And why they "press" so much then? Well, because they are
young -- as parties, as also as persons! In world history all: Hitler, Lenin, Napoleon, Alexander Macedonian, and even Genghis Khan, probably, were younger than forty when they have taken the power. They, the revolutions, naturally, are performed by the young, only that one has to stick to some middle point in everything. Not that there are not at all exceptions for very young politicians at the head of political parties, but these are
exceptions, while in Bulgaria they have become a rule.
On the West nobody would have voted for higher politician in the age of less than forty years, and he (or she, surely) would not have put his candidature, for the reason that, if the average life span is 80 years and the people are distributed symmetrically around the middle, then it will turn out that half of the population will be older than him and would hardly agree to be commanded by some "greenhorn" (or even "sucker"). Clear and simple, only not for us! Because all political colours have just "wildly"
competed to nominee the youngest possible politicians,
what has logically led to confirming of the shortly mentioned proverb about the "bitch"
Maybe it is necessary to turn the attention of the readers to the interesting fact that, unlike all other professions, from the politician is
not required to have whatever educational qualifications! Good or bad is this but it is so, for the democracy requires it. Every educational qualification would have given grounds for discrimination of one or another person, so that this, in principle, is not bad. But it is also not very good, because it does not say us of what kind exactly must be the good politician.
We do not require any property qualifications, and also not a single psychological test, how it is for the drivers, for example. But if the political workers alone can not self-restrain themselves then the people must tell them what is good and what not, because if there is not required special education then from them can be required at least to have rich
life experience (coming, naturally, mainly with the age). In order to become politician one should have had time to express himself in something else (at least for the purpose to become known).
And do not think at all that a politician must have necessarily legal education -- no, he must rather be some kind of
manager or businessman, because his activity is related with ruling of big human masses.
The democracy is one very interesting phenomenon
in the social area, if one begins to think about this. It is interesting mainly with this, that such kind of elections is
not applied anywhere else, where some work has to be done! Neither in the army, nor in the police, nor in the production, education, healthcare, etc., for the reason that for each activity
is necessary some qualification, which is proved by some form of exam, test, or contest, before a
competent jury, or based on documents for graduating from some educational establishment with a given degree (i.e. again in correspondence with the assessment of competent persons, but done earlier). While here, by the democratic choice, the procedure is reduced mainly to this, that:
people, who don't understand, choose persons, whom they don't know,
and not requiring from them whatever documents for competence or certification! Because the common people, surely, have no knowledge of subject area of management (neither of economy, nor of public relations, etc.) nor also know their elected persons, from the standpoint of their ability to govern. The people are
not competent at all to take decisions as to how they have to be governed, and if they choose the best ruler only on the basis of possible attitude to them then they will choose that one, who will "throw them the most juicy bones" (as the dog chooses his /her master), or else that one, who gives them only highest marks (as the school children decide), and so on.
This what the elector can know about the life of his (or her) chosen one are only insignificant things (what kind of car he drives, what sort of wine he prefers, or what king of "girls", and similar things), but not which are his abilities for just decisions, his incorruptibility and loyalty, and so on. Exactly because of this such kind of elections are not applied anywhere else, where is necessary to do some work!
At the same time, however, it is well known that the democratic choice is applied at large scale in the world, especially in the recent times and, obviously, it does very good work! So well, then let us ask ourselves the following question:
How is it possible that a procedure of choice, which does not work, can fulfill a choice, which does work?
And let our readers try to find some answer for themselves, because from it in large extent depends the democracy in our country. In other countries the people have some answer, it, probably, is not much away from the truth because there the things go better, while in Bulgaria they are limping quite strongly! Surely many of you are intuitively guessing the right direction, but have not answered yourselves the question on the first place because you have not put it themselves, because it is long ago known the thought that the question is not in this what is the answer, but in this
what is the question! By correctly asked question the answer is relatively easy to be found. The author thinks that he poses the question correctly. Well, then try to find its answer, which will be published in one of the next numbers of the newspaper.
Jan 1999
ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PHENOMENON
In the previous paper we have defined the democratic choice as such procedure where:
people who don't understand (i.e. they don't know the subject area of management)
choose persons whom they don't know (i.e. they don't know them directly, but know only some insignificant details) and by this
not requiring whatever
document for educational qualification (in order not to discriminate some persons, who, by whatever reason, have not had the opportunity to receive proper education).
This is procedure, which is not applied in any other company or organization, when is necessary to do some work, but in spite of this the very choice, applied in the social sphere, obviously does good work in all developed contemporary countries. And let us not confuse this with the democratic
tendencies in some companies, which can be applied as additional element by the choice of some boss (his or her popularity between the masses), and think that the democratic choice is applied somewhere else, except in the social government. But let us return to the raised previously question, i.e. to explain ourselves how is it possible that one incorrect procedure of choice turns to be suitable for choosing of people at the highest governmental level?
Let us simplify our task a bit imagining not a choice of politicians but such one done from ... some
basket with apples! And then let us formulate the question so:
when, reaching with a hand and not looking in a basket with apples, we will be able to extract always good apples?
Well, now it has become easily, right? Surely when
all apples in the basket age good! Simple like all ingenious, because the democracy is, really, an epochal discovery of antiquity! Only that ... only that this is not a choice, right? Because then there is no need to choose but grasp any apple that will happen to be under the hand. It is even possible to say that in this case
the democratic choice contradicts to the common sense!
It is so, yet not exactly, because the ingenuity is precisely in this, to guess about something to what a common person would have never come alone, or would have rejected it as incredible nonsense. Because from the standpoint of choice this is stupidity, but from the point of view of the
people, who after the choice will listen to their elected representatives, this turns to be psychologically well-thought-out. The people are asked about something and they feel themselves compelled to answer, and after this nobody is to be blamed that it has turned out not like the people have wanted. Even with the risk to shock some of the readers we can expressed the sentence that
the democracy is ... the best "baby's pacifier" for the nations,
because it both, preserves the mother's breast (i.e. the political system), and gives pleasure to the child (here, to the people)! And the behaviour of population as a whole is, really, quite similar to this of some naughty little boy (at least in our case of spoiled by the "cares of Party and Government" from totalitarian times). The whole population is in many aspects naive, illogical, impulsive, capricious, selfish, unjust, and so on.
So that is how one bad method of choice can turn out to be in the end very good. For readers with some mathematical culture can be said that the democratic decision is similar with the so called "
zero solution" of linear homogeneous system of equations (with zeros at the right parts of the equations). When all unknowns are simultaneously equal to zero this satisfies the system because gives zero also at the left part of each equation. This is one trivial and uninteresting solution, but it
is solution of the task! And in the social area such "uninteresting" solution can prove to be very interesting from another -- here didactic and attractive -- point of view.
Of course the things are not so simple, but if we do not simplify a given situation via some abstractions we are often not able to cope with the complexity of the surrounding world, so that the above explained is valid but under some conditions, because the politicians are not, after all, apples (although there is nothing insulting in this for them). While the apples can not stay too long on some posts (for they do not at all occupy posts) the politicians can do this (and have done it under the totalitarianism), and the possibility for an easy change of ruling under the democracy (even if this is because of "childish whims" of the populace) is a very significant characteristic of the system, which is more often than not a positive thing (yet
extremely fast change, i.e. early, before the term, usually brings nothing valuable, how we should have been now convinced, looking at our newest history).
On the example with the apples can be seen that in some "baskets" (i.e. states) there are good "apples", and in some others --
only green ones! And it isn't that something similar has not happened in Bulgaria, because we have changed a heap of governments but our situation till now was not bettered. Yet let us not exaggerate too much, because not only our politicians are guilty for our situation, there are various economic and social conditions, traditions, discipline of the population, and so on, so that we must extract only the useful moments from our analogies.
So for example, the approach to the democratic elections as zero solution allows us to answer the question: how then the chosen politicians, when there were
not chosen the best of them, can do their work? If we try to ponder a bit we must come to the conclusion that there are two variants for this, namely:
either the elected representatives are not those who really govern, or every other candidate would have done the same work,
or some combination of both things! Albeit this sounds a little cynical it is the pure truth. The elected by the people persons give only some directive orders, while the real work perform competent in the corresponding area specialists (or at least it is so in the Western democracies). The situation is in significant degree similar to the ruling in the family, where the man, as a rule, governs, only that according to what wants the woman (and that is why our people say that the man is the head but the woman is the neck). In the family the woman is the inborn
strategist, that who sets his (actually, her) requirements, in the same way how the Representatives of the People, while the very managerial (i.e. tactical) activity is performed by the man, and in the social area these are the corresponding competent bodies! The introduction of this dividing of activities in strategy and tactics solves easy also the question with the insufficient competency of the strategists.
The other possibility by the democratic choice consists in this, that
all political parties with influence in society (or all sufficiently eminent persons in a given party) can do the same strategic activity equally good. And they
do it when their mandates come. So that, if we are not shocking ourselves asking similar questions, we can find answers of many, otherwise "mysterious" moments in the democratic system, which do not compromise it and even elevate it in our eyes.
But let us continue further. All readers know, though they have hardly paid attention to this fact, that after the democratic elections, which
as if are conducted in order to choose the best party, in the ruling of the country enter representatives also from the "bad", or lost the fight, parties. More then this, they receive equal salaries with those from the "good" party.
If the goal of the choice was to choose the best party, then why we include also the bad ones?
Obviously because
all parties with influence are
equally good (respectively bad, especially when we are talking about Bulgaria), and also for to were debates
when taking the decision, not after this! Democratic institutions can't do without opposition, what means that the important thing by the democratic choice is not so much the very choice, as the selection of correct relationship between representatives of various parties.
The role of Representatives of the People is representative and strategic, it is not really governing, because they are not executive body where real work is done. Even the post of President in contemporary countries has similar functions, where his power is fairly limited (at least by us). But anyway, every other President, or Minister, or MP, as also every other party, would have done nearly the same work, with some, mainly "cosmetical" differences.
Or at least it has to be so, and it happens so in the developed Western democracies! So for example, in the USA they have republicans and democrats (bipolar model, like by us), but one can boldly bet that both, the republicans are for the democracy, and the democrats are for the republic. Similar is the situation also in other countries. Differences in the platforms, naturally, exist, but they are something like the necktie in men's clothing! They diversify human life, give people additional emotions, but they are not much significant. It can even be said that
the democracy then functions good, when the differences between parties are not big.
So that together with the efforts of the very parties to differ one from the other they must also try to
equalize themselves, because such are the requirements of democratic model! "Two sharp stones", as our people say, "can't grind the flour", and as if this is the main political cause for our miserable condition today, when, in spite of all advantages of democratic development, we are worse than under the totalitarianism -- worse as nation, worse for the majority of citizens, and worse for our international contacts (which are not determined by the meanings of one or another politician, but by the inflow of capitals, goods, and tourists, from abroad).
Maybe it is not bad to remind often to our politicians that by the democracy, as also in each competition, as in the free market, and, if you like, as it happens usually in life, the deserts are not so much of the won the battle, but of the
beaten one, i.e.
the victor wins not because he is better, but because his competitors are worse!
Such opinion would have cooled a little some of the "hot" political heads, but it is entirely justified. This is especially significant in Bulgaria, because the main part of the people vote, as if, not because they believe in the chosen political power, but because they
don't believe in the other alternative power! When the things are bad the faith, naturally, weakens, and it happened so when the red won the elections -- because the blue ones have compromised themselves before; and later the things reversed and the blue won as a consequence of economic failure of the red.
In addition to this it is not right to throw all blame for some failure only on the ruling, because the role of opposition is not less significant! If we want to determine in some extent the guilt and deserts of each of the parts, then one "Solomonian decision" would have been to accept that their part by the rulers is twice higher than by the opposition, but not more. Each deviation from this view can lead to greater errors, only that in the other side.
All our politicians are guilty for the situation in which we are now, and if they don't like this -- well, then let them give up to engage in politics -- there are enough not worse than them alternative candidates!
And one more thing, generally said
the democratic ruling is more ineffective than the centralized, but it is more adaptive than it!
Democracy is like life -- energetic and vivacious, it changes but the society remains, for the reason that it contains the change
in itself, and there is no need to wait for something else to change it. It does not threaten with drastic transition periods like this, that we still experience. Only that it functions good when the differences between parties and their platforms are not big and there is no need of special effectiveness in pursuing of a given goal! But when the things become "coarse", as it happens in time of wars, or by significantly lowering of living standard of the population, how it is now in Bulgaria, it often happens so that the democracy retreats before some consolidating power, because the democracy is
not the ideal solution! And it is not such for the simple reason that
there is no ideal solution!
Democracy is a good environment, but what will grow in it depends on the concrete conditions in the country.
So that all of you, politicians, don't create conditions which disprove the advantages of democracy, or at least, when you have already created them, try to calm the relations between parties, as it belongs to a civilized country! And as to the common people, they better look at it chiefly like at some attraction created for their own pleasure. Democracy is an interesting
game, and what is the purpose of a game that brings no pleasure?
Jan 1999
DEMOCRATIC VALUES
(Political Essay)
|
|
Abstract:
This is a relatively small speech about the moral and the democracy, the point being that these are different things; also about the democracy in general and is it good or bad and why it is how it is; as also about what we may do if we want to make things better. But, it being a speech, you have to know, that the word "speech" is related to the word, sorry, "spit", what has to say that one has to expect some "spitting" against the democracy. Well, if you think so, then you will not be disappointed, especially in the poetical appendix at the end.
|
|
Contents (of the booklet)
0. Stating Of The Question
1. What Is The Democracy?
2. What Is Bad With The Democracy?
3. How To Better The Democratic System?
APPENDIX: My Salute To The Democracy
0. Stating Of The Question
Very often in the latter years I have been highly alarmed by the commonly used phrase about the "democratic values" which we have to defend, insist upon them, apply in our work, turn into reality, maintain constantly, and so on, meaning some moral values that have come to life with the democracy, but the point is, though I much regret to say this, that it could
not be true by the simple fact that
the democracy itself
has no moral values! It would not be correct, however, to say that it is unmoral thing because it
isn't even unmoral, having, or providing us with, no moral at all, but it just isn't moral. I mean that if somebody does not like something this doesn't mean that this person definitely dislikes it, no, he or she may feel just
indifferent to it. Yeah, but the humans, being, as it is well known, imperfect (something that every religion will tell you), tend never to make this "little" difference between something that has not (or has but in very limited amount) the properties of the discussed kind, and that it is of the opposite kind. Similar situations of direct jumping to the other pole occur very often -- take, for example, the known rule that: he, who isn't with us, is against us. Such fast inclining to the one endpoint is also the reason why God should always be good (because the world is so beautiful), or, in the ancient religions, then always bad (because the world is so cruel to the humans), but never indifferent to the (presumably created by Him) life, as it is, and as it is stated by the atheists, but that is another matter.
The moral, and I will give here one maybe new but simple definition,
is:
system of notions which has the purpose to unite the population in the time and the space, where the time is the more important point because in the space we can be united even by some force. The moral says what is good and what is bad, how to behave in the society, how to live allowing the other persons to live also their lives, and for that reason the religions have been created. But this has nothing to do with the governing body or the state, especially under the democracy; this may have something to do, and it really had, in totalitarian states, or in the ancient medieval and ruled by the church states, or under Muslims' sharia-law (or in the times of the pharaohs, etc.). The moral has no saying under democracy also because the democracy is ruled by laws and
not by moral values, and the laws may easily be made even unmoral, by the way, because they are voted in Parliaments (and the later would, as a rule, defend the interests of the powerful and wealthy persons, not these of the common people), or just silly (take for example the prohibition law in USA), or lead to totalitarian governments (as was the case with the coming to power of the fascists in Germany, but this also is another matter, though related to the minuses of the democracy).
Of course the moral can also be bad -- nothing created by humans is perfect -- but it is more adjusted to the place and the time, and this in interest of the whole population. The laws can, and they often do, allow existence of the organized crime, where the common moral sense will reject such things, or try to change something so that all will be happy -- because the organized crime is a
state in the state and it arises when the official state can't fulfill its work properly; these are not "bad guys" (robbers, killers, etc.) who work against the society, but an organization that works
for the society, or for a significant part of it. But we will not discuss here the laws, though, even if they have to be discussed because: if they are of such importance (as, say, mathematics, or languages, or literature, or physical culture, and so on), then they have to be studied in all schools; and if they are not so important, then in the judicial courts the ruling role should be that of the common sense of the representatives of the population, not of the judges and lawyers; and should not be allowed for the best lawyer to win the case but the truth must win, and not for money, of course. So, but let us continue with the democracy and ask us now the question:
1. What Is The Democracy?
Well, the democracy is mainly: free elections between many parties, what is well known. But the point is that
this is not a reasonable way to choose, and it isn't such a way because, if it was, it would have been applied in many other areas like, say: business, school and education, army, health care, etc., but such free elections are used nowhere there -- maybe just some democratic
elements, but not between everybody who wants to be elected and without some qualification papers or exams, not from everybody whom it may concern, and not in such big groups where cannot be good knowledge of the persons to be elected. In other words, the democratic elections turn out to be a choice done:
by people who do not understand (the problem area of governing of big masses of people),
out of minority they do not know (they have not lived or worked with them for some years, and they have not had even a cup of coffee or a beer together)
, and without any proof for qualification (even without proof for sanity or some psychological tests).
The elections are based mainly on
delusion -- that the electorate have to give their votes about who they want to be governed by, but they do not choose for a given post, they choose
abstractly, according to their liking, and liking means not competence; besides, the "bad parties" also take part in the Parliaments and receive exactly the
same salaries, and in no other contests is accepted for the losers also to receive prizes!
The democratic choice is just a
paradox because it
contradicts to the common sense! But ... -- and this is very important thing --
it works (and not bad, in many cases)! So how is it possible that even if something contradicts to the common sense it may still work? Well, the simplest answer is that the human beings are
not very capable of thinking, they usually think only
after they have tried all
unreasonable ways (and that is why the wars are so widely spread among the folks, by the way, because there
are reasonable ways for proving who is stronger in economical, or militaristic, or intellectual, or physical, and so on sense, if that is what has to be proved). Some in the West say that nowadays the humans have to be called not homo sapience but
homo mediaticus, because they are greatly influenced by all the media which, obviously, manipulate them, but this may not be so bad when people just
want to be deceived (what, turns out, was Latin proverb:
mundus wult decipi!). And, besides, it is also well known that the bottleneck of all social systems are the people, hence we work with what material we have, isn't it so?
It may be put also in this way:
the democracy is the best ... baby's pacifier for the populace, because it preserves the system and makes people happy! And as much as the happiness of the folks is important, the more important is the preservation of the system, because the democracy allows changing of the rulers and retaining of the democracy. So well, one would justly ask now: and what do you, author, want to say, the democracy is, but in one word -- a good thing, or a bad one? And then the author is again forced to say --
neither of it! The democracy is like ... like the life -- it is neither good nor bad, it has just to be lived with. Or, if the reader will allow me one lyrical diversion, it is something, according to Erich Kästner, like the Earth (which is "she" in German, but rather meaning by this the life), which is round and if you look at her from the front you may find out that you are looking, I beg to excuse me, into her behind (and vice versa)! And in Bulgaria, for example, Miss Democracy (or, better, Missis, because she is married to the Government) has turned her bottom to us for about 15 years now.
And, if one asks then, how it may happen that in some countries democracy leads to good things but in other countries to bad things, here the simplest answer is that all depends on the
demos, or that:
whichever is the demos such is the -cracy. But the simplest answer is not always the right one (or it has to be explained further), because there are, above all, economical reasons, and the choice, even if it could be competently made (and it could not, as we have said above), is like taking, say, apples out of a basket. And the point is that sometimes (and -places) whichever party or leader one chooses the things go well, respectively badly. In other words,
the choice is of no (or of minor -- I hope you have not forgotten that all is just a humbug, or a show)
importance! If we use our apple-simile in Bulgaria all "apples" (and these are not the various parties or politicians, they too, but also the economical situation) are green and sour, whereas in, say, America, all are ripe and full of flavour. In other words, the democracy is only
background for the social processes, it
isn't panacea against misery or bad economy and organization in the country.
And to finish with this question let us add another curious point and it is that the
most positive part of the democracy are not its official representative organs (the Parliament and Government) but what lies
out of them,
the extra-parliamentarian powers (such like: strikes and demonstrations, some groups and societies, say Green Peace, Trade Unions, Churches, women or youth leagues, intellectuals, etc.)! And vice versa,
the worst part of the democratic system is its official part! This is due to the fact that the democracy is not effective but mainly
attractive system! It is like ... the necktie, it works when all are well fed, in peaceful times, and in countries with strong economies, but otherwise it fails. But this, still, is a good point, that the extra-parliamentarian forces may be very powerful, because in this way the democracy can always be improved in some ways, being not perfect. Even more, the democracy is based (though this usually is not explained to the populace) on the supposition that there is
not a good party, or that
all parties are bad (or, if you prefer the optimistic point of view, then: all, but really
all, of the parties are equally good), because if some party turns to be very good then why to make further elections? -- and exactly such were the things in the totalitarian states (as we in Bulgaria very well know). And if one asks, why it is so good
not to be perfect, I would like to formulate one more general rule, and it is the following:
the worst point of the bad things is that they have some good points (and that is why they influence the masses); as much as the reverse statement is also right, namely that:
the best point of the good things is that they have some bad points (and that is why they change with the time)! So, and now let us see what can be made better (if at all) and how, i.e. to ask ourselves
2. What Is Bad With The Democracy?
Well, as we have stated in the beginning, the
democracy has no moral, because, of course: it is not a moral thing to elect people who
just can boast more than the others and despise all who think otherwise; it's not moral to
defend the partial truth because of their personal (or party) interests, and not the interests of the whole population; it isn't moral
to use business circles or common fonts for personal showing-off or usage; and it is not moral
to participate in a humbug (or delusion). Frankly speaking, the whole party system is not a good one because, if one pulls upward, another downward, and the third backward, we may hardly expect to move forward. But still, as far the democracy works well in some countries, we may accept the necessity of parties (because in smaller groups there can be better knowledge of each other), we may accept the democratic humbug (as far the folks like it so much), also the business circles and some embezzlement of common values (because the ruling of state is also a kind of business, and to apply for the elections one has to have some, and usually big, money), and even the boasting (because if one does not insist to be elected then how he or she may be made known for to be elected?). Yeah, we may accept everything -- as far as we have to live with the democracy -- but ... but we may want to better the things, don't we?
Further,
the democracy is ineffective (by the same reason of pulling in different directions), but this, too, may be accepted, because there must be moderation in all things and if the economy in the recent one-two centuries is still much more accelerated then needed (to accept it and to live comfortable in such fast changing environment), then some slowing of the forward movement is a good thing. But it is, again, not good for badly developed countries and economies (as is the case in our country, Bulgaria), so there
must be more partnership between parties, and exactly because some uniting of political forces is necessary
that is the reason why
we don't have it -- a strange thing, don't you find? As you see, Missis Democracy is too round and we often look at her behind. Hence, if it can be good for many of well developed countries to allow some minor differences in the views of different parties (and they are really
minor, not as in our country), this situation in not acceptable for us and it should be improved somehow.
Also, it is important to explicitly state that
the contemporary democracy is not a ruling of the population, it is just
changing of the rulers (incompetently chosen, as we have already said)! But, as much as I would like to propose that our democracy has to become really ruling of the
whole population, I have to
abstain from making such proposition (maybe, because I don't want to become one of the elected and, therefore, I am trying to be objective and not partial). If
everyone was capable of ruling (what incorrectly is supposed by the free democratic elections) this should mean that the ruling is a simple job, but almost everyone is convinced that it is not so. If real ruling by the population have been implemented this would have led either to anarchy or (if the majority will have the ruling) then to bigger incompetence. Imagine, for example, what will be if in such poor country like Bulgaria the population has to decide about the prize of the bread -- well, very soon there will be no bread produced. So what to do then?
And in this place we have to begin making some
distinction in the different ways of governing or influencing the Government, in which connection we have to distinguish between, namely:
strategic and
tactic governing! The strategy is, in general,
what to do (the wish) and do we like what is done (the estimation), and the tactics is
how to do it (how to make the governmental clock to say "tic-tac"). The folks may, and must, have full saying in the strategy, but the people may not understand the tactics and have not to mix with it! That's it, though there is not always easy to say where the tactics ends and the strategy begins, or vice versa. The things are made more confused by the fact that the elected body contains tacticians (because the folks or the electors are the strategists), but in fact, when these tacticians take some ministerial posts, they became strategists because the real tacticians in the Ministries are
not elected (they simply do their work and know how to do it, for they are professionals, not politicians). And, besides, the folks (the strategists) still have not the knowledge to chose the tacticians -- the latter have to be proposed by some competent authorities and here comes the role of the parties which are
more or less competent, though not as much as it could have been wished.
But in all cases
the estimation (the role of jury)
has to be made by the population, or, at least, the population has to vote for each new law in the Parliament, for each important step in country's policy, and exactly because this is very important (and in no other jury it is allowed for a member of the jury to take part in the contest) exactly for that reason
in no of the existing Parliaments this is accepted, meaning that the Parliaments make the laws
and they vote for them! If this isn't an absurd then you give a better example! If for the well developed countries this paradox may exist, for us it should be abolished! It may exist in some countries also because they have there two Houses of Parliament and we haven't even this (though both Houses are not what we shall propose in the next section).
This may (and will) require some changing of the Constitution, but it is
not at all difficult to perform voting between
arbitrary chosen representatives of the population -- say hundred, or thousand (or 10,000 if you want) -- for each of the above mentioned situations; and even between the whole population -- simply using some plastic cards like those for cash withdrawal on the streets (phone-cards), and with nearly the same apparatus (even simpler, because the money part will be redundant), or via Internet at home. There are, really, no problems for such periodical voting -- say, ones in a quarter of a year, for up to five questions with up to five possible answers. Without changing of the Constitution this may not be compulsive for the Parliament, but it will
nearly be, because nobody and no party will want to meet with such blamage as not to take this voting into account. And, still, it is
not applied anywhere in the world! But the democracy is full of paradoxes, so that one more or one less has not to surprise us anymore. Well, let us now see what we have to do if we are capable of performing some radical changes in the system, i.e.
3. How To Better The Democratic System?
As we have already said one good thing of the democracy is that it allows easily to make changes in the system from below, using even extra-parliamentarian powers. In our case the first thing to do will be to better the Parliament which has much to be desired, because all contemporary Parliaments in the world differ from Greek Areopag in ancient Athens which consisted of 500 representatives chosen by 10 persons out of 50 genders (the so called "dems"). And the difference is not in the number of people there, of course, but in the relatively
good representativeness of the population (if we don't upset us by the fact that the women and the slaves have had no rights at all in that times), because each part of the population was represented on a gender basis (but that was what was important in these times), and the very choice in many cases was done, presumably, by a lot! In our enlightened times we don't like much to use arbitrary methods and lots, especially in political matters, but they are very useful in providing of good representativeness -- and very simple, because there are other methods for choosing by some parameters (like: education level, religion, age, wealth, etc.), but they are more difficult to be performed, and to be sure that nothing can be faked.
Also, to put it in other words,
all contemporary Parliaments are non-representative choices of the population (and our, so called, National Assembly, is just a
contradictio in adjecto); they have to be called "Political Assemblies" or the like, because they represent proportionally just the politicians, who are at most 10 (but usually only 3 to 5) percent of the population! And in fact they
are called otherwise, because the word "Parliament" means some "speaking place" -- something like the pub, with that difference that their "consummation" is prepaid by the taxpayers. Being moderate the author does not like to be too radical even in radical propositions so let us retain the existing Parliament and the elections (when people like this show so much) but let us put the elected in this way persons in just
one House of the Parliament called
The House Of The Politicians. Then the other House will be called
The House Of The Representatives, which has to be filled with persons chosen
by simple arbitrary choice between the whole population in age, say, from 20 (including) to 70 (excluding) years taking by two persons for each year, what makes exactly 100 (and then the House Of The Politicians would be better to consist also of 100 persons).
To be sure that this arbitrary choice could not be falsified the persons may be chosen using the Unique Citizenship Number, UCN (as in Bulgaria, where it is called EGN, but in other countries it may be the insurance number or the like) and each part of it (the month of birth, the day of birth, and the other part of the number but it has to be taken
by digits) has to be chosen simultaneously in different spheres, and at the moment when the whole number is completed it has to be checked whether this person exists, and if not, then he has to be newly chosen (but it's enough to redo only the non existing parts of the number, say: for 29 of February only the day is to be chosen again). This procedure has to be performed officially and periodically repeated with the purpose that The House Of The Representatives be partly (say to 50 per cent) reelected each half year. All the laws and important questions have to be voted and approved in
both Houses, otherwise rejected and the old situation remained (and if there an old situation does not exist, what in some cases is possible, then the House Of The Politicians can have the right to vote but with greater majority, or something like that). There are no principal problems that could not be solved if this idea is found good. There may exist also an "Enlarged House of the Representatives" of, say, 1,000 persons for voting in more important cases (and also for other purposes).
And, still, there is one more important minus in the democratic system, namely that it has not some
independent body (meaning from the business or political spheres), which has to be bothered with other questions different from voting -- say, with some moral questions, or defending of the rights of the customers, or for correspondence with the Parliament
through this body for everyone and/or non-parliamentarian organizations, or even performing of law suits in cases of greater importance (as it was in ancient Greece), or something else. It is important (to have
one such place and not many and contradicting organizations) and it has to be chosen similarly by arbitrary choice (unless another well-motivated method can be found) out of the whole population. Then there is the need to reform the law system. And other matters, but all that remaines may be done in the framework of some nonpolitical organizations, if the people have enough time and money (and especially the latter they do not have in Bulgaria nowadays) to organize themselves, because the democracy, though incorrectly taken for form of ruling of the population, still, must involve more and more people in the governing and moralizing, otherwise it will differ not much from some oligarchy, or "polito-garchy", or "business-garchy", and this often is worse than totalitarian ruling.
April 2004
APPENDIX
My Salute to the Democracy
To democracy salute
I will give, and rather good,
That is eloquent enough
Of the matter and the stuff.
For I like them very much --
These elections and the such,
Giving me the right to vote
Which one we shall take the road.
Scratching, thoºugh, once my head,
Jumped a thought that namely said:
"How can we make the choice
Being
laic girls and boys?"
Either choosing's very easy
(And then why to make us busy?),
Or it's difficult a task
(Which to solve we shouldn't be asked)!
And it isn't, let me say,
Used in business, anyway,
Not in army, not in schools --
But if so, then we are fools!
For the choºice from below
Can't be competent, you know?
And, if contest this should be,
Why the losers, too, take seats?
And the Parliament, you see,
Represents not you and me,
But, let's say, some
three per cent,
Who are wealthy and potent.
All in all, it's just a fake,
And this gives me right to make
My salute of special art --
That's: ... to give a sound fart!
July 2002
ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY
I. Great And Unreasonable
The democracy is the most significant achievement of mankind in the social area,
because it
contradicts to the common sense! Despite the paradoxicality of this statement it is true, because it, really, is something to what couldn't have come one normal, i.e. average, individual in his judgements. The whole human experience during the centuries and in our days shows that
the democratic choice, in fact,
is not applied anywhere,
where some
work has to be done, say in the: army, police, education, healthcare, productive sphere, and so on. It is inconceivable to imagine army, in which the new recruits choose their commander
between them; or the physicians to be appointed by the nurses and orderlies (and even the patients); or the teachers to be chosen from the students (and from their midst); or in some company to gather all common labourers, drivers, cleaners, and others, and ask them to choose director, or head of department, no matter what education he or she has. (And let us not confuse this with the democra
tization of management in many activities nowadays, which is only one
auxiliary element, not main principle, and as such probably has existed also in the times of the pharaohs.) There are obvious reasons why this is not done, because each activity requires certain professionalism, which is proved on the basis of educational criteria and/or life experience, and this is decided by people
with greater amount of knowledge in the given area, not from below, by the common people, and this is the only way to make the right choice, i.e. from top to bottom, not the reverse, what will say that the democratic choice, from the point of view of the reason, is a pure
perversity!
Said more precisely, the democratic choice assumes that:
people who don't understand,
choose such
who they don't know, and this
not requiring whatever
document for professional qualification! Let us explain this in more details. The masses don't know anything about the area of governing, which isn't so elementary as they think (if we have in mind the real ruling, not its ostentatious part), but exactly for that reason think that know everything -- because the more limited is the knowledge of somebody, the more self-confident is he in his judgements. This is very old truth dating at least from the time of Pythagoras, who explained to his students why he, who knows so much, thinks that he knows a little, while they, because know nothing, think that know everything, resorting to the help of drawn on the sand circles, where his was the biggest, and theirs were very little, and everything outside the circles was the unknown, which is not limited from the outside; and because the biggest circle has greater contact with the unknown, for that reason he was well aware of his ignorance, but they didn't realize theirs. On this occasion the Russians have their proverb saying (in translation) that: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-conceit!". Because of this people usually argue: either about sport, or about politics, or about women (men), because these are the most difficult questions, for which singular solution does not exist, but these discussions are only useless "babble", for neither the masses can solve them, nor someone will listen to them if they occasionally say something reasonable (inasmuch as people are not interesting in the reasonable arguments but in what they like!). But this phenomenon is
justified from the point of view of life, because one always wants to be motivated somehow in his actions, and if he does not have much knowledge, then he must have at least higher self-confidence, which must
compensate for his lack of knowledge, otherwise about 95% of the people would have suffered from inferiority complex, what surely wouldn't have been right. This is why the children always think that they know everything, while with the age the self-confidence little by little diminishes (because their knowledge grows), until they become so old, that in order to be able to lead peaceful life (because their knowledge and abilities begin to lessen more and more), they become forced again to think that they know everything and the now young ones are simply silly (and for them each, who is younger than 50 or so is still very "green").
So that the majority of people understand nothing about politics, despite their bold assertions, but they don't know also the politicians who they choose. To know somebody means to can
predict his behaviour in each possible situation, to know, so to say, the algorithm by which he functions. People live side by side for ten years and after this again turns out that they don't know each other well and have overestimated or underestimated one another, so that it isn't possible to know well a politician whom have seen a pair of times by TV, have heard or read something about him (or her) by other media, but these were only
poses (because the politician is a kind of artist who plays before the entire population), not his essence, on the basis of which they could make objective mental conclusions. The population can know the car of a famous politician (or football star), can discuss the pluses or minuses of his mistress (or boyfriend), the menu on his table, or the suits which he (respectively, she) wears, to know where his children study, and the like, but these are all things that has a weak connection with his political qualities, especially if he is new emerging on the scene. The electors haven't, and will never have, possibility for
personal contacts and informal discussions with him (over a drink, as it's said), at least because he represents thousands of people, which he has no physical capacity to know personally; neither they have been his colleagues at the place of work, for to know him from professional point of view.
It would have been good if the electors required at least some document for completed political (or in political sciences) education, as it is custom for each profession; to were able to know some his objective intelligence quotient, or at least to have put him to some test or exam, by the results of which to take decision; to have had some way for checking of his adherence to principles and incorruptibility, for to be convinced that he is not just power-hungry individual who sets everything else in background and in the interest of his political career; to have had in their disposition some his psychical tests and conclusions of medical commissions that he is psychologically normal. If not anything else, were there at least age restrictions, as some true in the general set way for checking of his life experience. But all this contradicts to the main democratic principle that
everybody can participate in the government, without whatever documents -- for they can not correspond to the reality and may be fabricated by some political powers. In this way is come to the
absurd called democratic election, in which everything is reduced to the ability of the leader to manipulate the masses, via finances, his appearance, talks, etc., advertising himself before them in the same way as one shaver is advertised, or a car, or prostitute, for example. Who succeeds best of all
to deceive the people, that he is the best, he wins the battle, where the deceiving is obvious because neither the population can appraise him from below, not knowing the specificity of his labour, nor can it know well the leader, without personal contacts with him, nor can rely on ready results performed by others for assessment of his qualities. This is pure outsmarting deception and obviously unreasonable way of choice.
II. Zero solution
Well then, but how is it possible for such unreasonable way of choice, which is not applied anywhere else, where work has to be done, to be
able to do work, because the democracy exists now about 25 centuries and especially in the last pair of them is the most widely used in the civilized world form of social government? How is it possible that people, chosen in this way, which should not work, they alone do the work? This is exactly the question which we must answer now, and, as it was marked long ago, the question most often is not "what is the answer", but "
what is the question", i.e. by correctly set question, in many cases, is easy to find the answer. In other words, we have one incorrect and ineffective procedure of choice, by which people are chosen not according to their abilities for a given work, and in spite of this the
procedure does work, and this is possible only when: either
the very people don't do (much) work;
or each other of the alternative candidates
could have done the same work; or some combination of the two things! This, surely, is so, because the politicians perform mainly strategic and representative functions, they say what must be done (say: cook me, wife, meatball soup, and you know how, or if you don't know then look in some cookbook), give general guidelines (although they fulfill also some tactical tasks, by which most often
make errors), sign documents (what everyone, who has started primary school, can also do), but the very work is done by teams of qualified professionals. The politicians, unquestionably, carry the responsibility (only that often transfer it from one to another, and
nobody withholds from their salaries when they make errors), and for these risks they receive chiefly fame, which (at least for them) is valued more than money, but almost every politician from the other parties could have done
the same work (and he does it, when comes his turn). So that the democratic choice, in fact, gives only one
trivial and uninteresting decision!
In the mathematics exist the term "
zero solution" for the solution of a homogeneous linear system of equations. This is a sequence of equations, in the left part of which stay expressions like: "something" multiplied by
x, plus "something else" by
y, plus etc., until the number of unknowns runs out, and on the right part of the equations stay always zeros; if the number of equations equals the number of letters for the unknowns there always exists the solution:
x=y=...=0, because whatever these "things" (the coefficients before the unknowns) in the equations are, when we multiply them by zero and add them, there is no way not to get again zero in the left part, which equals the zero on the right part! The zero solution, of course, is solution,
too, but it isn't interesting and does not require whatever efforts in order to be found, though such is also the democratic solution -- there always can be elected in this way someone, if he (or she, surely) will do only this, what any other competitor can also do, and even better if he does nothing important, but this
isn't reasonable decision, and there exist many other decisions, which would have been better!
Exactly the fact, though, that this decision contradicts to the common sense, makes it genius achievement of thought in the social area, because it isn't something about which everybody could have guessed and have used it, due to its triviality. But despite its triviality this decision has one very important
psychological characteristic, namely that it turns to be quite
convincing for the population, regardless of its illogicality (because the people are not such beings to be bothered by the lack of logic). The democratic decision is convincing because the people
are asked about something and the politicians wait to hear their meaning (notwithstanding the fact that it isn't of significant importance!), and later on, if something does not go properly (as it most often happens), it is answered them: "But weren't you who chose your rulers?". In short, think who you will choose, because only you carry the whole responsibility for this.
Is there any better way to "
close someone's mouth" than this to say that he alone has wanted this, what has happened? And any explanations of the kind that nobody wants lawlessness, or high level of crime, or low standard of life (to have even nothing to eat), and so on, are things that always can be interpreted in
two ways, and this only pours water in the mill of the politicians. Figuratively said, the remarkability of democracy is that
it is the best known till the moment
"baby's pacifier" for the mouth of the populace, because it does simultaneously the following: creates illusion about satiety (they have asked us), does not allow the child (here the people) to cry, and preserves the mother's breast (here the political system from unnecessary clashes with the "plebs")! This is exactly by the formula: "The wolf is fed and the lamb is intact"! That is why in Ancient Greece in that time was necessary for a tyrant (title of a ruler in that time) to intervene, Pisistratos, for to force the people to accept this miracle of miracles called democracy, for which they didn't wanted to hear, because however restricted were the people in those times (as much as nowadays, by the way) they didn't have thought seriously that instead of a ruler or king, who has all his life prepared himself to rule, could have stepped out one of the common folks before them all and begin to command them, and were afraid, maybe, that this is one of the successive tricks of the governors (and they were not much away from the truth, of course). But wasn't this trick brilliant?!
III. Conditional Advantages
Better later than never, and that is why it is time now to give some definition of the notion democracy, as such
form of social governing, by which the population (or the subject of governing) has possibility for reasonable influence over the governing body, including the choosing and changing of this body. Naturally, no stable system can exist without a feedback, and this was intuitively clear long before in the automatics and cybernetics have begun to speak about feedback, but here it turns to be the most important part of the system and the very governing body plays up to certain extent subjugated role to the subject of governing. But we are bound to stress that on the question of this, what is reasonable for the people, most often, the very people are not clear (because if they were clear then why is the whole government?). The people in their actions are like unreasonable child, who only wants to play and fill his stomach with something sugary (well, for the grown people some sex from time to time also wouldn't have do any harm), and also like a child would have thought right, for example, to eat up a whole box of candies in one go, because the child (like also the people) can hardly recognize what is good for him for a
longer period of time. So that let us accept that the reasonability is defined in view of the near and more distant future of the people, which reasonability may not be clear to the people as a whole, but must be clear to their leaders. Here, by the way, is seen that if the people don't know what is good for them, and they choose their rulers, then also the governing, in its turn, will not be right or reasonable for the same people (not so much because the choice decides something, but because the politicians
adjust to the desires of populace already before the elections). But this is
unavoidable contradiction in the democratic system of ruling, and it will never be completely decided, we can merely move nearer to some relatively correct understanding of people's interests!
Despite the fact that the democracy contradicts to the common sense and is one zero solution of the question of governing, it has one unconditional advantage, which we mentioned, namely this, that it is the best silencer for the people (or stopper for their mouths). In addition to this it has also some conditional advantages, which originate from the
possibility for debates and listening of the opposing meanings in the process of taking the decisions. These advantages are pretty relative and can easily be turned to disadvantages, if the matters are not approached gently, but they can be advantages in various cases, so that we must mention them.
1. We will begin with the possibility for
taking of relatively reasonable decisions from the point of view of the general set, i.e.
the people, not only of some of strata of the population. The disputes can be a big hindrance (and they are very often) when they don't lead to taking of decisions but only to "thrashing over old straw", as you say, but
truth is born in a dispute, because our world is inevitably contradictory and the right decision is only a narrow strip of skillful balancing between opposing tendencies! And such balancing is impossible without listening to the views of opponents and without their real presentation before the governing body. Instead of the contradictions to take place concealed, by the democracy they are manifested in the open, what contributes for their resolving. But there, surely, is no guaranty that the disputes will not escalate and create wrong idea about the real situation, what could have been seen by one reasonable ruling body, but who can guaranty us that the ruling body is reasonable and will remain always such? As far as there is no such guaranty
the democracy sets or
relies on the unreasonableness of the ruling body, fighting with it in one reasonable way, but this means that the democratic ruling body is
also unreasonable! Whether such decision will be really reasonable or not depends on the concrete democratic form and on the avoiding of some of the drawbacks of real democracy, on which we shall focus in the next chapter.
By this governing is relied not only on the unreasonableness and corruptness, to which often comes each ruling body, because it is known long ago that the power spoils the individual (distorting his feedback link with the society), but also on the presumption for
lacking of the best politician and the best party, what is a very reasonable setting of the things! This does not mean that you will hear some democratic politician to say that there is not a best party, but this is due to the
manipulative character of the words of politicians, but the truth is exactly as we just explained it -- for if there was a best party (or politician), even for the moment, then all other parties /politicians have nothing to do in the government, and, hence, the multiparty system becomes unnecessary and we are going to the situation under the totalitarianism, which is well known to us in Bulgaria. In order not to come to such extremities is useful always to remember that under the democracy: there is no best leader or party, the whole power can be corrupted and unreasonable, each ruling person is easily changeable, nobody can state the whole truth but just a part of it (the very word "party" comes from Latin "part"), and all politicians are biased, where exactly
in this is the reasonableness of such a ruling -- that it contains the unreasonableness in itself!
2. The democracy maintains the evolution of society giving it possibility
to renew itself without changing, i.e. to evolve on the spot, because it is flexible or
adaptive form of governing! As far as each system of governing has the goal to preserve the status quo in the country, one system can change only if it contains the contradiction (leading to change) in itself, otherwise it can crash but not change. It happened exactly so with the totalitarian systems, which were very good and effective systems, but the ability for change was alien to them; they tried to change, initiated the changing, and after this collapsed. There is no such danger for the democracy, because
it is one ineffective system without specific goal in the moment, and there isn't such action which can ruin it,
except its ineffectiveness (as it has happened many times in Ancient Greece, where were alternating periods of tyranny with such of democracy, and vice versa)! So that there are two sides on the coin, as they say, and the democracy can be suitable form of social government when there is
absent a concrete, mobilizing the whole nation, goal (say, danger of war). By us, in Bulgaria, the transition to democracy began exactly when we have no concrete goal, i.e. the military threat (which was maintained stubbornly by the rulers as real danger, in order to justify with something the necessity of some kind of dictatorship) has long ago withered, and the totalitarian ruling has begun to skid in its unnecessary efficiency; but later on, during the transition, when we have accepted the ineffective and aimless democratic ruling, it turned out that there emerged quite real goal for surviving and preserving of the nation, which required something more effective than the traditional democracy, and for that reason our transition
again began to skid!
The ability for changing by the democratic model of ruling is illustrated best of all via the example with the swing, or rather
seesaw -- such kind of swing which is a beam propped in the middle on some elevated place, and two persons (here parties) sat at both ends, where in the middle can sit also someone (called here "center"). When the one part falls down it "slumps in the mud", figuratively said, and sticks there for some time, but then later on it begins to "cleanse itself from the mud" and to throw it to the other part, in result of what the latter in its turn also becomes "mudded", becomes heavier and begins to fall down, heaving above the fallen before part. This process is helped by the center, but also by the public (the population), which, when becomes bored to boo the fallen, begins to "throw with rotten eggs" also that one who is above, because he is more vulnerable there, and the atmospheric conditions (political winds) are stronger high above, so that there is no way for the seesaw to become quiet for a long time. In this way the democracy constitutes in the social sphere one
working perpetuum mobile, something what is impossible in the mechanical systems! And mark, please, that the one, who rises above,
does not do this because of his own merits, but because the other part is fallen down, i.e. the leading party becomes such not because it is with something better than the others, but because the others are worse than it! The existence of many parties does not change the things because usually the fight takes place between the first two-three of them (and if it isn't so then corresponding coalitions are formed). Generally, till here all pluses of the democracy turn out to be potential minuses, and the next point is only a way of compromising of the democracy with the dictatorship, so that it even less can be taken for its advantage, but there is nothing to be done here -- that is the democracy!
3. The last good thing of the democracy, on which we shall dwell, is the
possibility for adding of foreign elements in it! Such non democratic and unauthorized elements are, for example: the presidential institution, which is a kind of possible dictatorship (on declaring of martial law), or existence of strong hand, that can apply right of veto, even to dissolve the Parliament (in some countries); two-chamber Parliaments, where the different Chambers function on different principles, but the most democratic one, as a rule, plays subordinate role (with various national distinctions); combining of democracy with monarchical ruling, where the monarch symbolizes the undivided authority (although nowadays strongly restricted); admissibility, but also necessity of some moralizing the society body like official Church; impossibility for existing of democracy without some, as well internal, so also external, repressive or militarized apparatus (the police and the army); the possibility for extra-parliamentary control of the supreme body in the country (even may be stated that the biggest success the democracy shows then, when intervene
not the official and paid bodies but some extra-parliamentary groups of people), and other variants. These are all possibilities for some improvement, but in the same time also acknowledgement of the imperfection, of the democracy!
IV. The Real Democracies
It is high time now to begin to make difference between the ideal and the real democracy. The ideal democracy is this, which in some way allows to the population to choose such ruling body, that will "play to his tune", so to say. Even in the ideal case we can't require that this will be the best ruling for the people, but to be the best
according to the averaged
meaning of the population. In addition to this even in the ideal is not necessary to ask the people about everything (even if this may be possible), because there are questions on which the people can only mess the things, if the averaging is done by the number of people, not according to some other criteria (for example, there will hardly be found a nation, where, if the people are asked how much must cost the bread, or the cheese, or the meat, the drinks, the cigarettes, and so on, will not choose the lowest of the proposed prices, because these are goods for which consumers are the major part of the population, but it is obvious that this will not be the right decision, for by a free manufacturing the lower selling prices will be the surest way for disappearing of these products from the market). In other words, even in the ideal case we should not search entirely ideal
ized solution, because it will not fulfill its functions, and is or not a given solution near to the ideal can be estimated in each concrete case according to some obvious, but also questionable, criteria. The real democracy, for its part, is each of the realized around the world democratic forms, along with their shortcomings, the most important of which follow below.
1. The first main minus comes from the zero democratic solution, by which on ruling positions are chosen people
nonprofessionals, without the necessary educational qualification, without checking of their psychical indicators and their moral qualities. It is very easy to require some document for psychical condition of the candidate, as well also some diploma for completed political college or higher education -- the realization of these criteria is more a matter of desire then of resources. Regrettably, it is still considered (and not only in Bulgaria) that the best education for the politician is the legal one, where it has practically nothing in common with the
management, or the work with masses (public relations, as it is called nowadays), and even an education in the sphere of advertisement would have been preferable than the legal one, because this, what the politician must possess, is the ability to persuade (or, rather, to manipulate) the masses that this, what he states, is in their own interest, i.e. to mobilize the masses for some common actions, in the necessity of which they doubt. In addition to this a politician must have sufficient knowledge in history (ancient and modern), in rhetoric, in economics, in military science, or some technical education (because it improves the logical thinking), at cetera.
If by the examining of professional qualities of the politician can exist some (surmountable) problems, then there are no hindrances for applying of some elementary control for existence of life
experience, because this, what the politician must know well (inasmuch as this is possible), is the
life, and knowledge about it can be accumulated only with the time and the work, i.e. there is nothing easier than the requirement of age and length of service in the sphere of governing and politics. For example, could be required at least five years of service at ruling positions for applying for political work on local level, at least another five on the previous level -- for municipal candidates, at lest five more years on this level for national candidates, and another five if it goes about the highest positions like President, Chief Prosecutor, Prime Minister (or Chief of Staff of the Army, or President of the Academy of Sciences, or the Holy Synod, and the like, where this, maybe, is checked). Also it is quite elementary to require age of at least 35 years for the
lowest political posts, at least 40 -- for municipal level, at least 45 -- for national level (i.e. in the Parliament), and at least 50 years for the highest posts. If there is something, because of what one suffers most in his life, these are
the errors of the youth, and the same applies wholly in the area of social governing! The ruling is not like the sports, or the sciences, or the giving birth to children, for example, where the younger one is, the better, but
exactly on the contrary, because this, what the politician or manager needs, is the experience and
moderation in life, otherwise there happen all sorts of, to put it mildly, "blunders". One basic feature of all dictators is their youth and wild wish for self-expression, and the situation wouldn't have been the same if these positions were occupied by older people -- compare the age on which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Lenin, or Stalin, and why not also Genghis Khan, or Xerxes, or Alexander Macedonian, and others, come to power, and you will find that hardly any one of them has done this over the age of 40 years. And if these people could not have come to power due to legal restrictions (and let us not forget that at least both, Hitler and Lenin, have come to power through a democratic election, and at the time of Napoleon was a law, according to which the First Consul could not have been under the age of 40 years, but Napoleon succeeded somehow to overcome it with some political maneuvers), couldn't have the spilled in history blood be at least twice less?
2. The next moment, which we have not touched till now, is the wrong method of choosing of the Parliament,
not as
representative sample of the people, but as sample of the
political parties, what is one pretty indirect way for expressing of the will of the people, and is away from the primary source -- the Areopag in Ancient Athens, where were chosen by 10 persons from the 50 genders, called
dems, via lots or some voting in the dems. In this sense, the contemporary democracy (in the whole civilized Western world) is
worse than that of 25 centuries before! The Parliament must be representative sample
of the whole nation, if we want that it will in some way reflect the will of the very people! The representative sample is statistical term and it means that if between all of the voters those, say, on the age between 50 and 60 years are 15%, then so much (or very near to this) must be these people in the Parliament, too; if the people with tertiary education between the voters in our country are, for example, 12%, then so much must be those persons also in the Parliament; if the voters with Gypsy ethnic origin are 20%, so much must be they also in the highest democratic body; and so on. This is not provided, neither in Bulgaria, no in any democratic country, neither now, nor before centuries, but what is more important --
no Parliament even
thinks to make this in the near future, because this will be strong blow directly in the heart of party system! On the question of parties we shall dwell in the next point, but let us note here that if something can be done in order to ensure representativeness of the entire population, then this can be done
only at the request of the people, not the politicians!
Such democratic reform also is not a problem to be carried out -- via random multi-parametric choice, or just random choice, from a computerized data base of all voters. More than this, this idea isn't at all revolutionary or utopian, because in the judicial system, at least in the U.S. (as far as is known to the author), by the choice of the jurors for each law suit (or at least for these of criminal character) the situation is similar, and the role of the jurors and of MPs is, in its essence, one and the same -- they must represent the people on the question of this,
what is good and what bad
in their view, for already from the times of Plato was clear that this is a very treacherous and inconstant matter, which cannot be put in narrow formal framework. The difference is only that in the judiciary the representatives of the people decide on the guilt of particular person, where in the Parliament they evaluate the suitability of a given law, i.e. one more abstract matter, but the nature of the work is the same! This does not mean that by such system there will not be errors, because the people very often can be mistaken, as we have already mentioned, especially if some unanimity is searched (as it is in murder cases in U.S.), but this is the true democracy, and everything else is only "dust in the eyes" of the populace "thrown" by the politicians, in order to justify their existence and the privileges of the power!
For understanding of the possibility for such changes we must make some explanations, or rather
to divide the legislative activity of the Parliament in:
strategic, here related with the requiring and
approval of the laws, on one hand, and
tactical, or related with the
creating of the laws, i.e. with the ruling through them. This isn't a new element in other fields and is applied in all big companies, where the strategic body is somehow hidden or distanced from the very management -- these are those who keep the money in the company (or also the wife in the family -- see "About the woman and the man") --, and the tactical body is the Managing (Executive) Council of the company. By the democratic ruling bodies, of course, the Government and the Municipals are the tactical bodies, but also by the creating of the laws the things must be divided, where the Parliament must be engaged only with the
approval of the laws and then it can (but also must) consist of nonprofessionals and
not related with whichever part (i.e. party) persons. The tactical activity, or the creating of concrete laws, according to the directives of the Parliament (or the Peoples Council), is work for jurists and other specialist from various sciences, and with this can be occupied some, let us call it,
Judicial Council. The whole mess in this case comes from the
wrong practice these, who create the laws, they also to assess them, and that this is wrong practice must be obvious, because it
is not applied anywhere
else except by making of the laws (by all committees for whichever competitions always is controlled that the members of the jury do not take part in the competitions, and even are not related by financial or family relations with the competitors). Be that as it may, the things are pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to complicate them, because of their personal interest.
3. Regarding
the parties, then, if we proceed from Ancient Greece, they
have no place in the Parliament, in the sense that they can be formed in the Parliament, but
after its election! And even better if they go out in some separate, let us call it,
Party Council, because they also have their place in the social life as
consolidating units for mass manipulation of the people in their own interest (we discussed already that it is not in the abilities of the common folks to realize correct their own interests and someone cleverer than them has to help them)! In this sense the parties come up to a great extent near to the media, but the latter are directly ruled by the business, where the parties, even if they become some financial injections from the big business, are nonprofit organizations, so that they play the role of national institutions for public relations, what is a necessity in the contemporary society. In this way is resolved the contradiction between the first and the second point of this chapter (to which we deliberately paid no attention), because in the one we require professionalism from the politicians, and in the other --
nonprofessionalism from the Parliament. If there exists one really
national National Assembly (that is how the Bulgarian Parliament is called) for strategy and approving, one strictly legal Judicial Council for making of the laws, one really professional Party Council for maintaining of the relations between the governing and the masses, as also the corresponding tactical managing bodies, represented by the Government, different Ministries and the Municipal Councils, we could have spoken about real democracy in action. This is just one additional dividing of the powers, but what is the history of civilization, if not one incessant dividing of the whole power, with a view to specialization of the individuals and establishing of the ways for interaction between the powers (see "About the mankind")?
But we can't speak about the politicians and not to touch their moral aspect, which suffers strongly by the existing democratic way of choosing via
self-advertising, because no politician can be chosen if he alone does not apply for the post, exhibiting only his high self-esteem, but not his modesty or his other moral qualities (because with his competency this, in all events, has nothing in common)! It is true that by each choosing for a given post the candidate must somehow propose himself, but this does not mean that he must trumpet on the left and on the right in the company how good he is and how everything "will blossom and fruit" if people choose him, and that all other candidates are "bare water", as we say. The modesty is
non-inherent quality for the politician (because of the system of choosing), and when some boy chooses his future female partner in life he does not go to search for her in the brothel, does he? This is probably rather unpleasant comparison, but it will impose itself always while the pluralism expresses chiefly in chest beating and spitting on the political adversaries, and this is observed in
all democratic structures for centuries. The radical decision consists only in
debasing the role of politicians and their gradual exclusion from the executive and law-approving authorities! If the "piece of pie", for which they fight, is not so big they will not show such painful ambitions to catch it, but will do their work faithfully. However much we may speak about the moral it will not change until the situation, in which they act, is not changed, because the politicians, whatever one may say, are people, with all their human weaknesses, and the politics is a kind of game (like, say, the poker), and it may be interesting for all only by moderately high "buy-in", otherwise it turns into means for personal benefit, where all methods ale allowed.
V. Utopian Models
Till here we explained various drawbacks of contemporary democracy, as also some real methods for its improving, in which there was nothing utopian, though the utopias are not at all something bad and have their place in the social sphere, because their main quality is the
reasonability. More precisely said, we may characterize one idea as utopian when its reasonability
exceeds the level of reasonability of the circle of people who assess it! This will say that after a time there are no obstacles for some regarded as utopian idea to find its place in life, if the reasonability of the society (may God grant it) increases. In the left part of this essay we will propose some
utopian democratic models, which improve some of the drawbacks of the real democracy explained above, or elaborate some of its advantages, maintaining the necessary attractiveness for the masses.
1. On the first place we shall stop on the
model of representative Parliament, which was touched in the previous chapter and which is the least utopian of all. It supposes: Parliament (or National Assembly) chosen by a computer between all "voters" (this term looses its meaning in this case, for they don't "give" at all their voices); Party Council, chosen by the very parties within the quotas, received through voting in the
already chosen Parliament; Judicial Council, which must be legislative body (rather law-making body, but which does not approve the very laws) and is chosen by the Party Council, proportionally to the parties in it, but this does not mean that the lawmakers must necessary be members of some party; Government, which is proposed by the Party Council as a professional committee, but is approved by the Parliament; and also President of the country with representative functions and as instance for "rapid response" (within the legal framework), who also is proposed by the Party Council but elected and approved by the National Assembly, which can also take him down from his post. In this situation the supreme body is the Parliament, but it performs mainly strategic functions and sets the tasks to the Judicial Council and the Party Council, approves the laws and intervenes with various directives in the work of the Government and the President, being able to cease some of their decisions, if this becomes necessary. The Party Council is go-between between the Parliament, on one hand, and the Government and Judicial Council, on the other hand, and maintains the relations with the masses. The Judicial Council makes the laws, which are reviewed by the Party Council and the President, but are approved by the Parliament. The functions of the Government and the Presidency are the same as by the traditional forms of democracy. On conceptual level everything is clear.
2. The next model we shall call "
democratic dictatorship", which, regardless of the shocking name, is an attempt to combine
in the time the advantages of democratic and centralized forms of governing, with the hope to avoid their drawbacks! As we stressed above the democracy is a mobile and adaptive, but very ineffective form of ruling, while the dictatorship was and will remain the most effective, but also rigid form. This means that the democracy has its advantages in the choice of some
goal for developing, taking into account various meanings and choosing the best possible from them, but later on the very realization of this goal must be done under the conditions of autocracy and without party quarrels. Exactly for these reasons in Ancient Greece were often alternated periods of democracy with such of tyranny (the dictators in those times were called Tyrants), where neither one of these periods have lasted for long time, because the democracy then was near to the ideal or pure democracy and in their General Assembly have existed a good representativeness (well, without the slaves and the women), though on a gender principle. The today's democracies contain many foreign elements and
because of this they stay longer, but in spite of this very often happen governmental crises, caretaker governments are appointed, martial laws are declared, and even totalitarian systems come to power, because, as Bulgarian, so called,
shopp (around Sofia) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". The meaning of such alternating is that, when something near to the one extremity does not do good work, for the
truth is in the middle, change to the other extremity is forced, but it also isn't good, and then a returning to the first end becomes necessary, and so on, ad infinitum, or until better compromise between the two things is found. Yeah, but the people very rarely succeed to find the compromising variant, and then happens so that they
find it in the time, and looked at from afar this oscillation averages exactly where needed! Out proposition now is, instead of to wait for these fluttering between the extremities to happen chaotically, simply to plan them, including them in one system capable to work
in both modes.
The period of democracy lasts three years, for example (but they might be also four), and during it exist all traditional democratic institutions, where there are no problems to combine this variant with the above-explained of randomly chosen representative National Assembly, separate Party Council, at cetera. During this period is lively discussed and is fixed some strategic goal for the next period of dictatorship, lasting five years (or again four, for equality), and in the end of this period is chosen the needed Dictator. There are no problems to name this Dictator also President, but he will not be mainly representative figure, like the democratic President, and will have
all rights in the framework of law, where each political activity has to be frozen, the demonstrations to be forbidden, the Parliament, especially if it consists of politicians, ceases its work as supreme body and, either the Dictator dismisses it, or rules over it wholly and uses for some subsidiary, rather questionnaire, purposes. The dictator turns into reality the tasks set by the previous democratic government and two months before the end of his period appoints new democratic elections. Neither the democracy, nor the dictatorship can last more than one mandate, but each government
can renounce his mandate, where the Dictator, for example can give the whole power to the Parliament (or choose new Parliament), if the goal for which he is elected can be performed also in democratic conditions, where the Parliament can in three days choose new, or appoint the old Dictator, if the country faces serious problems requiring individual management without possibilities for long disputes and disagreements. As long as in the contemporary democracies, anyway, exist rudiments of such forms of governing, there are no problems for this utopian proposition to become sometime reality.
3. The next variant combines the ideas for representative sample with bigger attractiveness and really public participation in the governing. We shall name it "
totalizational variant", and the single change in electoral law is the necessity for lacking of the
names of actual physical persons in the electoral lists of the parties. Can exist whatever parties, bunches, groups, clubs etc., which take part in the elections, and if they succeed to collect voices for at least one quota in the Parliament or Municipal Bodies then
after the general elections in each of these groups are held random elections (or whatever other form of choice is accepted there) for the concrete persons, who will enter in the corresponding bodies! This can be done easy, when for participation in each of these groups is bought some ticket with unique number in the group, and thereafter are drawn the corresponding number winning tickets (plus some reserves). The groups can be on ethnical, professional, of age, territorial, or property principle, based on interests and devotion to sports teams, or some other division, where the chosen after this persons are, really, common people, not politicians, but they will not enter the Political Council, they are chosen for the Parliament (maybe also the Municipals). There are no problems for a given voter to participate in ten or so such groups (provided he has bought the corresponding tickets), as also to vote for group in which he is not registered (though this is but an exception). While in all traditional democratic forms of ruling
the common people have no chance to be chosen in the ruling bodies, here this chance is entirely real, and the elections become something like national lottery. But what is life, if not a lottery, too?
4. Interesting moment by the democracy is taking part in the ruling bodies, as of representatives of the "goods", i.e. the won party or coalition, as well also of the "bad", i.e. of the defeated, and both groups have even equal rights (and salaries!). The important thing is that, in order to allow for free debates, there must be present all parts or, in fact, the ruling party and the opposition, but also the whole population (or extra-parliamentary powers), which have various possibilities for influence over the government.
It doesn't matter which is the ruling party, neither which is in opposition -- the important is
both parts to be present! In other words,
there is no specialization in the parties, and each one can do the work of the other one, but the necessary element is their changing. In this situation there are no problems to separate these parts in
two kinds of Parliaments, which we can name, respectively,
Party Parliament and
Oppositional Parliament, and assume that each one consists of equal number of people (say, 100), but the leading one is the Party one, where the Oppositional can only criticize and make propositions. As far as each politician, or person from the people, can fulfill equally well both functions, it doesn't matter which one -- which of them!
It remains to establish how we will fill both Parliaments and how they will change and renew, for the things to remain dynamic. The best possible choice, in the sense of representativeness, is the random one, but in order the preference of each voter to show influence we propose here
two stages of the elections. The first one is for forming of the dividing of all voters in at least three part, namely: Party, Opposition, and Folk (People), but in order to provide greater attractiveness is preferable to choose between five variants, for example, where have to be added also: Last (Old) choice (from the previous voting) and Next (or New) tour of elections. These five variants are coded with the numbers from 1 to 5 and each voter has to declare within one month via the established for the purpose bureaus one of these numbers, to which he gives his preference, only
without knowing in advance which number what signifies. The deciphering of the numbers is done later on officially (via a lot) and in this way are formed the
pools of the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk, where by existing of fifth number is conducted one more tour in the same way (only that by the second tour the fifth choice must be added to the Folk, for to be able to stop till here). The actual choice happens in the second stage, for which each one again has to declare one number, but this time from 1 to 10,000, for example, in order to get substantially smaller sample of people for each group, where thereafter is drawn the winning number (and, maybe, two more reserves). But till here the exact people are still not chosen, only their number is greatly reduced (to about double reserve), where in the end is drawn a lot
for ordering between them and are separated the first to the needed number, and the left ones remain as a reserve. By the choice for President the final number must be now to 100,000, otherwise the things are similar, only that the President is chosen amidst the Folk.
In this way the role of parties in the classical sense is reduced to zero, but the democratic model
does not presuppose obligatory existence of political parties -- they are additional and auxiliary element, and if we can do without them we shall lose nothing. The both Parliaments exist as the united traditional Parliament, and each person knows to which part he (or she) belongs and should he agree or criticize. Even the group of Folk (People) also can take part in discussion of the laws (but surely without right to vote), were it via some extra-parliamentary associations (say, by ... zodiacs), were it if there is formed a third, Folk's Parliament. One more thing: here will be no abstained by the elections, because each one, who for one or another reason has not made his choice, will automatically receive the number zero, which later will be interpreted as belonging to the Folk. This model does not mean that parties can not exist at all, but they will not have that meaning as by the traditional democracies, and members of a given party may be present in both Parliaments and amidst the Folk. In other words, this model can be combined also with the first proposed variant, because it constitutes, basically, a procedure for forming of representative sample of the voters, and allows one additional level of dividing of the Parliament, in view of avoiding of direct debates and their substitution with summarized resolutions of both Parliaments and only some common meetings. By each successive choice is performed renewing of the three powers in the governing, but with some degree of continuity (enhanced also by the Last or old choice in the first stage). This variant can be named "
forever changing Party" and it is very near to the ideal democracy, although it parodies the party system.
5. The next variant is "
new nomenclature", which does not require changes in the procedure of election, but proposes a way for forming of nomenclature cadres -- something like specially chosen
aristocracy, which main purpose in life to be the ruling of the people. Such variant is needed, because the centuries of human existence confirm some definitive pluses of similar social layer freed from worries about food and means for subsistence, but also freed from severe and unrealistic competition (in various cases wide more than ten to one). These people would have had for their life goal, either their own pleasure, or the happiness of the others, or the both things, and even the personal pleasure under a good provision and higher esteemed place in the society, would have reduced itself again to something useful for the others, like: arts, sciences, military distinctions, and the like (and not, say, to watching of actions on the video). After becoming conscious of these pluses many clever people have wondered what sorts of nonsense to invent only to make people listen to some personalities, who from their birth have been prepared to rule (because there was nothing else left to them). There were used the delusions of shamans and church officials, the power of the money, has been invented the tale about the blue blood, the fables about the predestination of each other, the ideological conviction, the belonging to different castes, the genetic heredity, and so on, but all these were only temporary decisions, because there have remained the basic drawback of aristocracy, namely:
the wealth and benefits were transferred hereditary, and there is no reliable argumentation about the appropriateness of this! More precisely said: the aristocracy is a good thing, but in the hereditary aristocracy is hidden the dead element; it is good for one from child age to know whether he is destined for higher activities, but there is no logic in this that his children must also be predestined. But when the question is already set, then its decision is obvious -- it suffices to perform
random choice of small number of nomenclature cadres
in the youngest possible age, where the belonging to the group of chosen ceases with the demise of the person!
One concrete decision is each year to be conducted random choice between all live children with completed two and uncompleted three years, where this is performed always to one and the same date (say, 1 July). For Bulgaria suffices to choose by 100 children, what after about fifty years will ensure about 5,000 potential "nomenklaturists", who could have covered the needs of all higher officers in the country, including the Parliament, the Supreme Council, the Municipal Councils, and the such, but it is not necessary to employ them obligatory there (it is just supposed that they will be preferred), and can be required only a
quota of 1/3 of the democratic ruling bodies to be reserved for such persons. Must be established and funded initially the corresponding institution, which has to care for the feeding and education of these cadres, ensuring for them the best possible on a world level, because they will be one ridiculously small number (about 1 to 1,000 for our country), and later on they, definitely, will find ways to support themselves alone, via deductions from the income of already occupying leading posts nomenclature cadres, as well also from voluntary contributions. In addition to this, because the state of nomenclature will not be transferred by heredity, after some time they will leave also significant property (excluding the personal, which may remain for their heirs) to this institution.
The very choice can be made pretty attractive and watched by all parents, where the happy child will be directly taken in the corresponding boarding schools, for the parents will be ensured some lifetime support in the amount of one minimal working salary, for example, and till the completing of seven years of the child one of the parents can live with him or her receiving enhanced support. Afterwards the new aristocrats will have also some very decent incomes as a kind of aristocratic pension, plus provided house, transport, vacations, and others,
regardless the fact whether they work or no. In other words, these new aristocrats will not at all be obliged to take leading posts in the country, and will be able to do this, what their heart wishes. Greater details are hardly needed, because the very aristocrats after some time (say, 40 years) will be compelled to make some moral codex, legal requirements, et cetera. The idea is to create each year new aristocrats, who till the end of their life will live "as kings", in order to be able to develop most fully their personalities, but without genetically fixing their rights. As is usually said: only pluses without minuses.
6. The last variant we will name "
sexual democracy", because by it is set on some natural differentiation of both sexes (see "About the Woman and the man"). As far as the woman is the born strategist or hidden ruler in the family, and in the same time the most
mediocre personality, because stays between the man and the posterity, as well in her destination, so also in her abilities, she is simply bound to occupy the whole National Assembly (no matter in its traditional form, or in some representative variant), and then it can rightly be named
Women's Assembly (or Council). This does not conflict with the party system and does not mean that only women can take part in a given party, but that only women can enter the Women's Assembly and the Municipal Councils, while the men will do the other work. This other work is the real or tactical ruling in the Government and Presidency (especially there). In the Courts can be accepted the "Solomon" decision to retain their mixed staff. The woman is the one, who can bring more calm and finesse in the politics, and then why not do it? This, in any case, is worldwide tendency in the politics in recent times -- here we simply validate it and lead it to its completed form.
More concrete is necessary the introduction of some other requirements for mediocrity in the Women's Assembly, like: average height, weight, chest measurement, income, education (secondary or one tertiary), age from 30 to 40, and others. Exactly opposite are the requirements for the President, who must be a real
father of the nation, where is required, for example: height above 180 cm, weight above 80 kg, income more than 4 minimal salaries, education higher than tertiary (at least more than one tertiary), married with at least two daughters, age above 50, at cetera. Only in this way the social governing can become sexually balanced and harmonious, where each one gives what is put in him or her by God.
In addition to these models can be proposed also various others, on which we shall not dwell here in details, but may hint at some basic points. So for example, by the national voting can be required choosing not only of one person, but up to five, as well also to be voted not only "pro", but "
against", too (in white and black boxes)! This is entirely in the spirit of conducted surveys and ranking lists for prominent politicians and parties and will allow for more accurate estimation, as well also for measurement of the
difference in the votes "pro" and "against" for each political power, where the choice is done on the basis of this difference. This will drive into "blind alley" those parties, which are as much loved by ones, so much also hated by others, and exactly these are the "sharp stones" which confuse the "grinding of the flour" in the political "flour mill". Then can be formed two lists -- with positive and with negative differences -- which are ranged and fill now two institutions: Parliament and Antiparliament, where the first one is the ruling and the other one is the opposition, without which there is no democracy.
It can also be thought about performing of
the only correct choice from below -- the iterative choice! Meaning that the choice is performed for persons from the immediate surroundings, who everybody knows well; then one part (say, ten times less in the number of the people) of the first chosen vote in the same way (maybe for some of the already chosen); and so on in 3-4 iterations, until is come to one
extended National Assembly of, say, 1,000 people, which now chooses with open voting the necessary 100 or 200 people, but it can every time be used also for other survey goals, as well for choosing of the President. There are no insurmountable problems for such voting, which can be done with voting bulletins, in the Municipal offices, with phone-cards from special machines, via Internet, and other variants, where is just needed to give some unique code for the person (personal identification or insurance code), and if by this it is conducted also openly (meaning that is known whose is the vote) then the similar personal code for the voter. When is voted for acquaintances there is no need to hide the votes, where this does not prevent the voting at the tops, too, i.e. for political leaders, but this is not compulsory, at least on the first iterations. By today's computer equipment this will give possibility for exact tracing of the tree of choices (top-down and v.v.), so that will be known exactly who for whom (not necessarily directly) has voted, and who whom represents, in order to be made real contact between voter and representative.
It can, in the end, also the politics be put on business fundament, where each politician builds his (or her)
political company, sells shares and collects money for his activity in one
legal way, for it is public secret that the politicians are supported by some or other business circles, or, at least, live from membership fees of their followers. Instead of to turn a blind eye before such facts it is better to allow open establishing of this, who from whom earns. In one company the strategy is determined by the General Assembly of the shareholders and why it should not be so also by the politicians? Or else: how are the politicians worse than the football stars, when the latter can be bought and sold but the politicians can not? Because if we take for granted that the money always spoils the things, then we must reject also the private property of the means for production, as it was decided by the communists.
Surely there can be devised also other variants, or be combined some of the explained, but this is more than enough, and let us also not forget that the main difficulty in taking of decisions in the social area comes
not from the finding of new decision but in the
rejecting the old one!
So that, if we summarize all said here, it will turn out that the democracy is a
bad social organization, but because it contains the contradiction in itself and is open for various foreign elements, it turns to be
dynamically the best of the known so far forms, where the bad thing in it forces it incessantly to enhance and evolve itself!
The democracy is like the life -- bad thing, but without it is worse --, so that there are all reasons to expect that in the future it will still remain the main form in the ruling of society. But it surely will be corrected and changed.
IN BULGARIA EVERYTHING IS QUIET
1. So, I have been silent and silent for a dozen of years, but then decided to raise again my voice, and it is necessary to explain now why I have not written for such a long time any publicistic. Well, the reasons are several, but they are related. For one thing, at the turn of the century, roughly speaking, or with the coming to power of the King's party,
the things have begun to stabilize
and it has begun to happen by us so like on the West, with this difference, of course, that it becomes more and more clear how
terribly poor we are. And why are they stabilizing, ah? Well, because, first of all, we have reached the bottom, so that there is nowhere more to sink, what happened with the establishing of Currency Board by us, which has fixed us to the bottom, but also because we have abandoned at last the bipolar model, where the ones always spit on the others, and vice versa, where both poles are as much right, as well also wrong -- it depends on the time and the viewpoint. But this is practically clear, and the more interesting question is the following: why exactly our King has begun to settle the things?
Not that he has not wanted to do this, but his party was just a heterogeneous crowd of all more moderate right-wing (because the immoderate ones have dispersed themselves, and there has emerged also one "
Haiduk Sider" -- i.e. Volen Siderov, but "
volen" means free, like a haiduk --, who has taken with him all right-wing ... lumpens, of course, or mostly youngsters, like there has existed earlier "
Hitler Jugend") politicians, i.e. of
conjunctural such, who had nowhere to go and a whole decade had sat quiet. But he was neither too much left, nor too much right (well, more right-wing, obviously, for he is strong, he is a King, at any rate, although uncrowned). And he has come also from the West and there people from long ago don't like extremist in politics, and his years, too, were not such to make him do some excesses, what was clear to the population, though we naively have thought that he does this because he is a King. Yeah, but the "guy", has come to take his land and other possessions, as all were very well able to see, and has begun to do what only he wants, having in mind that he holds the majority of places in the Parliament, and was born as King, too, and was in advanced age, so that the people soon have begun not to give much respect to him. But also his party was formed in extremely short time, for two months, so that its members have not even succeeded to change its name and it remained so as "Second Simeonian" Platform (NMSS, National Movement Simeon the Second), i.e. with
working name, the only movement then to which three letters did not suffice (and now, too, for the GERB party, although this is also abbreviation, but as a word "gerb" means ensign, emblem).
What I want to say is that this man, and also all his people, have not given much efforts, they just wanted to "cash in" on the power, without some special ideas, still, it happened so that he gave the impulse for bettering of the things, mostly with his moderation. For this reason or not, but it turned so that those, who very much wanted to better the things, the right- as also the left- wing, have only worsened the situation the more they wanted to better it, where those, who have not striven especially hard, have succeeded to give us the proper impetus, am I right? This is crystally-clear paradox (although it often happens so, also in other cases), but we, as country of paradoxes, can do the things only in this way, ah? Id est that the "point" here is that
not the politics can better the things by us, but, as I have stressed this in other places (not pretending, though, to "discover America"), the economics, the usual routine, and often egoistical, work. It is good to understand this, because this party, if it has been built as party with some platform and name -- for example "Western Model Party" or "Alliance for Normal Capitalism", or, if you want, "Party of Moderate Actions" -- could have continued its existence (I mean that it also have retained its influence over the masses, because with less than 5% of the votes this simply does not count).
On the other hand I have ceased to write because I have not seen special purpose in this, when now (to the end of the century, after a decade of turbulent changes)
there have not remained unmanipulated newspapers,
or really free press, but only some sponsored by large business groups (I am not interesting exactly which, yet this is obvious, for the reason that all the left, including also party newspapers "Duma"-"word" and "Democracy", have ceased to exist -- only that on the West each party has its newspaper, right?). Well, they manipulate those who ...
can be manipulated (because me, for example, nobody manipulates for the reason that he can't), i.e. the people got what they wanted, like on the West -- it is this, about what we are speaking, that by us it begins to happen like on the West --, so that this groups are
right, in their own way. When the people want to be deceived (what in Latin is:
Mundus vult
decipi, i.e. "The world
wants to be deceived"), then there will always be found someone to do this, say: advertisements, politicians, PR-cadres, physicians, teachers, etc., who manipulate in some way the corresponding people. So that is what most people do, but I am not such person who likes to deceive or manipulate the others, and I have given up to intervene.
But then, when a decade have passed and it turned out that the Internet gives some opportunity to say things to the people, if not exactly in Bulgarian then in other languages (for I can use a pair), I have decided to raise a voice from time to time because I have nothing else to do, i.e. I have
not at all work being unemployed (for the reason that I have studied long, I'll tell you).
So that in Bulgaria everything is quiet, in broad lines, there are no changes in general political course -- transition to more and more harder and right-wing capitalism, and this even from the part of so called left-wing parties (because, for example, the flat income tax is one as possibly utterly right-wing economic decision, more right than this there is nowhere, nobody would have accepted that from the poorer was taken more than from the wealthy, but it was silently approved by the left-wing and only somewhere in 2010 they have raised voice, but not so much because they did not like it, as because they wanted to find something for what to accuse the "Duce Boiko"). And in the economy there are not big changes, the stronger Western economies continue to press us and we continue
not to unite with more weaker in economic regard countries (because we now can't do this, being included in the European Union). And that in the morality, I want to say, in its absence, there are also no changes, is more than obvious, but such are likewise not to be expected (because, for to give examples, there is not one interesting TV series, or whatever other TV broadcast watched with interest by the audience, where is no cursing, sex, or they don't deal with homosexuals, as if there are no more normal in this respect people left, or where is no violence -- and to remind you, just in case, that in the times of Oscar Wilde the expression "to make love " meant purely to show interest to someone from the other sex, speak with him or her, show courtesy, and as "cursing" was taken to say ... "the hell" or "damn it", for in this way one showed disrespect to God). So that I want to say that our "normalization" is in no case normal, but terminologically, and I think also so, some commonly accepted and average situation is taken for normal, even if this is something bad (say, it is normal that corruption existed, normal that there were fought wars, and so on).
2. So, everything is OK till now, remains only to clear the point which political forces are for normalization or moderation or centering -- because, if you ask me, or even if you look at the ancient Greeks, the moderation is a
matter of common sense --, and then see whether we can move in this direction and what is our future, in political, but also in economic, regard.
Which parties are centrists, then? Well, if you exclude Bulgarian "Ataka"-attack party, maybe all the left, because now even the UDF (Union of Democratic Forces,
SDS in Bulgarian) long ago (i.e. after its popularity has strongly fallen, somewhere around the turn of the century) is not ultra-right, and the last really convinced socialist (or communist) of high rank was Zhan Videnov, after him the people there keep only the name "socialists", as a trade mark so to say. Well, the "Ataka" is fascist, what at least on the West does not cause any doubts, and they are so called in foreign, English, texts, but there are little things in Bulgaria that are called with their proper names, right? This, that such party existed, on one hand is terrible, but on the other hand this is not at all so, and it is maybe even
necessary, in order to channel their protests (in the same way as various fans of numerous stars raise different slogans). I don't like to go into details about this question here, because in this way we go astray from the theme of quietness, but as far as this is its antipode then it is necessary to say a pair of words about them, too. Now see, first of all they are very few people, they have started with some 8% and now are somewhere about 5, what, surely, is little, i.e. they can speak whatever sort of nonsense they like -- because it is clear that their plans are absolute utopias, or rather
dystopias, as is now said --, for if something from their propositions could be turned to reality this will be another catastrophe! But this will never happen because they will never seize the power. They can "bark", this they can, but not "bite". And for this reason the West has left them to "bark". Besides, they are party of, let us call them so, post-teenagers, i.e. somewhere from 18 and to 25 years at most, in Komsomol age, as it was spoken before, and these "youngster" just need their "actions", doesn't they? They are immoderate simply because they are young, and as far as there is no morality any more there is nobody to tell them that they behave bad (but it, to remind you, even when there was morality, in one highly moral country like Germany, and when some have said to such youngsters that they do not right things, then they, again, have behaved how they wanted, so that now this is beyond hope!). This is the next "childhood disease" of our democracy.
The proper centrist party, and this for many years, since its emergence as party, is only our ethnical party, the MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms,
DPS in Bulgarian). And here we again have paradoxes, so that let me explain the things in some extent. For there are not many those who can answer correctly the question:
why (and when) a given ethnical party is centrist,
because their party
is ethnical, whatever they alone are not saying (for the obvious reason that nobody will admit officially that he is doing something against the law), and they are centrists (if not for other reasons, then because all Governments have resorted to them when this was necessary, i.e. with them is possible to take compromise decisions, they are not fanatics of whatever idea -- to cite, for example, the "great" slogan of UDF: "Compromises with whomever, only not with the communists!"). Well, listen here, they are first of all
not ethnical
party of the majority, for to be able to do harm and evil, let be clear on that point. They are party of some minority, and then, why them not to try to become a bit stronger? So, for example, they have wanted to be in position to give themselves names like Assan, instead of our Ass
en, and they can do this now. I personally don't see what so good is hidden in the name Assan, but, maybe, they relate it with their
aslan or
arslan, what means lion (this has to be some snarling, like by the bears, which animal is called
ursa in
Latin), so that it is their right, in the end, to bear whatever name they want (and why should someone be able to call himself, say,
Uy Min -- and in Bulgarian
huy, often pronounced as
uy is what you call penis, sorry --, and not Assan, ah?).
But, then, why are they centrists? I don't know whether these people are aware about this, but the answer to that question is obvious for me -- this is
exactly because they are ethnical party, i.e. they do
not divide in some property, or intellectual, or professional, or other principle! They are performing one
proportional sample of the population -- well, of Turkish origin, but the Turks are like the Bulgarians (or Germans, Russians, Hebrews, etc.), i.e. there are among them all sorts of people, and one party that wants to please everybody
must be centrist, else there will be needed at least two such parties, how it is with the other layers-parts (for this is the idea of the word "part" -- strata, side, layer). But a minority party, which hardly gathers 10% of the voices, has no rights to split in two parts, am I right? More so in more than two parts. That's the point. So that it turns out that an ethnical party, at least for us, is a very good thing (because for me is obvious that the center is always something good, at least for the reason that this is so hard to be reached, as far as everybody aims at extremities). Now, if it arises some time ethnical Gypsy -- ah, sorry, Roma's, as they insist to be called -- party, then there may arise some frictions, but otherwise there is no danger, except on the part of "
Sider-Jugend", but we have all once been young (and silly, of course).
There also our King was, inasmuch as this was possible, center, because he is "King" of all Bulgarians, and it is necessary to remind, or cite, for I am not convinced that people by us are aware that the social measures can be equally well proposed by aristocrats and Monarchs, where as typical, though rarely used, example I may mention the fact that the social security was introduced initially in Germany (and understand also in Europe, and in the whole world, I suppose) by some Otto, and in addition
von and Bismarck, who surely was not left-wing, right? And due to all this has arisen the directly "extraterrestrial" coalition of former communists, the King, and the Turkish party, because it was possible, and there were no other more or less centrist parties.
This, what I still don't like in our movement to the center -- because, as I have said, both the right- and the left- wing parties are centering --, is that there,
is no fight and competition in the left political space,
it is united and monolithic, all efforts to split it are doomed to failure by the simple reason that the left are on the whole not so powerful for to allow themselves to split, or then they are more intelligent. But the right ones split for 20 years now, there the entire UDF has "peeled" exactly like an onion head, even has begotten shortly also "Duce Boiko" as I have mentioned, who has "prodded" "Haiduk Sider", because there can't be two "Duce" (literally
duce in Italian, what means a leader) in one and the same time and place. So that, hmm, if you care for our center, either become supporter of the
left-wing, in order to allow them to split and to begin there some political fight, or back MRF (what, I think, is pretty hard to be done by a real Bulgarian), or else form some new centrist party (say, of transport workers, but all of them, or teachers, or homosexuals -- they are also of any soft, i.e. representative sample). There is one more variant, almost fantastical, but not to excluded in the future, to which we shall come in the end.
3. Let us focus now for some time on the leading in the moment party, in order to make our review more actual. This, what can be said is that
"GERB" can continue to exist for about five to ten years,
but no more than this, after what it will follow the fate of NMSS, i.e. some of its members, succeeded to push themselves upward, will remain, or change their party, respectively form their own parties, but our "Duce" will be left alone by himself with a pair of percents of the electorate. Well, a general is not a "head of onion", as we say, but he also will spend himself, or at least people will become bored by him, because this, with what the democracy is good, is
not the very choice, but
the changing of parties, and if there is not some platform, which will remain after the person at the top comes down from the scene, then the party very soon will fade away. And that his talks about the image of Bulgaria are nothing more than variant of (pre-electoral) advertising, I think, must be clear to everybody. Because, for one thing, our image is all the same bad, for another thing, it is not created for five years but at least for
fifty, and, for some more thing, -- corruption has always existed and will exist, and, correspondingly, the fight with it.
Let us explain a bit these things. The image of Bulgaria is bad somewhere since the middle ages, if not earlier, and also of all Slavs, who for the West are assimilated with the ... slaves -- compare the English Slav and slave, but as far as the Bulgarians are near to them than, say, the Russians or Ukrainian, then this applies mainly to us. I personally think that the Western people confuse the Bulgarians with the ... Serbs -- obviously --, because they relatively recently have
one more time proved that, even if there is not especially important cause, when only they have some possibility they will find something to fight for, for the simple reason that them, hmm, said in Bulgarian, "
gi sarbiat razete" (to fight), what means literally that their hands are itching, have to be scratched, but is used as idiom for to want something eagerly! This thesis might be questionable, and etymologically here it goes not exactly about itching or scratching, as about
sickles or "
serps" in Russian, i.e. curved sabers, scimitars, which names already from the Sanskrit sound in similar way ("
krpanas", something of the kind), but this is to the same idea. Anyway, let me not expatiate here too widely, but we all in Bulgaria, either know, or remember, or have heard, or then learned, about the circumstances with our Georgi Dimitrov and the Leipzig court trial back in 1933 (because: where to find better person for arsonist than a "
Bugarin", how the Serbs say?), and about the case Antonov (because: who else will take into his head to shoot at the Roman Pope if not a "
Bugarin"?), or also, who else will agree to kill innocent children in Libya for little pocket money, except some
Giaour-infidel like all Bulgarians. This, surely, are sucked from the fingers, or rather from the subconscious mind, justified with nothing insinuations about the Bulgarians, but there can't be said that it is not true that with the coming of democracy a big number of Bulgarians have run to the West, and have reached also to the United States, and the whole Europe screams with terror from us, and for that reason after pulling down of Berlin wall become necessary to erect the Schengen one (even if it isn't exactly wall in the direct meaning of the word; or not only the Bulgarians are such, for there live in Europe also Romanians, for example).
So that our image is obviously bad, this isn't good for us, but it can't be bettered for a pair of years, just raising the slogan "Amend the image!" For reaching of this goal are necessary many efforts, as from the part of the top (I can remind you about one "Princess", Liudmila -- daughter of Todor Zhivkov --, who in her time has traveled all over the world with various exhibitions, but what else can a princess do?), as well also from the part of the masses (for example, with some nice folk songs from the region of our Rodopa mountains, or with Nestinar dances barefooted on burning coals, or with weightlifters, if you like, and so on). But
in order to better the image first of all is needed morality,
a thing which is very difficult to be shown by a nation that is not much religious, and the time in which we live is entirely amoral. We may be very good people (in sense of our genetic makings), but we are quite savage, somebody must teach us to behave properly, and this can be obtained primarily by the usage of a ...
whip. Earlier, in the totalitarian years, there was who to swing it and our savagery was not so easily to be seen, but with the coming of democracy this become the first, and still the primary, thing, which catches the eye in Bulgaria. Everything, the dirt on the streets, but also in the nature, the lacking of elementary social measures (just as an example: from the moment when our Central bath in Sofia, with mineral water, known since 5th century, was privatized it ceased to exist as such, only the water flows as before; or to my knowledge there are no public spots for washing of clothes, laundromats as you say; or the buses up to Mount Vitosha, near to Sofia, have stopped to go anymore; and many other examples), and the covering up of big apartment houses with
patches on their facades, the so called sanitation (because such things on the West are not to be seen -- there either the whole building is coated and painted, or nothing is touched), and the "wild" prices of transport, milk, and other wares, all these are things that does not exist in the normal countries; there the people do not think that some of them are to rummage in garbage bins and other ones can cry "Long live the democracy". When there is no morality and religion it is quite hard in the country, but we have also not one common vision (as we also have begun to say) about this what is good for the state and what not; each new Government carries out its own course, which reduces to this to throw at least half of its efforts on denial and destruction of what was done by the previous Governments (like: to strike out the communism totally, or to declassify the dossiers of employees of former State Security, or to give back the agricultural land in real borders, no matter whether it will be used or not, and other things which does not happen in normal Western countries). If we do not manage to moralize our country from above, to expect that this will happen from below, in a country like our, is almost beyond hope. The Bulgarian "functions" good on the West because there he is in minority and takes example from the majority, but in our country he is who "calls the tune for the song" and it, naturally, comes out of tune.
Besides, the fight with various negative moments in our development is not platform for one party, but
obligation for all of them, so that when on the West they speak that we are lagging behind in the fight with these moments of governing, i.e. that we are quite savage and barbarous people, then this is because there has to be found some excuse (as back in the times of Turkish yoke the then rulers have spoken about "
dish-hag" of "teeth-tax" for the reason that: what can be answered to one who asks unnecessary questions? -- they have required money from the wealthy, for the latter were able to give some to them, they would not have asked from the poor, for example, like it seems to happen nowadays by us). And also the fight with corruption can't be used as goal for a single party because
the corruption is a matter of ... level of ripeness of society
(thesis which I have discussed in my other papers, too), and, for example, the capitalist society, more than obvious, at least for me, but also for many other persons, is corrupted (if not for other reasons than because it is run by money). The corruption exists if it can show itself, if the system requires it, otherwise it disappears by itself. Saying this in a slightly different way, it is an
addition to the government, because the latter can't provide this, what a big number of people want -- for example: prostitution, narcotic drugs, organized crime (for the judicial system, absolutely clear, is not good enough in a big majority of cases). I don't say that the corruption must exist, but, for example, what hinders us to require that all state officials of high rank (in order not to say "statesmen", for there are now many "stateswomen"),
were on state's keep and received
no salaries at all (or, well, let it be so, received three minimal salaries, or one average such, something of the kind), and also remained under financial surveillance for the next at least 5, but better 10, years after leaving their posts, and this to be valid for their direct relatives, too, in view of finding of cases of misuse of their social position? Such people are, really, not so many, not more than 500 persons for a country like Bulgaria, and if only a hundred of them was under control this also would have carried some benefit to the country. But we have not a right view on the question that high ranking governmental officers, in principle, must work for the sake of work, not for money, and on the West people also don't have one meaning, but there in many countries, at least in the USA, exists property qualification (or
cense) and the people
pay out of their own pocket for to be able to rule.
The common people, however, don't understand this and, for example, when in Italy somebody from the politicians was media magnate, they say that this is bad, but he at least does not earn via the power, am I right? And not only there. All confusion comes from the fact that the payment, quite naturally, must be tool only for securing of normal life, not for governing, for obtaining of power over the masses, but the entire capitalism is based on money; denying the money we come to the communism, which is not much liked due to its bad realization till now, but accepting the money we come to the capitalism, commercialization, corruption, and so on, which are things that also are not much liked by the population as a whole, because these are immoral things. There, where the religion has influence, people are satisfied with this, that who lives now good will on the "other world" get what has deserved, and vice versa, but with what can we properly be calmed? By some decent living standard there also is possible not to bother much that the "big sharks" eat the small fishes, because the small "fiches" can live decently, if only they want to, but in a country like ours, the poorest in the whole European Union, and hoping to become second in poverty only if Albania becomes included in it, people become much more amoral than in totalitarian years, when especially big corruption simply could not have existed for there was everything under surveillance, and also the money has not this power as it has now, then only
the power has the power, so to say.
In short, let it be clear that the GERB party can do nothing of big importance, it is party of the "good bully", and this will do the work for some time, but, surely, will bore the people sometimes. And he is not much moderate or centered; well, he is not like the old UDF, but also not such like MRF (the Turks), or like (at least some ideal) BSP (socialists). He, though, pacifies the people, because, passes some time or other, and the "whip" begins to flap, and our folks, as humble horses, pull the chariot. For the moment. But the curious moment here -- there are only curiosities in Bulgaria, as I have mentioned -- is that in spite of the economic crisis we are as if more quiet and stable, than in other Western, i.e. former capitalist countries (like Greece, but Spain, too, Italy, and others), as well as in some Eastern (say, Ukraine, Poland), or that
the crisis by us creates almost no problems,
for the simple reason that we are living so miserable that worse than this is almost not possible! Id est, in Bulgaria, really, in broad lines, everything is quiet. In view of this our "Duce" practically can not "entangle the skein" anymore. He does nothing especially reasonable, he once accepts and then denies some old settings (be it about nuclear power plant in Kozloduy, be it about oil pipeline from Russia, or about some highway, or shale gas, or taxes, etc.), but speaks always with conviction and firmness and is liked by the population, most of all by women, but also by men, at least in the region around the capital Sofia. He has almost no platform, but being, still, a general (not feldwebel like some Adolf), is not silly, holds the masses, and the things are in order. That our situation is bad, it is bad, but as far as we are in this condition a long time, then the present-day situation up to some extent quietens us and we work a little, that's that we work (well, those who have job, of course)
much, but for little (money). We wait and wait for the crisis to end, it does not end, though, and we are like domestic livestock led ... to be slaughtered. We neither try to better something, no think what to do, but just stay there meek and docile (and who can flee abroad does it). In general -- oasis of stability in Europe. And this, however strange, can little by little begin to better our image (but again not because we want this, merely as side effect of our desperate poverty).
4. The future, naturally, can not be exactly predicted, but, still, let us try to meditate a little about this, what can be expected to happen after the GERB, in political as well as in economic aspect. Well, the economy is clear, we will continue to be outsiders within Europe, more or less on equal level with Romania, and a bit higher than Albania, in spite of the fact that we are capable and distinctive people. This is so because we have nothing more left to be privatized (to expect that there will be influx of capitals from the West), nor have alone capitals (for we are poor like beggars), nor also have some general line for development of our own industry (as we have had in the times of totalitarianism). When every Government denies the achievements of the former we are skidding (in the mud) and do not bother much about this. Morality we also do not have, we are not religious, so that here we are left to our fate. But in the nature everything is mutually related, so that it is not excluded that
exactly the lack of morality will force us to try to have it,
little by little, such moments can already be remarked (for example, by some forms of charity), but this is very slow process, and on the background of our current-day decaying of capitalist society (for it is so good in many countries by the simple reason that is already
overripe) we will need quite much time, but maybe Europe will somehow succeed to integrate us, when we do not fight with one another, like it happens in other countries (i.e. to spend money, instead of to pacify us, for raising of our living standard).
More interesting is to guess about politics. It is clear that the socialists, however much they
were not such, will from time to time come to power, but I don't believe that they will be able to rule alone, because -- again a paradox, I'll tell you -- the better one nation lives (and we will gradually rise to the surface, for some 10-20 years, and will reach the level of living from ... the times of our "Bai Tosho"), the more to the right it bends.
The left-wing, as a rule, are not loved,
and -- another etymological excursus -- in Italian (i.e. in Latin) the word
sinister means left, but it is perfectly obvious, at least for the English speaking people, that this means also bad, evil, brutal. If you have not yet given a thought to this phenomenon I can explain it to you: the left-wing, or those who think about the others, not about themselves (or at least think that it has to be so, and for that reason, or for another one, live poor), are not much loved because everybody knows that such behaviour is right, but
they alone can't behave so (for the man, whatever was not said about, is egoist by himself, and even must be such in the nature), so that they are simply feeling ashamed, that the others, poor, humble, good-for-nothing, etc., exceed them with something! That is the essence of the things. Of course, there is also this moment, that the more poor are also more vile, mean, etc., but they are just
compelled to be such, for otherwise they will never succeed in this life, while the wealthy and successful can easily speak about human honour and morality, when receive everything ready. In other words, the "bad" ones are such, because they are forced by the very life, and by the society, too, and the "good" ones think only about themselves and find that that is why they live good and that it has to be lived like them, but deep in themselves they know that this isn't so (and that, for example, they will not find good place in the "other world" with this, that here on this world have lived good).
But I have spoken about this, that the left-wing will hardly succeed to take the whole power on their own, unless it begins fight in the left political space, what, however, in a barbaric country like our, does not happen, at least for the moment. Where the right-wing, they split for a long time and have already split, and there is nothing else to invent there (for we have spent the ideas about the King, and about NATO, and the businessmen, and the farmers -- not that it was some powerful idea --, and the strong people in general). The center, on the other hand, is hard to be reached, and when we reach it, or it is served us on a plate, than we begin not to like it (for we want actions). For the moment I see some escape for a time only in the ... women! In the sense that we have not yet tried to build some
strong feminine or feminists party,
because all women are like all Turks, they represent the whole nation, and they are also as if more meek and quiet, and more mediocre and everybody will understand them (for, if you give some thought to the matter, we are
not governed by philosophers, and will not be governed in the future, too, despite the fact that Plato before roughly 25 centuries has come to the conclusion that this is the most correct decision). If this could not be realized than we can only hope to find some foreign rulers (not only come from behind the border, but also with foreign citizenship and ethnicity, say: Germans, Englishmen, Frenchman, Japanese), or on coalition governments and specially of weak parties (what ruling is very insidious, I think, but we may live long enough to see such one), or on caretakers governments, or (in what I don't believe much, but, still, it is not entirely excluded) on some totalitarian ruling (say, of dynasty of "
Boikists" -- descendants of Boiko Borissov, the leader of GERB party --, if such dynasty exists).
September 2012
P.S. Well, as it turned out after less than half an year, not everything in Bulgaria is so quiet, but (for it isn't possible for the author to make errors, is it?) this is even for the better, because -- now, judge for yourself, the whole world is already ten years or so in economic crisis and the people everywhere are discontented with this, only we, and being the poorest in European Union, keep silence like sheep. So that I am glad that we have shown that we are not entirely sheep, and I also continue to be right about the expressed in the paper moments. But because there are many things to be said about 2013, then I will dedicate to this question another material -- for it turned out that the year was, primarily, guilty for our situation.
April 2013
AGAIN SHARP TURN
(or where to we have come for dozen years of democracy)
Tsrr, tsrr, tsrr-r -- we have "
tsurked" out also our tsar on the political arena. (Where for the foreign readers must be added that "
tsurkam" -- or also
tsarkam or
tsirkam, the first vowel is read like in English "girl" -- means to force out through a small orifice, like milk from a teat, but this ties well with the tsar-king or with the circle or the circus etc. -- not that the Bulgarians now are aware of this, but earlier this was clear to the people, because the tsar is royal figure, for he holds everybody in his fist.) But how not to put him there when the democracy has caught us so tight that there is no stirring! Because we have tried with new parties, and with old parties, even by several times, but we can still not extricate ourselves from the mud where we have stuck, no need to twist our souls here,
exactly with the coming of democracy, as far as earlier we did not stick so deep. And how we have stuck to the knees in it, then, after the Currency Board began commanding us, there is no disentangling from this slimy substance, at least for the next 30 years
*.
[ * Ha, ha, for 15 years we, for this or other reason, are still in the mud, maybe not to the knee but at least to the ankle. The next 15 years though I will not wait to see, I will be seeing my "maker" by that time, so that I leave the checking to you. ]
Well, anyway, but now, with the King at the head, we will blossom and begin bearing fruits, because he, on one hand, is a King, and on the other is not; for one thing he is a "primus", i.e.
primus inter pares (first among equals, as the Latins used to say), and for another thing also "secondus", for he is Simeon II; if you look from one side the people want him, but looked from the other he doesn't even think about kingdom, for the reason that in former elections also were king's parties, but they have not won even half of a percent of the voices together. But, as is said,
a drowning man catches at a straw,
especially when it is given to you by a person who has "studied for a King" (what in contemporary interpretation as if means that he has no special tertiary education, or at the least does not earn his bread with it).
Only that it isn't clear why we should have made obstacles for him, that his party can not be registered, when he not solely has registered it, but also won in the elections the half of all seats! Though this maybe is clear why was necessary, for in his time the poet (Nikola Vaptsarov) has said "Because of this so cruelly you sting, in dying terror I can thing". But this seems to have been communist poetry, so that it should have been forbidden by law.
Though this thing was obvious from the very beginning, because there is no logic to forbid some thing about which we don't
yet know of what kind it will turn to be later, right? Yeah, so it is, but how else they could have raised his rating so high, ah? Because they, the saints, do not alone advertise themselves, their adversaries or enemies make them holy. The explanations here do not correspond to the reality (that he has not lived at least five years in Bulgaria), because when earlier the greater powers have chosen King for us he, naturally, has not lived till that time in Bulgaria, but this has not hindered him at all, and we have also had some democratic ruling then, haven't we? Id est, it was clear from the very beginning that was just necessary to find some obstacles, and they were found.
Only that this isn't new phenomenon in Bulgaria, because the law can forbid existence of ethnically-based parties (or also "Cuckoo" party -- and why not?), but in spite of this one of our first post-totalitarian parties is exactly ethical party, at least according to the West. The point is that we do not call it officially so because the law forbids this. What comes to confirm that our laws are used by us only to make us to search for workarounds in them, what probably is one of the
main characteristics of "Balkan" democracy.
Similarly we have acted, for example, in our Trade Law, where in Art.4. is written that all calculations have to be performed in national currency, for to prevent calculations, say, in US dollars. And because of this
all companies, that have bought their products from abroad, have operated in foreign currency, only that in parallel with the official calculations.
And mark, please, that we are not speaking about the circulation coins and banknotes in the state, only for one clear arithmetic, which, surely, could have been done in whatever sufficiently "hard" currency, according to the choice of the company. In this way now the whole Europe calculates in Euro, while the national currencies are still different. Well, if there was about selling out our country, or about extraction of benefits for the politicians, then we would have listened to the meaning of the West, but when from some unreasonable decision (for to reasonable decisions by us, as a rule, we don't come) can't be won, then we can at least bang our chests that we are Bulgarians (like we now have hanged three lions on our lapel, although the lions have long ago disappeared from our lands).
But let us return to the last elections. It is interesting to ask ourselves then:
who, in the first place, has voted for the Tsarist party?
Well, ... all voters! And there is no sense to look for a "calf under the bull", because how the votes for the blue have shrunk by half so have done also those for the red (at least compared with the previous elections). This, that about 48% of the unemployed have voted for the King, is another manipulation, because he has won approximately the half (43%) of all votes. Only MRF (Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the Turks,
DPS in Bulgarian) have retained their votes, because they are ethnic party and are not affected by democratic winds. To the King have gone the votes of all those who just wondered to vote or not to, a thing that must be obvious for everybody. And this, that
approximately half of the voters are hoping for some sort of "heavenly manna",
is quite tragical outcome from the situation in Bulgaria. Even more tragical, maybe, will look the things in the next Parliamentary elections, because then we will be left to hope only for the help of "extraterrestrials"
**! For it is clear that for 800 days (how they wanted) we can't reach our totalitarian level, not on account of bad governing but for objective reasons. If the blue have failed (again) this is not because they have bad politicians (they were at least significantly better than the embittered dissidents from the first transitionally years, who have known only to destroy but not to create something). Similarly has failed in his time also the Government of the red Zhan Videnov, not because he has had bad ideas. The things in Bulgaria are messed because of the situation of "crab and pike" or because of
[ ** After all, a coalition of former communists, the uncrowned King, and the Turkish party in Bulgaria, is more or less equal to extraterrestrials, in the sense that it was equally unexpected and considered impossible. ]
lacking of concord.
And also due to the depressing, directly flattening influence, of the Western market and technologies. Even United Europe marvels how to protect itself from the superiority of American products, and for this reason it was forced to unite, and what remains for such small and economically weak country like ours. If the real unemployment in Bulgaria is about 25% this isn't because the Bulgarian is lazy, but because nobody buys his products, with the exception of some foodstuffs that are now bought, which for that reason are bought, because the Board, although unintentionally, has forced some
closure of our market and lessening up to one and a half - two times the prices of basic food products, compared with the West (because by stable currency there is no need to sell them abroad on dumping prices -- this can be done in Bulgaria). Only that this prices are low compared with the Western pockets, not with our salaries, from what suffer both, the producers and the buyers.
So that, in short, if the tsarist party will not succeed, this will be hardly because of its errors. Otherwise, in it flowed many political persons, who have never showed monarchical tendencies (i.e. they just have said nothing on this issue). In the end, if our people "grasp at a straw", then why our political figures should not behave in similar way (though earlier than the people)?
But this "straw" has not at all to be "rotten", right? It can not lead us to the bank of the river but it surely will pull us out a little. Well, not for 800 days, of course, because these days are chosen so that to pass more than half of the mandatory time and that nobody could think to change them before the term; and also from psychological viewpoint is clear that for about 2.5-3 years one becomes used to everything -- to his work, and to his wife (resp. husband), and to whatnot? In the same way we have become used to our continuing misery and stagnation under the scepter of the Board. In other words,
the tsarist party has chances for success
and they are in this, that there now are significantly more moderate people, not such who can only cry "uhh", or, respectively, "hurrah". Id est we
now have some stable center,
some nice middle point, or at least hopes for such one. The leading personality is not some young boy in the age of 30-40, neither is he bound to make career at any cost, for he is not forced to earn his bread. The King remains a King, even if he fails, i.e. the aristocratic institution has some advantages, although we have already rejected the nomenclature, which was a kind of
new aristocracy. But he, right, is at one hand a King, yet on the other hand he does not intend to serve as a King, so that, maybe, there will remain only the advantages, without disadvantages?
***
[ *** What, leaving aside the question with his land properties (because in the world of capitals there are no reasons to expect that one King will be idealist), so also happened, i.e. there were less drawbacks than by the previous governments. ]
Well,
and why the people have voted for the King,
or for the tsarist party? The correct answer in again succinct -- because they feel need of strong hand, of course. The young, no matter how much they kick, subconsciously want that some stronger one commanded them; but the older also stick to this meaning, because otherwise we are going to the pole of anarchy, how it has happened with our democracy. For this reason both, the fascism and the communism, had come to power most often in democratic way; for this reason the people have voted quite actively for the not unknown George Ganchev, who, with apologies to the man, can be very amusing and attractive personality, but is clear that he is not suitable for a politician. Similarly also in Russia the democracy can not go without somebody with firm fist. And in addition to the strong personality in this case is important that it came from the West, where, as we all are convinced, people live better, as well as more culturally. Similar strong personalities have emerged also in other ex-communist countries. So that the man has chances, but, all the same, it is not clear will we not mess something betting only on the force and the West. If we put on him as on a personality
****, maybe we are right.
[ **** And if he was satisfied only with the former palace in the center of Sofia. ]
But the most important conclusion in the case is that
our people are pretty disappointed by the democracy.
Up to such extent that one third, or every third Bulgarian is
openly against it, and every second one does not know with what more to fool himself for to begin to trust it! Because the elections show two things: firstly, how the people accept the game called democracy, and secondly, who they prefer? If they prefer somebody, put on somebody, no matter on whom, i.e. they vote, then this means that they like the game. And if people do not vote, then they are against the system! While by us only 66.7% of the voters have included themselves in this "excitement", what with precision to the last digit is exactly 2/3 of the people.
And that this is a game -- well, it is clear that this isn't competent choice, is it? Because it is not applied, not only in the army and the police, but also in any company, where the strategical ruling is exercised by that one who keeps the money, and the tactical one -- by the Executive Director, who listens to the Council of Shareholders, and is not chosen at the general meeting of the company, including the doorkeeper.
Well, in some countries this game is useful, because the people, at least from Roman times, want their circuses, but when the bread begins to be no longer enough then the game begins not to be liken by the populace, and that is how it happens already dozen of years in Bulgaria. Because of this our people don't know what to do in order that the game remains, but comes also some alternative of the stable governing from totalitarian times. And for this reason exactly half of the chairs in the Parliament were occupied by the tsarist "straw". But what if ..., says to himself every second Bulgarian.
Only that -- there is no way for one impartial analysis not to consist mainly of "on one hand so, but on another one it is else" -- this is
again turn to the other extremity.
Well, very good, we have run away from the bipolar model, for a first time we have now three strong parties (taking more than 10% of the mandates), but why was it necessary that this strongest party has occupied half of the places? It is clear that only with sharp stones cannot be ground much flour, but, at the other hand, there are necessary at least two stones, aren't they? Have we not again overdone the things?
Well, it is clear that we have done exactly this. It would have been otherwise if we have had, say, 35% for the first party, 25-30% for the second, about 20 for the third, and a little for some other parties. Then the game would have been interesting, right? But you see, this did not happen! For the reason that so said the people, and the voice of people is voice of God (
vox populi, vox dei!, in Latin), so that there is nothing to be done. Well, it has to be so and this will be better than before, but only don't think that the people's decision is the most correct one, because it is just
accepted to be the best!
Surely it must happen how the people will, especially in democratic conditions, but this does not at all mean that this, what the people want, is good for them. In some extent this is similar with the right of the stronger, which is taken for correct
not because it really is so, but because
something has to be taken for right, and the strong can always force his right.
Well, at least we have become rid in some measure of our "delirium democraticus" (and when every second
***** begins not to vote, then, probably, we will "heal" entirely). The people, villy-nilly, begin to understand that the democracy is not a panacea for all social illnesses, but only an
environment in which the society functions. In some countries and under certain conditions it works good, but in countries like ours it still limps quite much. This, what is important, is always to avoid the extremities, if we want to lead quiet life, but exactly this is the most difficult thing for the masses. And because we can't find the middle point then we ... again find it, but in an incessant
oscillation around the middle! Well, in the end, we do what we can, don't we? Let us hope it is for the best.
[ ***** Correction from 2008: every second for us obviously is still much, to all appearances we are not to such extent normal, as the author wishes, because already half of the voters don't vote and the situation is not better; maybe a 1/4 of the voters will be enough, in order to cause emerging of capable and thinking not only for themselves but for their people politicians. We will wait and see. ]
June 2001
IS IT POSSIBLE MODERATE COMMUNISM IN BULGARIA?
Or in whatever other "-aria", if that is the point, but, for one thing, I live in this country and is normally to speak about it, and, for another thing, it is good to give some concrete examples which are tied to more accurate numbers, for a given country. The very idea about this has come to me, maybe 10 years ago, and I have explained it schematically in other places, but here will try to be more precise and speak with numbers, what can sound more convincing, because this, what must happen, it sooner or later happens -- as I have stated many times --, but the difference is
in the social price! In addition to all this an example with Bulgaria, as the poorest country in European Union, what, in principle (though not in Bulgaria, of course -- by us
nothing happens properly), is a reason for moving to the left, is quite indicative for the worst case, and, hence, in each other country this will happen easier. Yet it is not without importance also the fact that we are not a big country (now less than 8 millions, with tendency to decreasing, although there are even smaller than us -- Estonia, for example, or Luxembourg, Monaco, some island), and at the end of Europe, too, i.e. in the angle of Balkan peninsula, and if so, then pretty isolated, so that the conditions by us are ideal for similar experiments (were they only be taken seriously by the wealthy countries, which can even decide to help us).
But let us begin the narration.
1. What the author understands under moderate communism?
So, the most succinct definition would have been the following:
the moderate communism is this, what could have been called also moderate capitalism! Is it clear now? Well, I doubt this, so that let me give some explanations, Firstly, what is this communism (according to the author, for everybody can have his own views on the question, some, for example, may think that this means concentration camps for the wealthy)? So that this is care for the society, for the commune, of course, for the ... communal expenses, if you want, because this is what says the very word; while the socialism is care for the "socio" or "sauce" of the society, i.e. for the prevailing masses, not for the top; from what follows, how it might have been expected, that they are practically synonyms. Here, however, I prefer to use the word communism, because it begins on the same letter as the capitalism, and in this way these extremities somehow more naturally come close one to the other. And the capitalism, obviously, means power of the capitals, i.e. that the "parade" commands he who keeps the money (as it was from deep antiquity, but there is no other power which could have interfered with the money -- there is neither aristocracy, nor priests, nor intellects, etc.). Well, with some stipulations, because there are states, too, but under the capitalism, or the democracy as contemporary capitalism, in the ruling of states, in general, again the wealthy ones have their say (or at least those who are supported by wealthy persons -- the elections are elections, but the millions, and rather milliards of dollars, which are spent for pre-electoral and post-electoral
manipulations of people's minds are paid by financial circles).
Speaking with bit more details, my view to the moderate communism in some country is that it is
duty of the state to care equally about all on some
minimal level, according with the living standard in the moment. But when this is also moderate capitalism then the money exists, the property inequality, too, there are wealthy and poor, but if someone, by one or another reason -- the reason is of
no importance, mark this --, has not sufficient income in a given moment (which may as well continue for the whole life, for some people), then the state secures it for him (or her, naturally), and all this -- mark this again -- without necessity of humiliating and asking, filling the necessary applications and visiting different instances. This provisioning for the poor, or allowance, is performed in accordance with the capacity of the country in the given moment, which I think can be safely taken to be equivalent to
half of the minimal monthly salary in a month!
Now, look here, there is no need to speak about money, for the simple reason that the numbers age very fast (by a normal interest rate of 4% yearly, for about 20 years, as compound interest, we get devaluation of money twice, and if I have made proposition for something that will not last for 20 years then I wouldn't have done it at all, not me). The minimal monthly salary (MMS) is term which exists in all countries, it is corrected in accordance with the moment, it is measure for this what a person is entitled to receive if he
works something for a whole month; well, and if he does not work he has rights to have at least the half of this, also for simplifying of the calculations and that's it. One can study, be old, ailing, want to become pop singer, or whatnot (even if he is addicted to drugs, or is criminal), but he must eat and sleep somewhere under roof, travel around the country, and so on. With this only the necessary care for many people is not done, and is entirely possible to have also the corresponding dormitories, cheaper canteens, et cetera, for those who can not afford themselves to pay "normal" prices, but at least half MMS in month must receive everybody just because he (surely, she) has been born. (As an example, I have heard that every citizen of Kuwait received in an year some thousands of dollars only because he is citizen of the country, without whatever work.) You can name these cares some
social sun, if you want, but they must exist.
This cares must exist, in the first place, because we
can now afford them -- when we can throw away a heap of good and working things, then we produce more than necessary, ergo, we are wealthy enough for to be able to care about the poor in the moment. But not only for this reason, also because when we care for them we have (i.e. the state has) more motives to require all kinds of taxes from people who have enough, and also
reasons to monitor or control
people more strictly. Because, let be clear on this matter, nowadays people can't be left to do what they only want, for some of them may want to make bombs, blow themselves up, et cetera, surveillance of all and everywhere, little by little, becomes reality (on the streets, during exams, before banks, and where only not -- everything is filmed, and later somebody may look there if necessary). And when everybody receives money from the state, through some instance (we will come to this) then somebody sooner or later may become interested and cast a look at this how long the given person lives at the expense of state, why, could somehow be helped to him (social assistance exists for long time), or then watch him closely, because he is strong and healthy and does nothing. Everybody must have the
possibility to live even his whole life on this half MMS, but the idea is that there will be not many those who will agree to this, unless they have some more serious reasons or causes (as I said, he may study something, and nobody knows will some additional knowledge be useful for the others, it must be first accumulated and checked for what it is good); so that if some people do not do something proper then, maybe, they do something "improper" (say, sell drugs, or are engaged with prostitution, etc.; they can at least harbour taxes working something without official registration). Id est, this care for the people will be also
ground for increasing of the control on the part of financial organs.
In this way the very capitalism will win, because will know better what resources of labour force it has in its disposition, and also when is paid to the people they abstain from more violent expressions -- what is evident, this is the reason why are paid all allowances (not because of "God's commandments", I suppose). In other words, the moderate communism will be also moderate capitalism, because it will propose more quietness in the country. In addition to all this the instance which will perform this care will mainly
conduct means from other existing in the moment instances (for pensions, sick leave, etc.), and will provide common view to the things, a matter which the capitalism rarely can boast to have, i.e. in conditions of competitions there exist many competing with one another organizations, but there is no centralized control, which in many cases is very important.
2. What sums will be necessary for realization of the idea?
Here we tie ourselves to Bulgaria and will speak about its population of 7,365,000 people, according to the population census for 2011. From them, by official data the
working force (again for 2011) is
3,322,000, what as percentage of the whole population gives 45, what seems quite low (for example in Russia in June 2012 the economically active population is given as 54% of the whole), but there are some methods for computing of this (supposedly are subtracted juveniles, students, pensioners, etc.), so that we will take it for true; in addition is given also some coefficient of economic activity about 52%, what seems better. Well, there are lost 6-7% by the counting of economic activity, but this is not important for our calculations because these additional percents receive something from somewhere, where we are interested in those who receive nothing.
But working force is one thing, and employed population and unemployment is another. On the average the
employed people in 2012 are given as
2,150,000, what as percent of the entire population makes only
29%! For them, respectively, the average monthly salary (for June 2012) is on the average 755 lv (or 2.6 MMS, by one MMS after May equal to 290 lv, what is more or less correct, I think; earlier it was worse, it turned to be nearly 3 MMS, what is not normal for many of the countries). In this relation, of exactly occupied persons (having in mind that there exists also partial occupation, and other exceptions) we are holding the absolute "record"; I have compared with data already for 1998 and there the percentage of occupied persons from the whole population in Bulgaria was 31.5%, but for Poland, for example, it was 55, for Russia
71.3, for Hungary 60, and so on, everywhere were big numbers, where with less than 50% were, except us, only the Czech Republic with 44.4, and Romania with 35.2, and on the average for 12 former socialist countries, including the Baltic States, were 56.7. Now here is an important moment, this, in my view, is the
hidden unemployment, these are people who neither work, nor are counted as unemployed! So in 2012 is given that we have
unemployed 372,000, with unemployment coefficient of 11.2% (but this is attributed to 3.322 mln employable, not to 2.15 mln employed). I want to say that the hidden are those who remain when from 3.322 subtract 2.150 mln, what gives 1.172 mln, where if we take from them the registered as unemployed 0.372 mln, remain still exactly
0.8 mln obviously unemployed (not only 0.372, i.e. in
2.1 times more than the officially given), what gives now 10.86% of the whole population (while else it was 0.372 / 7.365 = 0.0486, i.e. less than 5%).
Well, I don't state that all these 800,000 people work nowhere, no, the major part of them
somewhere something receive, but they hide themselves and in this way pay no insurance payments, from what win the employers, as well also the very semi-working people. Now, these 0.372 mln officially registered unemployed receive something, it may be less than my proposal, but may also be more than this, let us not bother with them here. From the left 0.8 mln maybe the half also receives something, it, almost sure, is less than 1 MMS, so that they don't hide especially big income, they work only from time to time, here and there (the employers hide what they can), so that let us accept that the most poor make only 5% of the whole population, what gives again nearly as much as the officially registered, i.e. 0.368 mln, let us multiply this by 0.5 MMS or 145 lv already , and also by 12 for to get for an year -- this gives
640 mln levs.
This, surely, is
not a few, because, for comparison, in the budget of the country for 2012 is given (all in mln lv), for example: the budget of judiciary 260, of National Assembly 50, of state universities 345, for the entire healthcare 946, and so on. So that 640 mln is a lot of money, but ... . Well, you see, this is money which we must only
be ready to guarantee, for some time, these sums are not necessary to be paid, because when we begin to pay them it must be possible to catch many people, who receive something, what may be less than 1 MMS, in order to pay taxes for it, but even if it is 0.3 MMS in month it will be subtracted from these 0.5 MMS, which will be given to this person. If it turns out that the money is not enough -- and after a pair of months this will be clearly seen --, then it is possible to decrease the paid sum a little.
Because there can be done many calculations (which, very often, will turn to be made "without the innkeeper", as we in Bulgaria say, but let us make them, anyway), for example, it may be taken that the real unemployment is 0.5 mln (or 15% of the working force, or 6.8% of the population, what looks quite acceptable even for Bulgaria), and not the official 0.372, and then those who receive
nothing, or the hidden unemployment, will be the difference between those numbers or 0.128 mln (or 1.74% of the population) and if the help will be only 100 lv (i.e. 50 euro) per month -- this isn't much, but for one Bulgaria it is pretty substantial, I'll tell you, each month, not moving a finger -- then there will be necessary 0.128*100*12 =
153 mln lv; even by 0.6 mln unemployed (18% of the working force) and by the same 0.372 officially registered, there will leave 0.228 mln (3% of the population) who receive nothing, and if them will be given again by 100 lv per month this will give
273 mln levs. So that the sum has fallen from 2 to 3
times.
Let us take some
250 mln (what, let me remind you, is for roughly 17% real unemployment, significantly more than the official 11%), and look at this in comparison with the revenues. Well, all tax revenues are given as 17,000 mln, so that 250 are
only 1.47%, even if we compare with the revenues only from excises, which are given as 4,130, then this will give 6%. Well, I personally think that sums of the order of 1-2% of all our revenues, or about 5% of those from excises, really, are nothing compared with the social significance of this experiment -- in any case this is much better than a new ... revolution, isn't it? Besides, I don't plead at all about experiments in the frame of entire Bulgaria (as in his time
tovarishch Lenin has decided to experiment in the whole Russia, plus a dozen Republics, right?), no, I think that it can and
must be performed an experiment in the frame of one averagely big, rather not big, town, with population approximately of
50 thousand, maximally to 100,000 inhabitants, and then the sums will
decrease at least 20 times (i.e. they will decrease more than 100 times, but there must be
guarantied also all other sums for social security payments, like pensions, scholarships, allowances for all unemployed, etc., which will be required from the corresponding instances, but they may delay the payment or refuse some part on it, and so on, so that let us be on the save side in our assertions).
3. How to realize this moderate communism?
So first of all must be created the necessary instance which will be engaged with this control, payment of allowances, collecting of everything what anyway is paid, respectively all salaries must go through it, and taking back the given initially doles. This, obviously must be banking institution and I propose it to be called
Bank for Moderate Communism (and, as I said in the beginning, some people may call it Bank for Moderate Capitalism). This is really an ideal name! Well, it is so in Bulgarian or Russian where may be formed initials BUM or BUMCO (there "moderate" is "
umeren"), what sounds like ... boom, of course, in this translation it must be BMC, but there may be thought about something similar in English, say from Bank fOr Moderate COmmunism, or Bank Of etc. and have BOMCO. Or if not playing around the boom then around the ... furor -- say, Formation for Uniting or Resources and Official Registration, exactly FUROR, but let us not complicate the things.
This, what has to be done, after finding who will sponsor the BUM -- you see, by revenues only from aids and donations calculated to 41 mln lv in our budget for the same 2012, and if we reduce the used above 250 mln
hundred times (proportionally to the ratio of 50,000 persons to more than 7 mln for the country), there remain really necessary only about 2 mln levs --, so that after this must be legitimized that
all, but indeed all, under pain of heavy fines, payments to the persons from that region -- there are no problems to prepare ordered lists by UCN (Unique Citizenship Number, this is Bulgarian personal ID number) for all of them -- are to be conducted via this bank. Then it will pay each month, say on the 15th, to
every citizen of age (there are no problems to include here also the children, if they, too, receive something, i.e. if their parents receive something for them, but let us initially include only the persons of age), the sum of, let it be exactly 0.5 MMS (according to its value in the given moment), where in the end of the month it will be subtracted from everything received during the month. Now, there can be operated according the money due to be paid for the given month, but this may delay the system, will remain unpaid old payments for months back, surely (at least in Bulgaria), so that I think it is better to work on the basis of the current month and the received and spent in it.
It will not be easy to get around BUM because for each company can be checked where are sent the remunerations for every person working for it (partially, on full time basis, it doesn't matter, that is why the payroll lists exist). This will be made easy because for everybody will exist a number, for example BUM_UCN_No, where to the sums for him (or her) are to be transferred, so that the companies even will
not pay the salaries
in banknotes, this will be forbidden to them, for the reason that everything has to go via BUM. This will simplify the financial operations in each of the companies, and can easily be controlled. And the people will have cards for this current accounts and will be able to take money out of them when only something emerges there. That is why I am speaking also about moderate capitalism, or, generally, development, because from this will benefit the companies and the business, as well as the state, which will receive more unfailing this, what is due to it.
Well, while it will be worked on a level of one town, the things will be a bit more complicated, there will be nonresidents living in other places, it will be needed to make some exceptions, but later on, on the level of the whole country, everything will be extremely clear. But in the frame of a town there will be no problems for every foreign citizen working for a company in this town to perform all his payments also through this bank (as far as BUM
is a bank, as every other), only that he (or she) will not receive initially half of MMS each month, and will not be monitored, i.e. he will be under simplified control; from here he will be able to withdraw his money when only wishes. This bank will be able to send information also for the annual income declarations for everybody, no matter is he an ordinary citizen or "plays with millions". That is how the communism can be equalized, as much as possible, and in direction in which this is possible, with the capitalism. But this
isn't control of the bank accounts, only of the incomes; and, in the end, the financial institutions in the state must, anyway, know how much everybody receives (in order to "cash" also something together with him, of course), but will he spend his money, or accumulate them, or make business with them, is his own business.
Good, in bare outlines I think the things have begun to clarify themselves: there will be necessary some decent sums in the beginning, but if this, what is paid as minimum, is at such level that each, hmm, normal snob will not be satisfied by this allowance, then there is no danger that some people will begin to rely on this money and will give up working at all, i.e. those, who will cease to work will do this for some important reasons, which can be also checked (for example, a real intelligent must be entirely in position to live on this money and praise the communism in our country, which will somehow win from his brain). This measure is profitable as for the poor citizens, as well also for the state, and the companies, too, to a large extent, will have some benefits, because their financial duties will become easier (for the moment they will only not really pay the salaries, but in the future can be required to perform via this bank also the distribution of all taxes for the given person; for the contemporary computerized systems this is no burden at all).
As far as, however, the expressed here ideas, in spite of their revolutionary meaning, are not something entirely new and not used somewhere on local level, it is quite possible to come to them also in other ways. Let me remind you something, what is known by pretty few of the people, but I have met it several times in Western journals, namely the fact, that the pension insurance in Germany, from here in Europe (and possibly in the world, too) was introduced by Otto von Bismarck, who, obviously, was not a communist, and has defended the interest, first of all, of quietness in the country. Well, I propose
common anti-misery insurance, valid for every country and every time, and together with this also possibility for centralized state control of the incomes of the population. But taking something from the people is necessary first to give them something else, for otherwise they will become indignant, and this with reasons. So that think good, before you take this proposition for another of my utopias.
October 2012
THE FATAL 2013 YEAR IN BULGARIA
Ah, there is not a single year, since the time when the democracy came to us, in which we have lived decently, but that exactly in the fatal year we have lived how it has to be is simply impossible. And it really so happened, just the year has begun and we -- let us demonstrate our discontent. And if you ask, with what are we so dissatisfied -- well, with
everything, in the sense that all prices are not commensurable with our pockets. But it is not possible for them to be for our pockets when we do not want socialism, and don't know also what is it and has it ground in Bulgaria (for foreign readers: this is allusion on the booklet "What is socialism and has it ground in Bulgaria", issued somewhere in 1891, when was built our Socialist party by Dimitar Blagoev). In other words, we are returning with -- how much have they become already? -- with 23 years back, or more or less with one generation (which is usually taken for 25 years, though in statistical sense it must be more precisely 27). And we are returning back because there has occurred nothing new in the good 2012 year, but we have begun to demonstrate hungry and discontented at the moment when have received the first bills for heating and electricity for this year. Well, it, surely, always can be said that we have little brains and because of this are in the current situation, what, obviously, is
true, but let us not call us simpletons, for the reason that, at least up to my judgement, however big profanes we not were, we, still, have never reached such levels as the ... Americans have reached, yet not they life poor but we! So that, as far as it, the silliness, is met between people, let us try to look a bit more seriously (but not too much in order to become bored, right?) at the situation in the winter of 2012 /2013, and why we have gone out to the streets.
Well, for one thing
in order to warm up
gathering together in heaps and crying against the rulers, because this, really, helps, and physiologically one warms up walking for some time through the streets, instead of to sit and be cold in the "cool", for economies, home (I know this from personal experience, only that I am warming up not on the streets but either in the park, or in some supermarket, to look at the tasty things in warmth), but also psychologically, "crying out" his pain one feels better.
Besides, I am
even glad that we have begun at last to "growl",
because otherwise it is just not normal -- the whole Europe, and the world, grumbles, the crisis is like this from before the World War II, and we are mute like lambs to the slaughter. At last our voice has been heard, we have begun to moan (only that we don't like to cry "moo" but "uhh").
But, basically,
nothing new, the prices on most expensive utility costs (or communal expenses for us), on heating and electricity have grown with some 10 percents, what is more than
normal, because earlier, at the dawn of democracy, the prices have risen with about 50% for one year, and we, still, did not strike. So that the "point" is not in the higher prices (which after this have come down a little, with 5-6%, as a result of the strikes). The point isn't even in this, that the communal expenses grown up, because a preschool child, when you say to him (or her)
"communism" and "communal expenses",
can't miss to remark that these are related words, from one root!
And in order to prevent that some of my readers will begin to spit at me that I "communize" the readers, let me tell you something, that surely know not more than one percent of people, this that the city busses were introduced somewhere in Roman time, and the etymologists derive the word "bus" exactly from one case form of
omnia, what means "all" (from the phrase "
Omnia omnibus!" -- everything for everybody!). Well, there surely were horse coaches then, but don't stick to the exact word, because you speak nowadays about "vehicle" as means of transport but -- ha, ha, -- do you not hear how "bellows" this bull or bovine in French or other Latin languages (well, at least in German "
Vieh" is cattle animal with horns, and in Bulgarian, what surely in imitation, "
viya" is to howl). Id est, the towns not only impose ... the police (
polis - police), of course, but the city transport, too, which -- I need to remind you this, because people forget -- was, I mean a ticket, was about half ... an egg (in order that nobody could say that then the prices were different), while now (and this after the raising in price of eggs roughly with 30% in 2012) is 4 eggs, what makes 8
times. Similarly also electricity, central heating, water, letters (from 2
stotinki to 65 st. in the moment), and so on. That is why I am saying that to all appearances we have little brains, when forget such more than obvious things, but when we are delighted
thinking that may become rich (all the more by honest, or nearly such, labour), instead of to be all equal and that there were no poor -- well, it serves us right, as is said.
So that, really, it turns out that we are complaining chiefly because of the fatal year, or then, otherwise,
because there nothing changes.
In the sense that we wait and wait for this damned crisis to finish, but it still does not end. And where only we have had some reserves they all have run out, but the crisis does not want to. Well, I'll tell you when it will finish, only that I will not make you happy, frankly speaking. So now,
watch for the bank interest!
Normally it is about 2-3% (because, I think, people want that each year they receive a bit more, for they, undeniably, also produce a little more, and in this way, under normal circumstances, everything rises with so much in an year). And the banks, for their part, are institutions which work only for the
difference in the percent between gives (loans) and takes (such), they just have nothing else from which to live (except also from some mortgage, or because of unclaimed deposits, for the person has died, or because of some similar exceptional event). And in normal situation comes time when people begin to withdraw much money because they need it, or have remained without work (because is produced big quantity of things and there is not more demand for them), and also by those who invest money leaves not much to invest -- in short, the influx of money in the banks decreases and
for this reason they raise the interest on deposits, for to counteract this process. This means that the new crisis now begins. So has happened in Bulgaria, but also in the world, for the last time about 2007-8 years. But I must tell you that such process had begun in the West also about ... 1990, when the percents of interest have reached 10-12 (at least in England -- if you don't believe then search old Western newspapers). But at that time the East has ripped at the seams and this, well, has
delayed or shifted the crisis for the West (new markets have been found, also work for their people to teach us what they can, etc.).
By the last crisis the percents reached approximately the number of 8, and now, in 2013, they have fallen till 5 (I mean for yearly deposits), but have not yet become massively 2-3%. When they reach this level only then we will be more or less in the state of equilibrium (on the zero), then they must fall even more (because people only invest and invest and almost nobody takes loans), and when they reach to 1.5 - 2% then we will be at the lowest dead point (these processes are, in broad lines, sinusoids, i.e. wavelike) and the crisis will end. So, but for six years we have not succeeded to reach the zero (roughly 3%) level, so that I can't see how till flowing of
another six years we can exit it, what gives 2020, as minimum; taking into account some other problems we can stretch till 2025
*. In short, my prognosis is that
[ * Now, in the end of 2015, the percents of interest have fallen in Bulgaria almost by all banks up to about 2%, and we are still in the crisis, that is for sure, so that some readers may say that I have made an error. But as far as this is practically impossible -- for Myrski to make an error -- let me explain in short that this condition about the interest rate is necessary but
not sufficient, there are other necessary conditions to be fulfilled. And there is also one psychological moment, on which I have not stressed here, namely that when the situation is very bad people don't want to take loans because are not sure that will succeed to repay the money, in what they surely are right. This means that people keep money in the banks, not much but almost everyone, and don't want to take loans so that the banks have money and the interest is forced to remain low.
And as to other necessary conditions: well, there are many such things. For example I can give you some untraditional conditions for Bulgaria. Say, we can't be out of the crisis when still are sold the so called duck "lanterns". Also the proportion of bad quality goods to alternative decent goods is very important, say, a kilo of smallest river or sea fish,
tsatsa in Bulgarian or sprat for you, to the common mackerel must be 1 to 4 or 5, and now by us it is about 1:2; or similar ratio of liver to meat, which was in totalitarian times also about 1:5 if not more, but now is about 1:2; or also a cup of coffee on the street now is about 1.5
eggs, but it must be at least 3, and even better 4-5 eggs; and other proportions, but allow me to keep some "know-hows" in secret. ]
the crisis will end in the middle of 2022
(more precisely on the 06.06. or the 6th June, in 6 hours in the morning, but about the hours I can be mistaken a bit). So this is, ladies and gentlemen, the situation. And recall also how it was before the World War II, when the crisis begins in 1928, in 1933 the "hit" Hitler comes to power in Germany, in 1939 the war begins, and it ends in 1945; now add 80 years. So that in the moment we wait the coming of fascists here and there to power, what as if begins to happen, ah? And by this have also in mind that in war conditions the problems are solved
faster, because many things are demolished, the population decreases, so that it already begins to be found work, for to restore the destroyed -- I hope I an explaining quite popular. On the other hand, however, the world has now become a little wiser, we don't kill us so en masse, at least not in Europe and America -- well, by the Arabs this can happen, they are not
quite white people --, we take some global measures, so that it can be expected that this
illness will pass again for the same time, but faster -- I just don't believe it.
Because, what are we to produce, when we
throw out good and solid things at the garbage heap (while in that time, around World War II, people have kept even pieces of newspapers, for to roll themselves cigarettes in them)? Do you see what else can revive the production when now literally everything is synthetic (clothes, food, building materials, and even ... birth of children) and is produced robotized and costs very little, but the people are quite many? I personally can't see in what I may be wrong. But if perchance I turn to be wrong (what, otherwise, will make me very glad) and the crisis happens to reach its end, say, in 2017, then -- just give up reading this "bad" author! I, for my part, will do exactly so.
But let us return to the current year and look more profound (yet not much, I would say) at this
what kind of people have demonstrated then. I have thrown a quick glance at the TV (a quick, I say, because the manipulations in all media are at such level, that if one begins to look and listen to them very soon he will think like the others, but your author is unique and distinctive, he for that reason has studied so long, for to be able to think alone). So, and having thrown the glance, I have seen that
the middle age was missing at the meetings.
In other words, these were youths, roughly till 25, rarely up to 30 years, and then from 60 and higher. Now, it is true that in order that one goes to meetings one must have free time, and if one works then one has not much of it in one's disposition, but this is a question of priorities, this is not insurmountable obstacle, because the meetings were held chiefly in the evenings, outside of working hours.
So, and this observation clarifies many things, because, for one thing, the pensioners are always dissatisfied with their pensions (where the truth is that they are unhappy with their age), and can always support any discontent by economic reasons (I don't say that there are no grounds for this, especially in the poorest country in European Community), and for another thing, you just give the young people to shout "Uhh" and "Down", because these are post-teenagers, they are always discontented, it has been so in all times, and it will be always so, for they make life dynamic. Besides, there are now not wars, and the young, as you know, want to fight, to show their strength, and now with what (else) to show themselves?
But all these protests were absolutely ungrounded approximately
half an year before new elections (i.e. our new Government came only with three months earlier than its normal time). If we so much wanted to show discontent then why also on this elections, and in spite of the heap of clearly unfounded fabrications about manipulations of the elections on part of "Duce Boiko", we have
again elected him, for he has won the most votes, i.e. the population, as a whole, has supported him most of al? To say nothing about this, that in the last year we have chosen such impersonal President, who is good only for, well, not exactly
metre d'hotel, but for headmaster of school or holiday home -- for such one whom the Germans (to educate you a bit) call ...
Kurdirektor, because they by Latin "habit" call the medication
Kur (and the word is also feminine -- but the "salt" of it is that in Bulgarian "kur" is quite indecent word which in English is, in a bit more decent form, prick). So that it is clear that this man was chosen only for this reason that he is a man of "Boi
cho" (as some girls call him lovingly), and otherwise nobody would have paid whatever attention to him.
And there was something more that could have been seen on these rallies, this that
the majority or people were ordinary unqualified workers,
a bit simple in appearance, not used to speak or go to meetings but to work hard, though if someone hires them, i.e. these were unemployed laborers, and chiefly, I thing, building workers. While till now, usually, and especially in the first years of transition, have striked the intellectuals, now these were the unskilled workers. This is an interesting moment and let me tell you something on that issue.
Well, on the one hand this is inevitable consequence (of our insanity) to exterminate (not physically, surely) our intellectuals, as well as to stimulate uneducated with good money, because in Bulgaria, really, the educational qualification fell, the young simply don't want to study and don't see special meaning in this (and entirely justified, till now, when after graduating they receive significantly less). And why? Well, because it is built intensively. My opinion, in broad lines and not falling into details, is such that our housing stock has grown roughly with 30%, and in the same time our population has diminished approximately with 20% (we were nearly 9 mln, with precision somewhere to 50 thousands, and now we are 7.3 mln), what results in one more than with 50% real increasing of living space, what is absolutely unnecessary on the background of our misery. In sense that the homes are very expensive and people just can not afford to buy them, and who can afford it they buy them
as capital investment, not to live in person there. ( Specifically in my entrance of the apartment building, from 18 flats, 3 of them are for several years empty, what is 1/6 of all, and in roughly 1/3 of the whole number the persons have significantly decreased, so that in 5 flats there is only by one person, and they are with two rooms -- in fact, one
bedroom only, but we count them for two rooms --, and in another 3-4 live by two persons, while earlier were on the average by 3-4 in each one. )
I am explaining these things because the building workers in one state are, presumably, about 10 percents in normal conditions, but under active building, how it was till quite recently by us, this number can reach up to 15-20%, and the unemployed among them most probable make 10% of the population. Exactly these people were the not numerous striking ones in the middle age, that have taken part in the meetings.
About the youths there are many things to be said, but about them probably will be another material, about the fascism, for they as if in that direction are moving (our "Duce", no matter that he looks like such, is not typical neo-fascist, he is rather ... "
phallucist /
phalocist", but I have evolved this in other place). The question, however, is not only in this, that they are young, but that they are
from minority parties,
i.e. they are not from the first 2-3 parties in the Parliament, but of those to whom no one listens, so that they have decided now that exactly this is the suitable moment to raise their voice. And in what extent of minority are they? Well, below the threshold, which in Bulgaria is 4%, but in principle somewhere around 1-2%. But they are acting as if there are no other parties except them, they cry, wave flags, as if are taking part in some Olympiad, grumble, and are ready sometimes even to fight. But let us make more detailed calculations, let us take exactly
one percent of the people and see how they can be heard. Well, in a medium-sized (for our scale) town, of hundred thousands, these are thousand people, and if they spread by 3-4 in line and approximately between one meter, especially if they carry our banner, but horizontally, because it is too big to be raised, then they will stretch on somewhere about 300 meters, don't they? And this is not a little. And in one Sofia (which is about 1 mln) they will reach up to 10,000 people. Add now to them also bored pensioners and as much, roughly, accidentally adhered spectators (because: where lives that nation where everybody is satisfied with the rulers, especially within a world-wide economic crisis?), and they have already reached several tens of thousands, which, when the elections come, will make only a bare noise and nothing else. You see now, how a handful of "scoundrels" can "muddy the water" to a whole nation (although in this way they ... justify the salaries of the police, for, otherwise, why we feed them? -- one policeman, adding also the necessary for him equipment and the ideal part of machinery, probably gives as much as for three-four scientific workers, or teachers, or common officers).
But there is here also one entirely different moment, which some people as if associate with our current misery, and this is the topic about several cases of self-burning! The things, though, here are quite
on the contrary, these people try (and some of them succeeded) to commit suicide,
not because the living conditions are so bad, but because they can use these conditions
to give a meaning at least
to their death (when the life is meaningless for them). These are sick people, they have not normal ideas, they should not be taken as examples. Let us leave them and continue further about the year.
So well, the young and unoriented (or
dumbfounded by the ads and the virtual reality) people don't understand the question with the relation of communal costs with socialist ideas simply because they are young and have no basis for comparison with the
real socialist society, which has existed in Bulgaria. They have not forgotten but simply don't know, yet there is also nobody to explain this to them. And they also like the strong people, the right-wing ideas. So that these are moral problems, which nobody can solve, except we alone. And the political situation by us is practically hopeless (the democracy of Western type has brought us to a deadlock), yet the bad thing is not this, but the fact that our population does not understand this and searches other causes, for example persons and parties, or criminal groups. And the new elections, up to my mind, have brought no salvation to us, no matter that
logically they are justified.
Now, see, the problems are in this, that
the democracy of right-wing type does not contain in itself, in the ruling part, neither moral, nor social body!
Such body or bodies, authorities, must raise (and raises) each nation in specific for it conditions, but not the (wild and barbarian, sorry) Bulgarian nation, due to what -- I beg my squeamish readers (if such are still left somewhere) to be excused -- ... "our bottoms have to be strong" now. The West tries somehow to help us (not because of some special love to such unique nations like ours, but in order to have reigned calmness in our country, this is the basic requirement for developing of normal business, and in addition to this the Western countries protect themselves from the inflow of immigrants), yet it can't create us also these structures.
For example, having pondered about this question (and I have enough time for thinking, as well also abilities to do this, I suppose), I have come to the conclusion that the main thing that is lacking in our ruling, retaining the Western type of democracy (for nobody wants to change it, right?), and on the background of our basically atheist population (because on the West the church, in one or another extent, is bearer of morality, though it is not so by us), as well also more united, predominantly ...
Northern (or at least on the North of us) nations, due to what we have returned in the rough and cruel capitalism of one century (or at least half of it) before, without practically no social benefits (you know quite well that now must be paid to the physician, and to the dentist, and for education, and similar things) is
the lack of Social Ministry by us,
as part of the state apparatus, and present in each Government, as right-wing it happen to be. We have Ministry of Labour and Social Cares, but it develops various programs for social occupation, it does not help the poor (for whatever reason!); there are instances for all kinds of statistics, as also for calculation of consumer basket, but they are not governmental (they are from the trade unions and estimate that, say, the minimal income in Bulgaria, not in Europe or in the world, is 1.5 minimal working salaries, but on a head, what gives practically 2.5 to 3 in one family, or that nearly 90% of the working people live below the poverty threshold, because the average salary is about two and a bit of the minimal, what is true, in principle).
If we have had such Ministry, then it would have studied the property situation in the country, by professions, by age, would have looked about the causes for this and provided assistance, but
centralized, not if one goes there and makes application that is in a severe need. In the current day the society (even in Bulgaria) has all possibilities to ensure for everybody decent home, and some food, and education according to his or her abilities, and healthcare, and so on. We have not such instance, and because of this it turns out that in some cases minorities, for example Gypsies, are better benefited than ethnic Bulgarians, because there are programs for them, but for the Bulgarians there are not such! If such Ministry has existed, it could have studied the question about this
in what way to help, either via paying of some subsidies, or using some preferential prices for socially necessary services (for example, we have taxes on medicaments and medical services, the same as on, say, furniture, and this is entirely
non-social policy).
But together with this, in my view, such Ministry must maintain data base of
all citizens of the country with their incomes, for the purpose that the social status of each citizen could have been easily checked (unless, say, someone explicitly declares that does not want his or her income to be monitored -- which, anyway, the tax administration must watch). When the monitoring begins we can come also to the helps. I have written recently something similar about the moderate communism in Bulgaria (or wherever it can be), but it is possible that I dedicate special material also to the Social Ministry. The reason why I mention it here is that people did not want, and don't want, such similar body, which can settle the things after 5-10 years, but want something that will better them at once, even, if possible, backdated. But these are all Utopias.
So, and as far as I again become too talkative, it is time to wrap it up. Only let me add something more pleasing in the end. I have said that the crisis will not end until 2020, but by us, I hope,
the situation will improve significantly, already from the beginning of the year 2014,
i.e. in the next year. And why? Well, by various reasons. For one thing the fatal year will end -- and don't look so contemptuously at this, in psychological sense this factor is quite significant, it predisposes people. Then, must be raised the barriers for Bulgarians in many Western countries (till now we were taken only in the far North and far South), more specially in England, which country, who knows why, is very irritated by us; and when scatters again who can, then they will send us something from abroad, this is some help. Further, we have changed the Government, and however unsuitable the new one is (it will be necessary to write a paper about this, too), at least two years we will endure it, maybe. Further, the people will
try to do something, not that they do this, what has to be done, but, still, they don't "sleep" now so much, they don't like so much the democracy like in the last decade of past century, have recovered from the
UDF-ism (or crying "uhh" and "down", what the supporters of UDF, Union of the Democratic Forces, just "died" to do, and as a result have ruined Bulgaria with their incompetence and hastiness). Further more, ... will die more graduates of the old regime (like your author -- on the average by one and a half percent per year, what since 1990 gives already 35%), and the youth, if they do not cause some disturbances (fascist, for example), are pleased by everything, for they don't know that it is possible to be better. It might be also that some workers will qualify, I suppose, what means finding of work for some persons at least for the time of education, and for the others later, i.e. it can happen that we will begin again to respect the educated people (when they have died en masse or run away). Or else we will find some other reserve, because I have shortly marked that on some fields outside of Sofia, where in totalitarian times were fields with crops, but for more than 20 years grows only grass, though even it was mown by nobody, now was planted again maize, and it is, as is said, as far as eye can see, i.e. we have already begun to "
raise our (democratic)
virgin lands".
So that, as I have begun to think in the recent time, everything will be bettered, just ... we will not be alive to see it. But will get better. So that: cheers for the democracy!
June 2013
WHY WE VOTE, WHEN WE ... DON'T VOTE?
Really? Why was it necessary so to push to have early elections, even only with three months but, still, earlier (for it was really unbearable this Government, said some people), when on the elections half of the people again have not voted (voting activity 51%), and on top of everything people have chosen the same Boi
cho (as some young girls pronounce his name, seeing how highly "endowed" he is)? Quite reasonable question, but it, with common sense reasoning in time of democratic elections, is impossible to reach to anything, so that let us leave this question, but maybe we can, still, look for a while at the situation, and from different angles.
Well, firstly,
who hates whom, and how strongly,
for we do
not vote for somebody because we like him (or her, surely) very much, but because we hate stronger the others, who can come (if we do not vote for his party), i.e. out of pure spite! I have mentioned this in other places, and it isn't a new thing, so that let us not find much faults in this as a model of reasoning of the Bulgarian, but take a look, all the same, at different sized parties. In the first instance at the strong parties, which are between the first 2-3 according to the number of votes -- for them this rule is entirely valid, because we just have no reasons to approve the work of any of them, provided that we are the poorest state in European Community, and are still worse, in the whole, as a nation, than the totalitarian times (and we will be at the same level some
10 years more, I'll tell you). For this reason, chiefly, we have chosen at the previous elections the GERB party, in order to avoid coming to power again of the triple coalition (consisting of former communists, tsarist party, and Turkish minority party), and for this reason now BSP (the socialists) have increased their percents nearly with 9 (which GERB has lost), in order to prevent the staying of GERB again at the helm. Then further, for the middle parties, like MRF (
DPS in Bulgarian, the Turks, having named themselves "Movement for Rights and Freedom", so that
nobody could have guessed that this is an ethnic party) and Ataka (fascist-teenagers) -- well, there this rule is not entirely true, people support these parties by other reasons: MRF has a constant contingent of Turkish ethnic minority and for them not to vote for their people is, maybe, like if a Muslim has not performed circumcision, i.e. this is compulsory requirement; and now the Ataka (meaning "attack", of course) is a party of post-teenagers and they like (for they can't still think good) their "
hayduk" (Sider -- I call him so, because in our history was once some
hayduk Sider, and he is Siderov, and probably imagines that he is like him, or wants that the others think so) and they are always the same in number (i.e. he loses a pair of chairs in the Parliament, or, like now, gets them back). By the smaller parties there might be sympathizers, because if they were not liked by their supporters then the latter would not have voted for them, when, in any event, they
can't put them in the Parliament, but, after all, they don't count, because these parties are not there. So that the majority of voters give their votes only to spoil the game for others.
Good, but half of the people do not vote at all, and they, in addition to this that are not much "inspired" by hatred, they simply
don't like whatever party. So that let us see now, tacking into account the electoral activity (51.33%), which parties are between most hated ones. This is shown in the table below, for which is necessary to explain some columns. Multiplying "% of votes 'pro'" by electoral activity (0.5133) we get "% of all" (eligible to vote, not exactly the whole population, but so is necessary) Now, when we reverse this percent, i.e. take its complement to 100%, we receive what percent hates the corresponding party (because if they have liked it a little bit, or out of hatred against the others, they would have voted for it). Dividing then those who hate to those who like it (relatively, how we have explained), we receive "hate in times", or,
walking on the street and meeting only adults with rights to vote, then how many people will hate this party to one who likes it -- this is very indicative parameter. The first four lines, by old "habit", enter the Parliament, the next five lines want to enter it but can not do this, and on the last line are gathered all left parties which can not receive even one percent, so that they do not deserve the right to be cited by names (except that they increase the number of mandates of those parties who have entered the Parliament, because, for example, GERB party has not 30% of 240 seats, what makes 72 places, but occupies 98 places).
So, and now let us see what turns to be the situation with the hatred (the table follows a bit later). Well, even for the GERB (the name is some invented abbreviation, but as word it means "coat of arms"), which as if is liked by the people most of all, if you walk on the street and meet only people of age, then to one who likes it you will meet more than five persons who don't like it. A stunning democracy, ah? Later, for the former communists it happens that they are liked only by every sixth, the Turks -- just by every 16th, and to the "Atakists" of Hayduk Sider smiles only one out of 25 (!) persons. Well, so stay the things with those who enter the "
Talking Shop", ah, I am sorry, the Parliament, where all they make 75% (75.7 to be more precise), what means that
one quarter of all voters do this simply "to the wind", as the people say. And this party, which is hated most of all, exactly it will play the most important role this time, because only on it depends will be something approved, i.e. on the fascists -- how far we have come!
| party |
% votes "pro" |
% of all |
% of hatred |
hate in times |
| GERB |
30.50 |
15.66 |
84.34 |
5.4 |
| BSP |
26.61 |
13.66 |
86.34 |
6.3 |
| MRF |
11.29 |
5.80 |
94.20 |
16.2 |
| Ataka |
7.30 |
3.75 |
96.25 |
25.7 |
| NFSB |
3.7 |
1.90 |
98.1 |
51.6 |
| DBG |
3.2 |
1.64 |
98.36 |
60.0 |
| DSB-BDF |
2.9 |
1.49 |
98.51 |
66.1 |
| RZS |
1.7 |
0.87 |
99.13 |
114. |
| UDF |
1.4 |
0.72 |
99.28 |
138. |
| others |
11.4 |
5.85 |
-- |
-- |
Table 1. THE WON PERCENTS OF VOTES FOR THE PARTIES IN THE ELECTIONS OF 2013, AS COMPARISON FOR THE HATRED AGAINST THEM
Then somewhere later comes DBG ("Bulgaria for the Citizens", maybe because there have left no more peasants, after they have taken back their land parcels and moved to live in towns, I think; and I will not translate the names of these parties, they do not deserve such honour), of the lady with good "
kunki" (hands, if you ask the children in Bulgaria -- her name is Kuncheva), the last "large" chunk from the "great" Tsar-Simeon's-party, which lady has used ... a lot of make-up, in order to look out as 25 year old, i.e. as twice younger, just to make the people like her and choose her, but, alas, it turned out that to one person who more or less likes her there are 60 (sixty) persons who directly curse her. Alas for the gunpowder, as we say, or what a pity for her. And some "great Bulgarian-Macedonians", from VMRO, who are bracing for war and reverse our flag with the red colour above, as also some "Ianski" (his name is Iane, what isn't quite Bulgarian name) fighters for justice and law, they are forced to leave to pass by them more than
hundred persons until they met someone who will greet them. To say nothing about one party, which has come after all our pop singers and which has had all necessary
time, the old SDS (or UDF, Union of the Democratic Forces, right-wing coalition that has disintegrated very fast, and that, really, on their fist placards has shown all our pop singers from that, i.e. totalitarian, time, and which slogan was "The time (now) is ours!"), which has gathered more than the half of the votes 20 years ago, and this by electoral activity higher than 90% -- ah, to this poor party now only each 140th person can slightly nod with the head, but can as well pretend that does not recognize it at all.
So that, more or less, it has become clear now why we vote,
for to show that we are bubbleheads,
and to give the other nations the possibility to laugh at us, exactly as it was in the times of our Aleko Konstantinov (before more than a century). The minority parties have "stirred the beehive", but the "sun" has not at all "risen" for them. Well, maybe they will try again -- and what else is left to them? But those who have won the election are also out of luck -- a fatal year, it's nothing to be done -- because it turned out that the two right-wing parties collect exactly 120 votes or the half of all (our National Assembly has 240 representatives or MPs), and the two center-left parties -- again exactly the same amount!
We have never till now had such conflict situation in Bulgaria.
And besides, our "Hayduk Sider" was already fed up to listen to what "Duce Boiko" orders him to do, and when so is against him. And GERB, naturally, can not form a Cabinet, no matter that has won the elections. Well, the socialist succeeded to do this, but they have not, and will never have majority! Because, as you know, the little pebbles overturn the cart, and now Ataka really is against each party and hinders all. Both wings only seem to be equally represented, but there is significant difference between them, because the left-wing are united, they have no other choice, even MRF will never agree to be with the "Hayduk" (whose people cry -- at least I have heard this once by TV -- "The Gypsies to soap!), neither with agree with the "Duce" (for one mandate they have suffered enough from his arrogance). The right wing, however, consists of two separate parties, that have bared their teeth at each other, because there can be just one "Duce", while the "Hayduk" eagerly wants to become such -- you see, he has turned himself in a ... revenue stamp, the young carry him on their T-shirts, only to make us "
faschings"-carnivals, but some "chubby" general "muddies him the water". So that the "Hayduk" will not support the "Duce", but this is when it is about voting "pro", though in situations "
against" something he will automatically join with him (for it is impossible to enter in coalition with the former communists, neither with the Turks, this is obvious).
Yet otherwise Boiko directly, as the expression goes, keeps a finger
on the pulse of his electors, plays exactly so as they would have liked him to do, as strong "fist", or as good "bully" who overstrains himself for all, but, you see, those communists don't understand him, and also many other people between the masses. He pretends to be angry, and rightly, and does not want to be counted as opposition, because he is the one who won the elections. If there were not so many people having voted for him then he, surely, would have "curled up in his kennel", but by these electoral results he just can't afford it, right? And for this reason he from the very beginning has voiced that he does not want new elections, while the clever "Having-Become-Boss" (the name Stanishev means, if one gives it a thought and splits it, "Become-Boss") is the one who wants the opposite, so that, if you ask me,
this time the socialists alone have put their head in the bag!
How they will govern by this fierce, of the majority, opposition, I absolutely can not grasp, but we shall wait and see. Naturally that the most correct thing was that they alone wanted new elections, in order that Boiko could have become more unpopular, so that his supporters have fallen to some 7-8% after one mandate, and that he was befallen by the fate of tsarist party, or of the already plucked UDF, and the time of socialist will in any case come sometime (how it was before this elections), for the simple reason that the world plainly moves in this direction already more than a century. Yeah, but this has not happened!
Now, to say that Mr. "Bossing" was to such extent troubled about the poor Bulgarian nation, that suffers under the yoke of our "Duce", well, I personally can't believe it. But apparently the power is a sweet thing and he wants to wield a bit the scepter, to strike the iron now, while it is hot, or else that his electors would have not forgiven him not to form a Government, but he has shouldered this unfeasible task. Well, for the moment this task
turned to be affordable for him, and he even has chosen such Prime Minister that one just wonders where he has found such wise man -- indisputable sage, his wisdom, so to say, is just springing out. This will be, or at least it looks so, one incredibly reasonable governing, not with boasts but with deeds. So it is true, but I will again say "no"! For two reasons, the second is that with reasonable governing by us is nothing to be achieved! This is the old idea of Platon, in which I don't believe, the common people can not understand the intelligent persons, and because of this they are not chosen as rulers, no matter that they almost always do something in the interest of the whole population (if they are really reasonable, because otherwise they would have simply not been such -- i.e. here can't be otherwise, the intelligent governing requires that all, and especially the masses, live good). And the first reason is that
when one party is in power it can not raise its rating,
the latter can slump only down, especially in Bulgaria, and especially in conditions of crisis. So that it can't be that later people will choose the socialists, they will gather about 15%, but will not be able to rule, will come some other right-wing party, maybe even fascist, in any case something new and unexpected (because the expected -- I have said this in the previous year -- is complete deadlock). And not only this, it is also impossible to expect that the "dear people" will lead their mandate to the end! Two years is possible that they will pull the state's "cart" -- more precisely, if they will succeed to pull it approximately to the middle of September (in order that it has become a bit colder, and also that people have become acquainted with them), then it is probable that they will hold their two years, but in the end of June the protests have intensified greatly --, two and a half is also possible somehow, but
three and more I personally can't see how, as much as I wished that it happened so, and as much as I was supporter of
each (literally) left-wing idea (because in the right-wing there are
no ideas, I have spoken about this). Well, I pray to God (where nobody has proved that He exists, but also
nobody is able to prove this, or that He does not exist!) that I am wrong, but at least you, my dear readers (not that you are many, but this is exactly why I honour you so much, right? -- according to the supply and demand), can advice the following: if this double coalition, BSP and MRF /
DPS holds more than three years, and especially till the end of its mandate, then, in protest, simply ... give up reading this author. I, for my part, intend to do exactly this.
But, speaking more moderately, I also
don't believe that they will succeed to do something special, because neither our poverty can disappear easily (for, roughly said, some 20 - 30 years this can happen, but for a single mandate -- this is absurd), nor are they left-wing (the last left-wing "Mohican" was Zhan, i.e. Videnov -- do you see what a good rhyme I have found? --, they are the next opportunists, but at least are more reasonable, and I honour the reason), nor also will care about really poor (for example, will not hold back the tax on bank deposits, from which win only the poor ones, because the rich keep their money on current deposits for better liquidity and there is no tax there; no will lessen the prices of bread an milk, or of eggs, etc.; no will try that the communal expenses will not surpass
at least 1/3 of minimal working salary in month for a two-rooms flat -- what means one-bedroom --, which now are more than the half of such salary; no will make dental care free of charge, or local physicians, or education, and so on). It, as it turns out, was even so that exactly they were those who have proposed the utterly right-wing flat tax. But maybe by inertia they will be Russophiles, because the right-wing (for it is so) Russophobia only harms us, we are Slavs, and for some Americans, or Germans, or Frenchmen, etc., will always be a kind of "white slaves", I am convinced in this.
And speaking even more moderate:
all parties in the moment are right,
in their own way, GERB, and BSP, and MRF, and even Ataka (when there are people who vote for them), all are right and this is the democracy, yet our population suffers. People, surely,
don't understand that they suffer because of democracy, but this changes nothing. In order that people did not suffer so much are necessary serious social measures, something similar to the totalitarian cares of the "Party and Government", only that in some new way (ways can be found, were there a wish and unity among the people, but exactly this is what we have not), which cares have to be the subject of one new Social Ministry, but about it a new paper will be required. When we are worse than all in the United Europe, then we should have also something more different than in the other countries, while by us different is only this, that we are even more
unsocial than the others (Germans, English, Frenchmen, and so on). We for that reason so much hate our politicians, because we hate one another. It is true that now we have not such conflicts like of the communists with the fascists, but various neo-fascists begin to raise their heads, and
in the moment we are exactly in ... pre-war situation,
if you compare the crisis of 1928 and the coming of Hitler to power in 1933 (because this crisis has begun approximately in 2008 and now we are in 2013). So that, maybe, something is necessary to be done? Maybe only democracy of the right-wing type is not enough? Otherwise people will continue to strike, and this with right! Because people can not exactly know what they want (and for that reason live so bad), but their politicians have to, in broad lines, not only to dance to their pipe. For it can happen that the people will begin to "dance" according to the pipe of minority parties, but of really minority ones, such that can not get even 5% (not like the socialists, which are such only pro forma). Because, in the end, the people are
also right, they now don't vote for ten years (i.e. every second does not vote) and nothing changes, so that there is nothing more left to them except to go on the streets, slow and not in a hurry, and turn down
each Government, even the good one. So that my advice is that everybody begins to think: the people about the democracy, and the politicians about the people. Otherwise it will become worse. If you wait until the crisis ends and then begins the "good" capitalism, you have to wait quite a long time.
And you, politicians, make the people to vote, yet not forcing them to, but changing the situation so that you begin to be liked by them, and not as race horses, or as ... bulls for breeding, though like persons who can cogitate better than them. Because -- and I will end on this --the common people are rather simple, and in this world there is nothing worse than the human stupidity (when we have long ago overcome, in broad lines, the nature). Only opposing one (of the people) simplicity with another one (of the democracy) will be quite difficult to improve the situation in Bulgaria, especially in fatal year and in conditions of worldwide economic crisis.
June 2013
ABOUT THE FASCISM FROM COMMON SENSE POSITIONS
Only that, ladies and gentlemen, let me warn you already in the beginning that the common sense is quite treacherous notion, so that this, what I will tell you here, will dislike not only the adversaries of fascism, but also the supporters of it; in addition to this I will give in the end some pretty queer propositions. What is reduced to this, that if you have very little time and can't allow yourself to read empty philosophizing (which, as my experience shows, are necessary
exactly for those, who don't want to listen to them), then directly skip this material (or, generally, the author).
Well. Now,
the common sense, as a rule, can not accept any extremity,
and that the fascism (as well also the communism, or Catholicism, or Islamic Jihad, or terrorism, and so on) is an extremity, I suppose, is clear to all. And the common sense does not accept extremities because the truth can not be at the ends, for if it could have been there, then, with the existence of a heap of dialectical relations between the things, it would have very soon happened that around this extremity was already built a
vicinity, i.e. that it is no more at the end and there is something more aside of it! While in the middle, i.e. somewhere between the ends, the things can stay in dynamic equilibrium and be pulled by the both (for simplicity) ends, like a ball tied to two ... elastic bands (i.e. elastic fibers,
lastik in Bulgarian) -- and because of this if you call the dialectics dial
astics or dia
elastics you will not make a big error, for you will be nearer to the ancient idea. But this is a general consideration.
Then the fascism
is a bad thing because it is only a ... fishek, in Bulgarian
(in fact in Turkish), i.e. a firecracker (squib, spitdevil, etc.), raising of big noise, like when a bunch of twigs are burned, which even today in Italian are called
fascio ("fashyo"), what is this time linguistic proof (if you give credit to such things, but I think that one must believe in the words and relations between them, because they reveal the model of thinking, the associations in the heads of people, at least in the antiquity, when the languages were made). No matter what the linguistics says I mention this because this idea about the bunch of twigs exists also by us (for the ancient Khan Kubrat, in 7th century), it is written on our National Assembly (our Parliament, there stays "In unity is the power"), but we don't pay attention to it. In other words, the idea, in principle, and in another context, is good, but by the fascists it degenerates in this, that we must unite ourselves and ally, in order to oppose actively some other elements (which are usually among us), and eliminate the others physically or morally or spiritually at cetera. What means that the fascism as a moderate idea together with the others is something good, but when it transforms into fixed idea, in obsession, and becomes too militant -- and it is exactly such, look now at our "Atakists", they are chiefly
against something, than for something else -- then it becomes bad and extreme.
So that, in a certain sense, the fascism is a good thing, but this sense is as
part of a whole palette, as element of the unity, not by itself. If there could have been possible to unite the fascists with the communists, for example, in one common but tight, allied, party, then there would have been nothing better in the social area, but this can not be done. This can't happen because each part pulls the blanket to himself, and then, if the "blanket" is more or less firm, it can somehow work, but the bad comes when it tears, or also, in a milder case, only some persons, the weaker ones, remain uncovered. What means that the one extremity generates, or goes together, with the other one, here the communists with the fascists. Id est,
when the extreme right-wing elements strengthen, strengthen also the left-wing, and vice versa,
what in this case is good, in my opinion, for I am defender of the left-wing idea, the more so because the today's left-wing are not at all extremely left-wing (even one can rightly doubt whether they are left-wing at all). And it, really, happens exactly so, because you remind yourself that "Hayduk Sider" has built his party for the elections in 2005, and then he not only has won nearly 9%, but BSP also has become leading party and has won 34%. Besides, there have emerged also other right-wing parties like various "Macedono-Bulgarians", and others. But the most important thing about our open fascists, the Atakists, is that they just
can't ever take the power, they are so few, they are supported by less than 10% mainly post-teenagers, who, obviously, at least in my opinion, have little brains, but big desire for actions, desire to make something, no matter that this, what they are doing, is not god, and they even understand this. ( More precisely they are 8%, but from those who vote, and the latter are half of the voters, so that, in fact, their supporters are only 4% of the population, or one out of ... 25 persons! ) I don't want here, too, to elaborate on the question, for I have explained it shortly in other material, but our people are not so united like the Germans or the Japanese or the Italians (they are Catholics), so that they just don't believe that we are the good and the others the bad ones -- you look only to this how many Bulgarians have run away in all directions, be it even in Greece of Finland, but not to remain in Bulgaria. So that our fascists are not dangerous, they are youths, and their party is in some extent
necessary, in order that such people have vent hole, because otherwise becomes worse.
You see, the "children" want to be commanded, they don't like this, surely, but at the same time they want also that somebody orders them to do something so that to be able to express themselves. And the young are not guilty that they are such (i.e. young), but guilty are the old (i.e. grown up) people, because have taken away from them all means for organizing themselves in some associations! We have long ago neither
Tchavdarcheta (these were the youngest, before the pioneers), nor pioneers, nor Komsomol members, but we
have also nothing new on their places.
As if there exist some scout groups somewhere, but this is nothing, this is not only for the very young, but also is quite sporadic, so to say. We have behaved here up to significant extent like with the cultivated land-- we have returned it to the people, bur have not forced them to cultivate it (were there only taxes and fines when one does not process it, but there are not such things). And on top of all this we live now in peaceful times (well, maybe sometimes happen not pretty peaceful things, but this is not situation of wars and devastations), and the young ones have just nothing for what to live and to fight. And they search, don't they? And now has emerged this "Hayduk" who cries: follow me and you will not go wrong! We have also no demonstrations or protest rallies, like it was before, which, surely, have painfully bored us, but this was because they were compulsory, yet with nothing at all there is no go. Our people waited and waited, and decided to organize them in 2013, right? And don't think that this is unserious argument, because we have not at all, and really not at all, whatever folk meetings,
not even carnivals or religious processions,
but the other nations have, without such things there is something missing to the people. Only with football matches the things are not going. So that the young want to carry our national banner, there is nothing bad in this, in principle, the bad thing is that they
use the difficult economic situation, not only in Bulgaria but in the whole world, to give vent to their subconscious wishes, which we could have quite calmly offered them somehow (I will give in the end some ideas). Look here, so it can't go: without religion, without morality, and without families, with one only wish to get rich fast is not good to live! You should all grasp at the end that all these myths about the democratic panacea and the free market are only ...
hooks on which the wealthy can catch us, in order to force us to work for them!
Generally speaking, the youth, were they communists, or fascists, or also neutral, want some ideas, something for what is worth living; they, naturally, want easy life, want to have pleasure, to be sat, sexually satisfied, and so on, but without ideas is no go. And the capitalism, the overpraised democracy, it just
has no ideas, it is another hook or bait -- I have explained this in so many places that now I don't remember where --, or at least has not these ideas which it should have had, it is harmful to the people, and similar things. For these reasons the young people sway to this or that direction, especially in hard economic situations. And only with sex without inhibitions (how they put it in the ads of prostitutes) the youth is not sat, if I alone was on their place I also would have been dissatisfied. Because, for it is so, what other choice leaves to them:
either narcotics, or homosexuality, or some form of craziness, and when they pass over 40 than become chronic alcoholics.
The young people want, only that they don't say this, some kind of
delusion, invention, ideal, though unattainable (because otherwise this is not ideal but reality, and it is boring). They also the grown up want this (what else are all shows, literature, love, religion, etc., if not fables,
virtual reality?), but they, in view of their age, life experience, their children, and so on, don't sway to such extremities like the young ones. So that, if we do not want that the fascism existed, is necessary to engage the young people somehow, find some occupation for them, that is the situation! And in addition is also necessary that the crisis ends, but for this we shall wait quite a long time, some 7-8 years (I have explained this in a previous material).
So, good, but what are we to propose to the young, ah? And with the crisis what to do, ah? Well, I have ideas -- one has just to ask about ideas by me! -- but they are not fast, though, on the other hand, "the hasty bitch", as they say by us, "gives birth to blind puppies". Like our transition to democracy, which 23rd year now still can't finish (for we are still several
times worse in our living standard than in the times of our "Bai Tosho", when the life was not at all bad -- and it must be explained that in Bulgarian "Tosho" rhymes with "losho"-bad). Firstly about the easier thing, the crisis.
the only radical way to exit quickly the crisis is to orient ourselves to activities which require much manual labour!
And this means to boycott as much as possible automated and already robotized production, were this industrial goods, were it food, were it entertainment (i.e. that we are to do them alone, not to wait for them to be offered to us). It is clear that in the poorest country of European Community we will hardly begin to look for something that is 3-4 times more expensive only because it is made manually, but this is the most reliable and correct way, because this not only will ensure new jobs, but will also offer to the people something more interesting, not so boring. I mention this only schematically, because on this, that the automation throws people out from the sphere of production are written already many books for more than a century, and this isn't new phenomenon. But we are always forgetting about this and are pleased when there is something ready, easily accessed, something shining, good, directly perfect, while in the same time the inclinations of out organisms are not to perfect things but to personally achieved (no matter that with defects).
And with the youngsters what to do? Well, if you expect that I will do the work of at least hundred of persons, then you are positively wrong, because there must exist some official instance for the purpose. The Ministry of Youth and Sports could have been occupied with these functions (if we do not want to create a separate Ministry), but not as selection of the best (I have already said: less perfection, more vitality!), but as some programs for engaging of all boys and girls: it is possible that they were in different organizations, but that they existed, and that the young people were allowed to participate in them. Here are some ideas about interesting
delusions (I especially stress on this word, in order that you become used to it, not to turn away from it, or to spit on the communists who have deluded us about the bright future, the friendship, etc.). One direction are
the religions, yet not as true worshiping but as interesting rituals.
You see, long ago was clear (at least for 25 centuries) that God or the gods are something entirely different from material world, they stay above it, they are neither material nor destroyable, ergo, we can't find them and prove or disprove their existence in whatever way (I have explained this in several places, I can't everywhere speak about everything). What means that everybody has his (or her) right to delude himself with whatever image or ideas about the gods, as long as he likes them, and they also preach to him some morality (for there is no religion without morality; we may not like it, and it can be directly perverse in some cases, but it exists, that is why the religions have been created). So that -- the more exotic one religion is, the more it is interesting, such is the truth, and for this reason people for ages like to visit temples, especially as tourists. Id est, this is not some unpleasant obligation for the young, and they will from the very beginning like it (say, to study Zen Buddhism, or Islam, or some religion of the Incas, or the ancient Greek mysteries, etc.); the only thing that is needed it to find sufficiently intelligent and unprejudiced teachers, who would not deny the other religions and would search for
meaning in the ritual, not just repeat some proved with nothing fables.
Another idea is the well known for centuries slogan
Retour a la nature,
or "Return to the nature", which I give in French because it rhymes good there. In our century of surrogates for everything -- for food, for clothes, for sex, for entertainments, for whatnot --it is more than actual. I can't see what child of adolescent will refuse, say, to breed rabbits or chickens or other domestic livestock, or to learn all sorts of plants, healing herbs, exotic countries, and similar things (in the sense that not everyone will want all this together, but he will find something interesting for him). And this interest can be shown in some training and production units amidst nature.
Then something what is in some extent related with the previous,
returning to boarding form of education
everywhere, where it is possible, i.e. the children are separated from their parents somewhere exactly around teenager age in weekly (or even year-round, in some cases, but not daily) boarding establishments, where they all eat, sleep, and learn their lessons, play games, and learn something interesting for them. Say: folk dances, culinary, producing of vine, breeding of different animals, all kinds of sports, occult sciences, if you want, everything what is not harmful and can bring satisfaction to the children. This is a well tested form of education, which is advantageous for the parents (because lifts a heavy burden from them), but also for the children (because they become independent, not like greenhouse plants); as well also for the whole personnel of these institutions (i.e. there is work for them), so that I can't understand at all why we have abandoned it. Now, there are some legal points in regard of the existence of such organizations, so that they were able also to
produce something, to support themselves alone, that are not quite clear to me, but for them, surely, exists easy decision. So that it leaves only to wait that some such
lyceums (let us call them so, for this word sounds quite elevated) will begin to sprout on the left and the right, on empty land, in the mountains, in small towns, and in other places.
Then it is worth also to mention
the possibility for exchange of young people with other (exotic) countries,
i.e. our children, in groups somewhere from 10 to 50 persons, travel for at least half an year (and even better for entire one, for to have gone through all climatic particularities of the place) in some interesting corner of the world, and the same amount of children from that place come to us! It is supposed that some similar colleges or lyceums exist in other countries (but if they do not exist that we will pass them the idea). This surely will be related with learning of the language of the place where to they will go, yet this is part of the goal, to learn something more in addition. For example, 30 boys and girls from the lyceum of Bulgarian cuisine travel for an year to Australia in similar lyceum, where for this purpose they learn one year intensively Australian, right? On their part to us travel the same number of Australians (some of them with their domesticated baby kangaroos for company, I suppose).
Well, I switched to a bit frivolous tone, but this is for freshening of the atmosphere, otherwise the ideas are serious. Arises the question: will the Australians want to learn Bulgarian? Actually, I think they will, because for them this will be interesting, this will be Europe, after all, besides, in the last time I defend persistently the thesis that Bulgarian is one extraordinary good and light for learning language, and suitable even as ... world standard! Because, really, it has no cases, grammatical genders are easily established by the endings, we have no complex tenses (for example, the Italians, what is valid in some extent for all Latin languages, have
14 tenses, and in this number only the past ones are whole 5, and this without passive voice or ways for expressing of continuous tenses), we have
perfect reflection of our phonetics via our alphabet, and contain all basic phonemes of other languages (due to what, for example, we speak much better English than one Chinese, or Negro, or even Italian). So that if we explain these things (and show them with examples) the Australians (or whoever they were, for they can be Eskimos from Alaska, or also from Peru, Tajikistan, Birobidzhan, if you like, and so on), then the children (as well also their parents) surely will agree with such temporary change. I don't know whether you appraise the significance of this idea, because it can give the tune to various countries, this unites the nations, and so on. But first of all this will be interesting for the children, they will "break their legs" in order to run to come into such lyceum.
At the same time do not think that this will not work because there will be necessary much money for this establishments. As I said, the children have to be in position to earn something themselves, but even if there has to be searched help from aside then I don't think this will turn to be very hard, because if many of us can hardly find money for bread and milk (and instead of the latter buy, for example, soya sausages), then for many countries on the West the problem is in this, on what to spend their money, for nowadays one pizza in United States costs about 50 US$ (for the reason that before 30 years it was approximately 18 dollars). Well, you see very good that for 50 US$ in Bulgaria one can eat hundred pizzas (and even more, if people alone make them and bake). I want to say that if there is a concrete goal, for which the money are given, the West will give them us (as has given, so far as I know, sums for building of various playgrounds for children by us -- for the reason that by better social climate in our country less Bulgarians want to immigrate abroad, right?). But even if initially for this lyceums will be necessary that the parents pay, even then a heap of children will succeed to enter them, and all will see the benefit from them, and will be taken measures for building of new such institutions.
So that let me summarize in the end: the fascism is bad when it turns into fix-idea for some people, but as element of life it has its advantages. Especially the neofascism, which emerges in current days, is useful also as
warning that, see: give us what we want, or else it will be worse. Id est the precedent of fascism (and up to some extent also of communism) plays significant role for avoiding of it. ( For example, our "hayduk" have begun often to voice: well, you only say that you want this, that we have taken up arms, or something of the kind. In short: people, think, for not to happen that the fascists will cease only to wave flags and organize "happenings" for themselves. ) And if we want that our children will not sway to such crazy ideas, as well also to make their life more interesting, it will be necessary to burden some Ministry with cares about the youth, because if we rely only on the democracy to better the situation as with some magic wand, it will happen as it became with the ideas of our notorious UDF, which only ruined our country. My propositions, as also the approaching to the theme, are not traditional, but I personally can see nothing bad in them. Well, judge for yourself.
June 2013
HOW TO IMPROVE DEMOCRATIC PROTESTS?
Before a pair of months I came to the conclusion that we do not know also how to protest correctly, when are dissatisfied with something. And under the word "we" I mean not only by us, in Bulgaria, but all around the world, where in our country be behave even quite culturally, we just hinder the people, our legitimately elected rulers, to do their work, organizing on the square before our National Assembly (this is our Parliament), like on the lawn before the White House, folk festivities with drums, megaphones, songs and dances, and waving of national flags (for there is nothing else to wave, is there?). And this, naturally, impedes the people to walk on the streets around, and for that reason clad in modern "armors"
poliziotti (this is in Italian) stand there and from time to time stop the protesting people in order to let go the accumulated citizens to pass, and later vice versa. Well, there, surely, for such occasions exist the police, to protect the people from themselves, but this isn't the right thing, because in this way neither the protest is protest, nor the people are free to go everywhere, nor also the corresponding institutions can work properly, and also is engaged time of the police for funny activities -- the protesting people are not some criminals, they are young people who simply want to have a bit fun and also show serious appearance and pomposity, even "heroism" in collision with the police. So well, what has to be done, how are we to behave, with the result that the wolf will be satiated and the lamb remains alive?
For proper understanding of the problem is necessary to split it in several moments, which are different but they happen together, i.e. we must decompose the problem for to be able to find the right decision. Because:
0. Why the people protest?
You will say: because they are dissatisfied with something. So it is, but not exactly. There are various factors involved. For one thing people want just to
make some noise, to disagree, brawl, raise the devil, show themselves in heroic situations -- i.e., they decide that if they do not do some obvious
foolishness, setting in peril their own or of someone else's life, the situation will not better. Like, for example, on some Tiananmen Square in China, do you remember this? The foolishness of self-sacrificing is obvious, but how else to attract the public opinion? And what if they will not be harmed? And what if they will be glorified as patriots? For that reason by us are waved also national flags, although our people, thank God, are peaceful, they don't "ask for trouble" without necessity
So that this is
the one side of the matter, the psychological one, which must not be overlooked. While one is young he wants to change the wold, and to test himself and demonstrate before the others, as well also to leave the accumulated "steam" (and exactly for this reason, I suppose, in Russian exists the word "
paren" as young man, because he has much "
par"-steam, and it is "
pora"-time for him to marry, to build a pair), after what he usually calms down and feels better. The demonstrations and protest rallies are kind of ... electrical fuses, they must not burn out, in theory, in normal circumstances, but when the situations are not very normal then they also burn out sometimes, but save the system (here the democratic ruling). So that this possibility we must retain in all cases, but it has to be channeled, led to the necessary place, in order that the "lamb" remained alive, i.e. not to hinder the work of institutions. Because there are also protests when some people bring tractors and trucks on the street, block traffic arteries, in short create disorder, although the actions are announced in advance and some measures for diverting of traffic are taken. Or protests before headquarters of parties and movements. Or protests of physicians, teachers, transport workers, and so on and so on. The disorders must be banned, but has to be retained the possibility to protest, and as if till now nobody has come to the idea how to realize this. Only the boldly thinking, though a bit swerving to utopias, Chris Myrski has got the enlightenment, right?
But let us continue further. To the people has to be specially given opportunity to express their meaning, and this is
the second moment, on which we must dwell here. In this regard also wide away from everything is clear, because the rulers as if know that the voice of people is voice of God, but do not like much to ask them, those people. And why? Well, because the people are immoderate and they will tell you a heap of silly things if you leave them to speak. Yeah, but I think that this is mainly because they are not asked, or are asked not in the proper way. For example, when Bulgaria joined NATO nobody asked the people do they really want this or not, or the European union, or when the flat tax was introduced (we have the maximally
right-wing income tax, which dos not depend on the amount of income, the percentage is always the same, and this in the poorest country of European Union!), or about the legalization of prostitution, or of marriages between homosexuals (as if they are allowed, I have shown no interest, this does not affect me), and other similar examples. It is clear that if you ask people how much has to cost the bread, or the milk, or the meat, and so on, and if you ask them at all about such things, because by market economy the prices are not established centralized, then the people will choose the possibly lower price, but there are important things about which people must be asked.
Not under condition that their vote will be approved immediately -- because, to remind you, maybe for the umpteenth time now, that the fascism in Germany has come to power in its time exactly because the population wanted it, in democratic way -- but to ask is necessary, and, when needed, to involve also the international community and governmental instances, for to convince the people that they are wrong and what they want is not reasonable (as, for example, was with Bulgarian medics in Libya, who were taken for guilty by Libyan Government, as well as by the whole population, in absolutely absurd assumption of
intentional contamination of innocent children for money). Or to remind you about nearly the first in history democratic decision of Pontius Pilatus who to exculpate, Christ (allegedly) son of God, or the bandit Varavva /Barabba. When people are not asked they in the best case become embittered, but the decisions must be taken by the rulers -- that is why they are chosen.
But there is also a
third moment: how to take the meaning of people into consideration? Who will ask questions and of what kind? Will this not turn out to be manipulation of the masses? And when? Because the people are asked in normal situations once in four years, on the elections, but many things age quite fast. And then it is not a good decision to conduct always pompous referendums, or to wait until people go out on the streets to protest, it must be found an easy decision, which is obvious nowadays, to what we shall come after a while.
And there is also
fourth side of the things: what to do with the trouble-makers by the demonstrations? They, after all, do not do crimes against the people, not rob, not kill, they just hinder the people and society. I mean not only the kinds of penalties, they too, but also the
work which they are to fulfill for minor violations, because it is not good to make them drones of society. And there is also no moral, nobody tells us what is good and what is bad, only that the one part thinks that the police is always and everywhere bad, and the other part thinks that the young (mostly) hinder the calmness of society.
So that we don't know how to protest, and even when we want to show support to some party or political figure we don't know how to do this (except to wait till the next elections and then vote for him or her). Well then, let us begin in the right order.
1. Where to protest?
I don't know how simpler to answer this question than with the words:
on the specified for that purpose
places. Not on the streets and squares, not on the transport arteries, not before the buildings of institutions or organizations or eminent persons, where they, obviously disturb the normal way of life, hinder other people who do not want to protest or who don't give a damn about these protests, but on the approved places. On what places? Well, on special stadiums, because these are the places where it is accepted for large number of people to gather together. Exactly so. In genuine Myrski's way, right?
Now, for the beginning can be used the existing stadiums, i.e. to choose one such object, a bit aged, in order not to be damaged much, but this is only temporary decision due to the lack of something better. The right thing is that this was a separate stadium for protests, where is no need to have many sitting places, only small tribune for, say, a thousand of people, for the official media, because hardly somebody will want to pay entrance fee, but even if it is free here the point is not in seeing of what other people do, the point is in personal participation. There must be broad, about 20 meters, elliptical path (this as if is better than circular one) on the perimeter, with symmetrical entrance and exit somewhere near the focuses of the ellipse but from one part, say, from the part of tribune, with the possibility to go for a next round, or leave for the exit, and in the center must be just an asphalted area, with not very high tribune for potential speakers. All this must be enclosed by high fence, with illumination, with pylons for flags -- this is important element, there have to be 3, 5, or 7 such pylons -- and equipped with many cameras (about 10 pieces, from various angles). There must be also screens for showing of various slogans, which is more convenient to be placed facing the tribune.
You see, here the people must be separated from the others, but this is not a place for isolation, this is not an exile, which will be unpleasant for the protesters, no, there have to be ensured all necessary means for live transmission from these stadiums in the news, in the same way how is conducted transmission of all debates of the Parliament. So that there have to be acoustic devices and possibility against some payment (or up on request of organizers, because these meetings or demonstrations will be usually organized by some political power) to show different things on the screens in the stadium, listen to music, arrange dances, if you want. More than this, their protests must be shown on several places in the big towns on special screens, in order that the people, those who want this, walking around, were able to watch these events. The protesters, after all, but also all people, nowadays need first of all advertising, publicity, and the other people want most of all to be kept informed about everything! But, dear God, I remember that before twenty or more years I have watched that in Las Vegas was everywhere full with screens, where flash all kinds of images, show animations and such things; in the old days such screens were simply made with big number of light bulbs. And after some 10-20 years will be elementary to have in disposition also movable flat screens, worth about ordinary window frame (together with the frame), to which will be necessary only to connect an accumulator, weighing, say, 2 kilograms; or they could be able to be attached to the facades of buildings with suction cups. There will be no obstacles at all for ensuring of the publicity of events.
In the ideal case, I think, will be better to have, at least in big cities, even two such stadiums -- white and black ones, i.e. for the approving and welcoming the politics, and for the protesting and spitting at it. This will offer even bigger distancing of the one people from the other. But in small towns will be enough to have only one stadium for protests, and in villages must simply be established some place somewhere away from the center. In full measure, I think, is necessary to perform also police control (for example, by scanning of personal documents) on the entrance and the exit, for the reason that in many cases such info may turn to be useful, in order to perform various analyzes, as well also for control of protesters; don't be afraid by this, because hardly will pass more than a pair of decades and such measures will be introduced in all usual stadiums. And if with this will be engaged different instances, and because after the event, in any case, will be necessary to be cleaned, I think that will be justified to introduce some
democratic fee for entrance -- for example such: for unemployed, students, pensioners and disabled, as also for people with less than one minimal monthly salary (MMS) will be free admission, for people with income to 2 MMS to pay, say, 0.5 euros (i.e. half ticket for city transport, and for the others by 1 euro.
So that everything is a matter of habit and customs and if the people will be accustomed that they have every right to go to these stadiums and protest whenever they only want, then they will begin to do it. Now, our protesters, having succeeded at last to change to existing Government, have even decided once to gather every day before the Parliament and ... drink coffee there (I think at five o'clock, at tee time), and what is bad of this place as meetings place for the young, ah? Had I also 25 (instead of 65) years I would have also gone there to have a little chat with the girls. With what I want to say that even unpleasant, but useful, duties can be made attractive with something, if the things are thought through in advance. But protests on the streets and so on, as I said, have to be banned and prosecuted by the law.
2. How to express reasonable opinions?
Here it goes not about such protests where people just want to shout a bit and communicate with their brothers of fate, but about expressing of opinions on various questions, about mass conducting of surveys or referendums. I have mentioned this in other material, but there is nothing simpler than conducting, say, once every month of questionnaire of all citizens of age with five points and with five answers. The points can be more, till ten, but the answers have to be five -- the less the better, in order not to confuse the people -- and with such, approximately, coding: 1 - strongly approve , 2 - approve, 3 - indifferent to the question, 4 - disapprove, 5 - strongly disapprove; if we want to make difference between not voted and indifferent then to the not voted can be assigned a value of 0.
Now about the questions: there can be new and actual in the moment, as well also permanent, for determining of the rating of leading parties and political figures. If there is some list and has to be chosen one element from it can be joined two such questions in one, but these are details. Can be voted by Internet, or via mobile phones, with the help of password, like it is by withdrawing of money from a bank account, but has to be also possibility in the Municipality (or police stations) to enter new password in case of intervention of people from aside. Filling of all questions in one survey (or referendum, questionnaire) will take about 5 minutes, so that there will be no reasons for the people to refuse to vote (though, naturally, they are free to do this).
Somebody may say that this is not a new element and many media and websites conduct such surveys, yet this is not so. It is one thing when there is one authorized instance, and quite another thing when some company carries its own questionnaires chiefly for advertising purposes, or at least to raise its rating. When this is a private affair then will answer people who watch this broadcasting, and their meanings are already known in outline, because each company has some idea about its circle of audience, and the results of one survey will highly differ from those of another survey on the same questions. Further, if I hate the company "AA", for example, then I will not vote in its survey, I will not want to have whatever in common with it. So that it has to be decided who will conduct this, but in principle
every site is good, and they will even compete for to get permission to conduct such surveys. I think the central news agency of the country is the best choice of host for this purpose, but there can be objections, that this is corrupt organization, or that there the people will be deceived, etc., so that I will propose one simple decision that avoids such possibilities.
But in addition to this has to be stressed that the voting has to open, by name, else there will be various speculations, that is why passwords are necessary. But open voting does
not mean that it will be accessible for every interested, not. Everybody will be able to check his own answers on different surveys, and for the others receive only summary results, i.e. so many people and percentage have given answer 1, so many 2, and so on. Yet the giver of the vote, together with his password, is needed also because of the possibility to correct the voting, though first of all in order to was possible to apply some not complicated data base of all citizens of the country, where will be includeed such parameters like: age (i.e. the year of birth, and from it to compute the age), education, and not only as tertiary or secondary but also the type of education (out of, say, 10 types), property status, family status, number of children, knowledge of languages, ethnic affiliation, place of residence, an so on. With the help of such data base could be answered exactly questions like, for example: how have voted technical intelligentsia, compared with pensioners, or Gypsies, and so on, on a given question, and this, obviously has big importance for the assessment of results. These are entirely new possibilities, which are absent by the public voting using anonymous bulletins.
So, but the people, you see, are afraid that, for one thing, the agency (site) that processes the results can distort the results on purpose, and for another thing, that the police or somebody up there will find out their meaning and use this information against them. Well, as to the possibility for falsification, then the data can be sent in one central place (say, in the leading news agency of the country), which will multiply them in 3 or 5 exemplars and send to other instances, and via comparison of the common results, but also everybody will be able to check his answers there, will succeed to convince himself (especially if the programs for processing will be the same) that everything is correct. In addition to this is possible somehow to alternate these instances (say, after six months), in order that they did not "forget themselves". As to the fears of using this information to the detriment of the voters, I think that this is just not serious, because when there will be hundreds of questions in an year hardly somebody will decide to draw conclusions based on this about the trustworthiness of the person. And further, the real democracy is unthinkable without the possibility to express in the open one's opinion, so that my advice is to leave the things how they are, i.e. the information open only for authorized instances, that pledge not to use it in improper way.
( Still, in parentheses, I will give just in case one intricate way for untying of the person from his vote with the use of an intermediary site or even intelligence agency -- say, CIA, ah, and they know there how to keep secrets -- and shuffling of the list of all people. This is done in the following way: when the whole procedure for establishing of the people for the given year is finished (it has to be set somehow an end to the adding of new persons) the central cite sends the list of all people together with their parameters about which we have spoken (age, education, etc.) to this intelligence agency and it performs there the shuffling of all persons, after which to every person is assigned new sequence number but what is the correspondence of this number to the real person can establish only this agency. All further correspondence is maintained with CIA, excuse my, with the chosen intelligence agency, and the latter sends to the central site firstly the attachment of all parameters to these sequence numbers (without other information about identity of the people), and then for each batch of questions gives as code of the person his or her sequence number. Neither the very persons, though, who correspond with this intelligence agency, know this sequence number, nor in the central site, where work with the use of this sequence number, know to whom it refers, neither can be found from where come the answers. That's it. And it is again possible after, say, an year, to change these intelligence or whatever only agencies. But this is unnecessary complicated. )
3. Who will set the questions?
And now let us explain also this, who will compose these questions. Well, in principle this must be done in the Parliament, by some Commission on public opinion surveys, although there can also be variants, can be included representatives of various media, and/or international observers, but the decisive vote has to be that of the Parliament. This is not a difficult procedure, but it is important, and this Commission must be also intermediary, input, for whatever propositions made by the political powers or common citizens. Id est this will be as if pre-protesting instance, and if some political power disagrees with something, and persistently disagrees, then it must firstly approach this instance, and after this think about demonstrations. And this instance must remain in power also when new elections are performed and Government is not yet built, because also in such time can be various questions for regulating. But with this work can be occupied also the Office of the President, in the end. What decision will be accepted. The important thing is that one composes the questions, and the answers come in another place, in order to was disjoining of the instances, because otherwise will always be fears that something is foul.
Here the manner of asking the question is very important, so that to enable understanding of the motives of people, the priorities of values, what is more important for them and what not so much, and after some time to repeat the questions, if they are significant. Also this is not so simple a task in the sense of satisfying of all protests of political powers, which will exist in any case, you can be sure about this. Here is necessary to separate correctly the practical considerations from the political ones, because, at least in Bulgaria, the politics continue to be in the saddle and stay above the economy, in result of what nearly always is taken the wrong decision! For example, there was such issue, what to do with our nuclear power industry and nuclear power plant, to close it gradually, or on the contrary, to increase the production with adding of new blocks, and this question was revised several times and it still, it seems to me, is not definitively solved, because, you see, the power plant is Russian one and from the totalitarian years, and, consequently, for all right-wing, which in Bulgaria are as a rule Russophobes, this means that it, surely, has to be closed, in spite of the opinions of foreign experts, which can be interpreted in different ways. And here is necessary, on one hand, to understand are the fears of people that something may happen with is so high, do the people really think that the Russian technique is so unreliable (when, say, even the Americans work on the Russian Space Station), and, on the other hand, do we think that the production of electricity has to be increased, because there exists market of electrical power and if we have more of it we can sell it, and this can lower the prices of it; the prices of electricity (as well also of all communal expenses) are growing higher all the time and in such poor country like our this is a question of primary importance. Similar with it is now the question about the oil pipeline "South Stream", which obviously is profitable for us, but there are again these Russians, so that it is better not to get involved with them. And other examples.
Id est the decisions, naturally, are taken by the political powers that stay at the rule, this is the essence of party system (to hinder the economy), but if the questions are properly set then they must in maximal measure take away the politics in every situation. By well set questions on principal topics we can try to find common solutions beneficial for the whole nation, not only for certain political powers; this is a way for reaching of Government of national unity, which we never have (and now, as if rejecting the bipolar model BSP - UDF, we again come to similar situation with the successors of UDF). I want to say that in Bulgaria the two poles are really poles -- extremely right-wing and extremely left-wing -- and this is not good, we must aim at the center (for example, by the well known American system of Democrats against Republicans I don't think that whatever of these parties is extremely left-wing, they have milder division). In this sense it turns out that this Commission must be maximally apolitical, what is quite difficult task, and for this reason it can be also to the Presidency. The things have to be thought through, I give only the ideas, I can't fulfill the work of entire teams of specialists.
4. How to punish the offenders?
Well, first of all, and initially, with fines, this is clear. But they have to correlate with the income of offenders, because it is not right to impose the same fines on an unemployed and owner of a BMW, for example, and in Bulgaria this, sure thing, is not done (and not only by us, for I have not heard about a country where the fines are defined in parts of MMS, how I have proposed in other materials). By repeating of similar offenses the fines have to be doubled, and at most one more time, and later on we have to switch to other measures. But what are these other measures? This is only imprisonment, which is only burden for the state because these are only expenses. And here the question is more broad, because this is how the matters stay also with other minor offenses, like: domestic disturbances, bodily injuries, petty thefts, economic offences, hooligan manifestations, and others, where the important thing is to reeducate the person, make him think, feel ashamed.
And how it was earlier? There were exiles, katorgas or galleys, heavy prison works for non-correctable criminals, in order that they at least worked and in this way atoned to some extent their guilt. In more minor cases were also some works, boring, but giving a little money to the state (say, by Dickens, if I am not mistaken, in the prison they agglutinated envelopes or paper bags for packaging in the shops), but nowadays, on the background of growing unemployment what kind of work is to be allotted to them for to deprive other people of necessary for them earnings, ah? And the unemployment will not lessen with the use not only of automation but also robotization in nearly all industries. And how much unattractive the given work was, say, of hygiene workers, by cleaning of streets, or transport vehicles, et cetera, those who perform it do this diligently (I look at our cleaners), in order not to lose it, and if this will be assigned to prisoners they will intentionally perform it bad (or will be necessary twice as much guards). But in old books one can read about wallowing of somebody in tar and feathers and conducting him so along the city streets, or about branding of criminals and easy women, and other similar variants.
Well, I am not supporter of cruelties, but some not painful and chiefly shaming the person measures can be accepted. Beginning simply with publication of such people in some lists, so that everybody could recognize them (acquaintances, work colleagues, or neighbours, will surely take an interest in this). It is possible also to put on them indelible ink for some time (about a week till a month) and this with controlling that the person does not wash it, requiring from him (or her) to visit each day the nearest police station to sign there and to check him. And where to put it? Well, on the forehead, or on the ... nose, if you like, so that everybody could see him /her, in the transport, on the work place. Further can be applied
partial trimming of the hair on one quarter -- say, beginning with the back left quarter and clockwise if similar cases repeat (but it is possible also on a half, front - back, or left - right). As far as it is possible that this can enter into fashion among the young, such manner of "haircut" must be officially banned and each such person can be stopped by police and asked to prove the cause for this appearance and if it is not result of penalty then impose on him appropriate punishment, beginning with fine (eventually plus entire trimming of the head).
There can also be implanted some electronic chips -- say, on the right shoulder or the right buttock. In this way the person can be recognized when needed, but only by the special bodies, by the police. If there turns to be necessary permanent monitoring of the person can be thought also about special transcevers in the manner of mobile phones, but so that it was possible to conduct exact comparing of the signal and the person (either by the pulse of heart, or by the voice), and this so that one can even bathe with these things (in quite near future this can become possible, and I think that similar gadgets are already used for tracking of migratory birds and other animals).
Another side of the matter is the work for prisoners. As I have said it is difficult to find it, but if with this engage appropriate authorities in the frames of some program (nowadays everything is done by some program) then something can be invented. I will propose a pair of things, sounding a bit utopian, in my style, but which can be easily applied. Say, outlets with the "enticing" name "By the violators", where can be eaten a sandwich or a pizza, or drink a bottle of bear, such things. Who knows whether this will not turn to be an interesting lure for the customers? Because if this will turn so, then they will give something to the state. Or not large manufactures, for earthen cups (with painted there, or embossed, half-shorn head). Or send them by one to willing companies or shops. This will be funny, this will be interesting for the others, even for the very offenders, but they will hardly decide to "make career" as partially shorn personages (and they will also not succeed to do this because will be released soon)
Another possibility is to perform some displeasing, but useful for the person -- mark this -- work in the prison, which may not give much profit to the state, but will do no harm to anybody. For example, to ... pedal bicycle in his /her room, but with attached to the wheels dynamos! It is not necessary that the produced in this way electrical power be fed to the power grid, this may require complicated synchronization, but for heating devices, in the kitchen, or for cooling of the room (if not otherwise then at least with mechanical linkage with a propeller), it will be useful. ( I have come to this idea having heard that somewhere people have made such additional contraption to the computer, so that it were possible to charge an accumulator for a pair of hours work by pedaling bicycle for half an hour. ) Nobody will like much to do something under coercion, so that this will be a kind of additional punishment, but at the same time this will be useful straining for the person, a care for his /her health.
There is another variant, where will be expenses related with the prisoners, but this will be to their advantage, and for the young people this will not be without significance. It goes about including them in some training classes. I means short ones, of two weeks, or in several such parts, but so that one part was with such duration, what is quite enough in many cases. Say, for giving of first medical aid, or on repairing of electric plates and stoves, or of refrigerators, and so on, or on learning typing with ten fingers (this is boring thing, but useful), or as introduction to plumbing, or on interior decoration of houses, and a lot of other variants. Putting it otherwise, this means that a person, entering for a short time a prison, will not consider the time wasted, will not become angry with the police "pharaohs", yet, still, will hardly try to land again there for another thoughtless childish act. Because, as I have said in the beginning, it is possible to satiate the wolf (with soya minced meat, ah?) and preserve the lamb alive.
So with the use of all these measures can be accomplished several goals, namely: people will be able to protest as much as they want, their voices will be clearly heard, they will be able to help the ineffective democratic machinery to fulfill its functions more successfully, will be done something so that the agencies of law and order can diminish a little their expenses, as well also will be helped to the very prisoners to spend more usefully and pleasantly the time of their not long imprisonment. In my opinion all this is wide away from well understood, either by the common people, or by the appropriate instances.
Oct 2014
P.S. May 2015. I think it is necessary to clarify a bit the idea about surveys, to section 2. First of all that open voting with password is in fact
secret one, the password is necessary to enter in the system, further on everything is hidden. With the help of CIA or not but will exist central agency where the answers of the people are sent. Let this agency conducts before each survey (usually once in a month, not year, as I have said earlier) adding of new citizens (who may now become of age, or decide to vote), as well also excluding of some deceased (or, say, renounced their citizenship). In this way each time will be formed new file with citizens and new sequence numbers, and once the voting is finished there is no need to correct whatever in the old votings, so that because of this even with password one will not be able (i.e. this has to be forbidden) to find out his (or her) personal answers! This, at one hand, is natural, and at the other hand will be guarantied the anonymity of answers, because, let us imagine this, one can be caught and forced to enter the password and see the results -- yeah, but this will not be possible if the voting is finished, and if it is not finished then he can always change later the results.
So, then if each time will be done new sorting of the people (the changes can be quite minor, but somewhere after the hundredth person everything will be new) then also for each voting the tying of people in the list in the central agency will be different, what will make meaningless all tries to guess who under what number is placed in the secondary lists (where is lacking the unique number -- EGN in Bulgaria, or social security number or what corresponds to it --, but only the sequence number). And if all these sequence numbers are permutated (or shuffled) each time (in CIA or in neutral agency) then the secrecy will be impenetrable.
Further, I have not explained in details (for I am giving similar ideas in other places) but for this voting can (and as you will now see also need) be had special cards, like for the phones, but they can be also with electronic chips, like for the banks, what costs practically nothing. When there are present well secured banking cards then they can as well be used for banking operations, supported by some bank, by the unique number of the citizen. This gives possibility to conduct the voting also by ATM cash machines (if need be), but the main thing is that can be performed along with this some small money transactions.
What I have in mind is that can be
paid something for the voting, in order to stimulate people to answer! Pay not at all much, when this is from the state budget, by one or two euro-cents on a
choice, i.e. if the question is for choosing out of five variants, then 5 or 10 cents on a question, but if is necessary to choose from 20, then respectively more. Nonetheless, if there are ten questions then it will come to half or one euro, and there is no reason to lose this money. They can be allowed to be taken, naturally, when will be accumulated for the smallest banknote, but approximately once in an year this will happen, and then one can quietly treat oneself with this amount.
More than this, these cards can be used also for conducting of voting at all, for the Parliament or Municipalities, and in such cases even if it will be necessary to pay a pair of euros, then the state, definitely, will
gain saving the electoral expenses, and/or can carry such voting even once in an year (it is not necessary to change the Parliament each year, but to know what kind of majority there could have been and to cause some changes of persons). And there is nothing unlawful in the paying for to make people vote, this is
not advertising, because it can't be proved who personally wins (for the reason that there win all, the democracy) -- only the electoral activity will increase.
So that I, really, don't see shortcomings in using of this proposition, people are just too inert, otherwise there are no problems for ensuring of secrecy (after all, the banks pay money and do not complain), also for increasing of electoral spectacle, and for bettering of democracy. The main reason, as I see the things, why the very politicians, also on the West, don't begin to advertise something of the kind, is that they rely chiefly on the ... cheating, surely, that they will succeed somehow to mislead the electoral, and if everything is clear and simple then people will begin to think, this will hinder the politicians (by the same reason I can not name even one large company, a supermarket, where they have tried that the advertisements were informative, that it was possible to compare the products, also with other shops, and with similar products -- such comparisons are made, but they are kept in secret by the administrations of the shops). Id est everything, again, is reduced to this that the people are quite simple, or childish, they want fables and tales but not the truth. Learn to look in the eyes of the truth and life on Earth (and its surroundings) will just blossom. I try nearly in every my material to force people to ponder a bit. Yeah, and for that reason I am little read!
ABOUT THE SOCIAL MINISTRY IN BULGARIA
I speak with such confidence about this Ministry because I have spoken not long ago about this my idea, which I will explain here in more details. But it is not entirely new for me, because before one or two years I have launched the idea about moderate communism in Bulgaria, which in some extent contacts with this. The difference is that the communism requires immediate prepayment for people with quite low, significantly before minimal monthly salary (MMS), income, while the Social Ministry has to perform also common planning functions,
monitoring of social status of
all Bulgarians, as well as searching of ways for targeted, in accordance with the kinds of expenses, support, outlining group of, let us name them so,
social necessary products (SNP) and services, the prices of which have to be brought in line with the abilities of the given person, suppressing, as far as possible, the market mechanism from the standpoint of the individual, yet not excluding the free market from the standpoint of manufacturer or supplier. Putting this in other words, the Social Ministry must provide social help for the population, but under the conditions of right-wing capitalism, with its market and paying for everything. And now, more precisely.
But let me firstly say a pair of words about this, why it must exist in Bulgaria, while in the Western countries, as a rule, there is no such Ministry, there are only social programs to the municipalities. It must exist by us for the simple reason that
we are not like the other countries,
we are more savage than them, are not convinced in the necessity of social measures, nor our measures of that kind function good (for example, earlier, in totalitarian time, existed the so called
shkembedzhiynitsi where, honestly, was not exactly
shkembe -- this is swine tripe, and from here their name --, in the 80s of the last century, but was soup from swine heads, fat and nutritious as much as you want, where the hot pepper was free of charge, and all this for 10
stotinki-cents, i.e. less than an egg for then 13 st.; now even a meatless bean soup costs at least one lev, i.e. 4-5 eggs). To say nothing about cheap hotels and holiday homes, or also baths -- there are not more such things, end even the central mineral bath in Sofia, since it was privatized, ceased to exist. Also a heap of bus lines were canceled as unprofitable, and at least in Sofia, one can not more clime the Vitosha mountain for one day -- more or less like in the times of our Aleko Konstantinov, more than a century back. Or also the central heating in winter for a modest two-room (i.e. one bed-room) flat amounts to 1/3 MMS, but there were periods when it exceeded half of MMS. And many other examples for our
anti-people's democracy -- when we so strongly did not want it to be people's, right? In addition to this we are the poorest among our European partners, so that it in necessary that we have some special instance which is to fight with the poverty of the poorest, i.e. with the (democratic) misery.
With the initial common things can be engaged also some department of our Ministry of Labour and Social Care, but in my opinion is necessary to have a separate Social Ministry, at least from the moment of common monitoring of all Bulgarians. And this Ministry must be part of
all governments, as right-wing or left-wing they can be, be simply
part of the Government, not that it turned out that the last establishes that one MMS is
X levs, but the Trade unions calculate the social minimum to 1.7
X and this
per head, but if in a family works only one person, even if in it are only two persons, because there have left no more "real" families (though for two working grown ups and two children the situation is the same), this means that he /she has to receive at least 3 MMS, what now is widely higher than the average working salary for the country, or that some, so, 90% of the Bulgarians, live on the threshold of poverty. At the same time, however, when it goes about
taking from the citizens for social securities is accepted that there is entirely
different minimal salary, which can reach up to 2 MMS (this is by us so already 10 years and nobody is impressed by it). Id est, we are full with anachronisms, because there is not one opinion on the question of social care for the citizens (well, for the peasants, too, surely), and each new government introduces new dissonances in this regard.
So that the common things are not so much, but they are important, where in addition to the fulfilling of a heap of statistics for the living standard, which are done now by a number of various instances, it has to be engaged first of all with
developing of common strategy against the poverty,
which has to remain unchanged for
at least a decade, and which must be linked with all kinds of payments and taxes (not that: one finance Minister decides one thing, but when comes another one he decides something else), i.e. it is needed unified and consecutive
vision, must be clear that poverty in our time is simply a disgrace, and that the state must care about such people even only for the reason that they were born on this world (unfortunately in our ruined, by too many "democrats", country). We must come in the end to the conclusion that must be not only notion of "minimal salary", but also of "minimal income" or "
social minimum", which I think quite naturally to be half MMS! ( This is natural because the pensions and scholarships on the West, but also in Bulgaria earlier, are usually 2/3 MMS, but in these cases one, still, does something, goes out on the street, spends money on transport, clothes, breakfasts and lunches, and so on, so that the absolute minimum is logically to be lower, and for round calculations is rightly to accept 0.5 MMS ) And then, if we are on one opinion, that nobody must fall below this minimum --
no matter why, no matter whether he is studying, or is ill, or is in some depression, or is just lazy, even if he is drug addict he must have what to eat and dress himself and ride around the town (to say nothing about some domicile, where the question is more difficult and may need, as it really needs, some municipal housing and dormitories) --, so when one drops below this level one must
automatically (!) fall under some protection of the state, not that he must go to different instances and beg them.
Putting this otherwise:
one should not feel in unequal position only because one is poor,
as we said, independently of the causes (for he may also be an intellectual, as e.g., your author, but can also ... become part of some new
Beatles, or a good footballer, or can be forced to care about ill parent or child, and so on). Id est, the market is market, the democracy is democracy, but the social care must be social care!
So that to the common questions can be considered also determining from what instances must be required assistance in cases of falling below the social minimum, as well as tying of the things with the budget, with the taxes, not like it is in Bulgaria (that the poor ones pay more than the wealthy, as percent of their income and expenses, naturally, in many cases -- let me not indulge also here in more explanations). In addition to this we must be clear that even on this common level
some goods and services must be considered as included in the necessary social minimum, and they must be controlled and ways are to be searched for regulation of their prices, and to be helped people with earnings lower than the social minimum exactly for these articles (because, for example, it is one thing if one must undergo operation because he /she has a harelip, and it is quite different thing if one wants to bore his /her tongue and put something shiny there; or it is one thing to by some special dry salami, and another thing if it goes about common mincemeat or sausage). Id est,
it must be introduced differentiation of products at least on two categories: socially necessary products (SNP), and other goods,
how it was, in general terms, under the totalitarianism. You see, under conditions of democracy of the right-wing or Western type, this, positively, will be harder (there is no mechanism for central regulation of prices), yet it is not impossible to be done; it is true that now even a system of coupons can not be introduced (by the current potential of copying technology), but there are ways. For example, the West sponsors for a long time in some way the producers of agricultural products (because these are a big number of people, this is their livelihood, they more often produce something natural, i.e. this is not the industry, where a conveyor can be introduced, or even some robot). Or there exists control of various kinds of industry, taxes, excises, list of people to whom things can be sold cheaper (say, medicaments for people with cancer). There are variants, they have to be thought through (as also about the prices on city transport, heating, etc.). Using other words: it must be done everything possible in order to
correct the minuses of market economy,
not only to sing them dithyrambs. The market might have been good in the times before Christ, but nowadays it is not such, the large scale industry just demolishes the small and manual one, yet the last is what creates labour for the people, as well gives them pleasure. So that if we have a view to the point about Social Ministry and SNP, where are supposed also services (say, education, healthcare, transport, heating, an so on), and on the basis of good statistical analysis of their consumption, can be taken right decisions in the concrete cases. ( For example, can be applied some ... colouring of the bread, say, in mouse colour, what would have made it not pretty attractive for the relatively affluent people, but it will be, still, as much nutritious. This is a bit crazy variant, but it can as well be applied for some "people's" bread. Or return to different taxes for cow white cheese and for sheep one. But almost surely must be taken away the taxes on medicines and medical services; it is inadmissible that one dental prosthesis, which is fabricated maximum for one workday, and whose materials cost as a kilo dry salami, to be paid by a price of a whole minimal monthly salary, but it is so by us! )
The next moment, which now, definitely, requires special Ministry, is
monitoring of the social status of all Bulgarians,
and by falling below the social minimum of 0.5 MMS alarming of other instances if necessary, and giving direct help, as far as possible, to the concrete person! Now, on this place some readers can object that: I see it, we are returning back to the communism where was watched about everybody and everything. Well, this is prejudiced statement at least because the income of everybody,
at any rate, is watched, or it is
necessary that was watched, for this must be known to the tax instances, so that we simply require that the Social Ministry (SM) becomes the first instance which will know this, and it must send the necessary information to other instances, not vice versa. At the worst, and on the first time, can be on the contrary, but this only complicates the things, so that let us speak about what is proper to be done. It is proper the following: SM maintains thorough records for all Bulgarians above the passport age (but even better for all living citizens of the state), with the following fields: EGN (this is our Unique Citizenship Number, for other countries can be used some unique Identification Number, or Taxpayer Number), names, education (of what kind and type), age (which has to be got and actualized from EGN -- in Bulgaria it begins with
yyyymmdd according to the used abbreviation), average monthly income for one to three previous years, total income and current monthly income for this year (eventually zero if the person is not of age or is without work), relations with other persons with whom he /she makes one household (this as if is better to be used than the word family) including dependent juveniles (in view of what is better to have full data base of all citizens, no matter that there are various exceptions for those not yet of age), expenses for SNP for the previous (one to three) years and for the current till the moment, possibly ethnic affiliation, disability (if there is any), and so on, and some others service fields which may turn to be needed.
Naturally, the expenses for SNP may not be entered for the moment, because we have not yet explained how they will be made, i.e. how they will be separated from the other expenses, but fields for them must be available also in the beginning. The forming of one household is very important, for it is necessary to know how to compute the corresponding ideal part of the income, so that it is needful to explain in more details how this will be established and who will be "head" of the household, for what purpose people are to sign somewhere, but this is to be done only once and will be significant when there will emerge SNP expenses. Then if all employers, plus the institutions for pensions, scholarships, and other incomes, sent information to this Ministry, it can always have a good sight on the social status of Bulgarians, which has to be accessible by everybody, only not as concrete persons (i.e. without our EGN), but as amount for each of the fields. Important are incomes in the limits: below 0.5 MMS, between 0.5 and 1.0 MMS, then up to 1.5 MMS, then to 2 MMS, to 3 MMS, to 5, and above 5 MMS. Now, let is not argue: if we have not exact sight on the income of every citizen in this limits, eventually with adding of other data like: ethnicity, age, profession, of what kind and level, and similar things, can't exist good social policy, especially in our "specific" conditions. And this always from that moment on, by each ruling.
And as to the necessity of paying of some monetary help by this Ministry to different citizens, even on this stage, is necessary the existence of some banking institute, which we will name
Central Social Bank (CSB).
In the ideal case, once we have this Ministry, it is correct exactly via CSB to perform all payments, like pensions, scholarships, et cetera, according to the data from the corresponding instances, what will facilitate the work of the latter on the account of that of the SM, but when it, anyway, will have all the data, and be
main control body, then this will not increase especially its functions. So the SM, together with the CSB, will preside over all social payments, as well over personal
takings from part of the citizens, i.e. it will help taxing institutes, as well also have decisive vote in forming of the state budget and setting of the taxes (taking into account first of all the social functions of the state).
Now it comes the third moment, or the time of "maturation" of SM, and this is
execution and control of the expenses on SNP,
as well also their compensation for those for whom these things are beyond their strength. Let us take first only such instances where these expenses are at 100% SNP and these institutions offer only such expenses. For example: central heating, city transport, healthcare, including the pharmacies, education, and similar things. Well, there is no need to "discover America", nowadays already everywhere where only is possible are used ... phone cards, right? So then every citizen (as well also peasant, as I have mentioned) receives one such card -- social card or SC --, which, that's for sure, costs cents, when is given by many supermarkets, as also by banks, free of charge, so that this will cost nothing. Then is used specific barcode (social code) where for each such product exist its number. Initially these numbers will be not more than hundred, but the capabilities of this code are quite big, when can include all the books in a library. Then is announced the incredible thing that
each SNP product is firstly paid by half price,
and later on SM calculates how much must pay the citizen in addition, and for what part SM will search where from to pay to him /her, if necessary! Why on the half? Well, because this
catches the eye, but also because it will turn out, as you will learn now, that 0.5 of the SNP will pay finally each citizen with one MMS on head of the household, and those with less than this will pay also less, while those with more money they will pay more, but only for income higher than 1.5 MMS will turn out that SNP will be paid by its cost price; more than this, for people with income from 3 to 5 MMS is logically that they pay even more for SNP things. More specifically, my proposition is the following: till 0.5 MMS all SNP products (which are included till the moment) are free of charge (so that to the person, the head of the household, are even returned money), from 0.5 to 0.6 MMS will be paid only 10% from these expenses, till 0.7 -- 20%, and so on, and till 1 MMS exactly 50%, then in the same way the percents grow, where till 1.1 MMS is paid 60% (i.e. the head of household pays another 10% more), and so on, and till 1.5 MMS, when SNP are paid exactly by their price.
Then further, from 1.5 MMS till 3 MMS we don't do whatever other alignments for the persons, but for those from 3 to 5 MMS, as people with quite affluent earnings, we can allow ourselves to require that they pay a bit more especially for such products, but not too much more, we will heave only with 1% for each 10% of MMS above 3 MMS, i.e. till 3.1 MMS -- 1.01 of the price of SNP, till 3.2 -- 1.02, and so on, for 4 MMS by 1.1 for SNP, and so on, and for 5 MMS by 1.2 for SNP products, where we stop the further increasing of percentage but it remains. And if somebody from these people with pretty high income wants to refuse to support the others then he must have the right to do this (as it is for healthcare by us), only that if he decides later to pay as the others he will have to wait
three years until this begins to be applied also for him, so that a thoughtful person will hardly put himself and the other people from the household in conditions of increased risk (he could rather, if he is wealthy enough, begin spending on some sports, fitness, UV exposure, and similar things, and in this way to spare at least on health care expenses; and as to the communal ones -- let him renovate his home, put solar panels, etc.).
Now let us firstly leave aside the most difficult question, i.e. from where will be taken so much money to pay
all SNP things for the poverty stricken people with incomes below 0.5 MMS in month (averagely for an year), and inspect the interval from 0.5 to 1.5 MMS. By average monthly salary as a rule, and already also in Bulgaria, of roughly 2.5 MMS and decreasing this nearly twice because of the households (well, not exactly, because some people receive something, say, pensions), we come to 1.5 MMS, so that the middle of the income will correspond to 100 percent payment of SNP products. This means that those from 0.5 to 1 will be compensated in significant extent by the additions of those from 3 to 5 MMS, as well also from various other places (social payments, paying of sick days, etc.). The calculations will be done every quarter (or even half-year, more often maybe will not be necessary, for this will encumber first of all the citizens, about the computers we don't need to bother), but this will be current calculations, which will become final in the end of the year. In any case, there are good reasons to expect that the companies offering SNP products and services will get nearly 90% of the made expenses (without other special measures) for persons with income higher than 0.5 MMS, what can turn out to be even
more than this what they receive (let me remind you -- well, tell, for the readers abroad -- that the heating company in Sofia, "Toplofikatsia", have come to nearly bankrupt situation because of not paid more than 50% of the bills in some apartment buildings, so that in the end the Municipality of Sofia bought part of it to cover the debts). What reduces to this that the offered here measures can even
better the collecting of money, in spite of the advertising that half of the services are not paid.
In cases when some of those, who must pay something extra for the current quarter, declare that they can't, or don't want to do this -- well, for them simply the "tap" will be closed, via blocking of the social cards (say, after 2 weeks), and when they go to pay something new they will pay it in full and that's it, these expenses will later not be reduced for them. So that such people will think twice before they decide to boycott this good for them system. Besides, nobody has said that everything must start at once and everywhere. The right thing to do is to select in the beginning some not very big town, or city district, with population between 50 and 100 thousands, where this idea is to be applied for first time (I even suppose that there will be necessary to perform drawing of the town, for there will be many willing). After this will be begun with a pair of things only, say, electricity, water, and central heating. Or the tuition fees at universities, or how it will be decided. Having in mind that this, after all, will be a whole Ministry, and it will have in its disposition a lot of analysis, forecasts, and statistics, then it will not be difficult to compute what amount of money will be needed -- possibly even more exactly than when a building is to be erected, for example. So that the problem is not there.
The problem will be with those who live in poverty and can't scrape together even 0.5 MMS in month. Well, but
such people should not at all exist, hence, simply must be sought variants for solving of this problem!
I make one proposition in the material about moderate communism, backed up by some approximate calculations. But I think that we should not doubt that when it goes about targeted social assistance the West positively will give us a hand (because the people there want to have something with which to be proud, and also to invest reasonably their money, for this is a kind of investment, this will not only reduce the immigration to these countries, but will also tie us somehow to them, it will be clear who has given and what has given, for them this money will not be thrown to the wind). But surely we alone can also do something -- if we don't want that this time, not the communists, but the fascist, for example, come to power (for they wait exactly this, that the situation worsens and that they come to them -- our "Hayduk Sider" has begun even to ... nuns to pay electricity bills, if some of you recalls this).
There is one more detail, this about the half price. By one accurate accounting for every citizen will be absolutely well known his (or her) personal coefficient for the previous year, so that he could have paid also according to it, but I don't think that this will be very appropriate, because we not only eliminate one good advertisement (or fraud, trick, how you like it), but introduce also discrimination of customers, and some of these companies can begin to look for loopholes in the orders and
not to provide services to people with low coefficient. Although by good work of the system for these companies will exist no difference whether they will receive their money at once, or after 3-4 months; in the sense that the difference will be only
in the time and after this period they
will get everything regularly, because will receive additional payment for earlier services, and if the new ones will be as much as the old (as it, in principle, happens), then their revenues will be the same. And as to this delay with several months, it is quite natural that also the tax authorities will not require good balance from them for this time, i.e. that the they also waited a little. So that till now everything is fine.
Now let us see what will happen
in the shops where will be normal products and SNP ones,
because bread, milk, and other food products, can be (at least for a long time) considered in Bulgaria for at least on 50% SNP products. Well, if the shop is big, if it is a supermarket, then there are no problems, and we can propose that there was pictured a (blue, for example)
umbrella -- because this is a kind of social "umbrella" -- and next to it was the social barcode, so that it will be entered separately (or the computerized system of the shop will easily find the correspondence of the code of product with the necessary social code). In this situation there are no problems that there was also the percent of SNP for some products and everything was computed with precision to the third digit, if necessary. The customers will have to carry with them one more phone card, but such is our fate nowadays. These cards must have also PIN-code, but it might not be required to be entered for products less than, say, 5 levs (2.5 euros), so that a baton of bread and a package of milk did not detain additionally the people in the queue. But these, by God, are details. If in some inhabited place, in rural area, in the common shop, they have not such sophisticated systems, then could be accepted some Solomonic decision to calculate some average sums for such expenses and to pay only to the poorest by 10 levs in month, something of the kind.
Good, and now let us defeat also some readers who are ready to object that: you see, this is one temporary decision only for our country, it is not applied anywhere in the world, and
while we succeed to introduce it, it will already become obsolete, and, besides, it is utopian.
About the utopias -- let us clarify that they are such only
until they are not realized (e.g., that people flied in the air, or that there were paper signs as substitutes of precious metals, or democracy, or real socialism, called communism, and other things). And the decision is not temporary, this is decision
in the general case, what means that sometime there will be benefit from it, if we have introduced it. Because if there is separating of the goods in two categories (and there can be even 20 such divisions, for that matter, and it may also not be necessary new card for them), then this can be used for whatever. For example, can be paid for medical treatment of cancer patients, or AIDS positive, or alcoholics, and on and on, what are things that as if never will disappear from our life, i.e. this is not like only the prices on central heating or city transport and this only in Bulgaria.
In addition to this, for every person will be kept exact records of
all his or her social expenses, and these are exceedingly important data for various statistics and planning. ( And don't bother about the information problem, if occasionally some of you have begun to think about this, i.e. how can be kept all bought products, because such product will hardly be more than hundred in a month per person and long by 10 bytes for the record -- only the code and the quantity -- or simply 1 KB, what is exactly
1000 times less than one usual ... photo of 1 MB, so that there will be found place also for such data. ) But when each one of these services has its own code, then such codes can be given also to some products which are not necessarily SNP products, but undergo similar processing, at least partially. Id est, I want to say that
it might be that some company decides to propose something on the same conditions,
what will be for it a good advertisement, only that it takes alone the care about this how it will pay extra the expenses of some clients (I bet that taking them from the others, right?). It, though, can declare that in their shops till one loaf of bread is considered as SNP product, if only the client has card for their shop and that he buys, say, at least on 50 levs in month by them, and this product has its code, which code when it comes to SM is taken away and sent back to the company, for some fee to SM for the operation (because, otherwise, for what reason must the Ministry engage itself with this additional work?). Something in that spirit. As also for all specialized social products and services can be sent information to the particular institutions, and so on. As, too, companies or private persons can show a wish to sponsor a certain type of expenses and only it, this is notably valuable division, which will raise the very sponsoring, so that such cards can help also to wealthy countries. In general, a right decision in the common case is always preferable before many different decisions in each special case.
Well,
exactly because this is one extremely reasonable decision,
for the very reasonability of it, I personally
doubt that it will be applied sometime in Bulgaria, but, in the end, my task is to propose reasonable decisions, and their implementation (most often by
unreasonable ways) I leave to the politicians. Because: let them also do something, ah?
June 2013
READ CHRIS MYRSKI
(in the sense of political reviews)
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I have said about an year ago that this Government of former communists will not stay long, but if this happens then just give up reading Myrski anymore. Well, presently, in the end of 2014 I can quietly say that I have turned right and, hence, read Chris Myrski! This is so, yet there is nothing to brag about, this was obvious (for me), so that I don't write this material because of this, but because the situation in Bulgaria has changed, after all, although it can't be said that for the better, we are hoping as before for some extraterrestrial intervention. But it can not change to the better until the world crisis ends, which, according to Myrski, will end in the middle of year 2022 (not that I believe much in this, but if I alone do not believe in my prognoses then how can I require that the others believed me?). In any case, however, the crises does not show signs of ending, so that till the end of the whole mandate of our 43rd National Assembly (the Bulgarian Parliament) it will in any event continue. Hence from here can be inferred that this Government, too, will not stay to the end of its mandate, but let us hope that it will survive at least till the half of it.
So that the most important I as if have already said, the situation in Bulgaria is as before unstable (yet we do not fight, how have done in their time the Serbs of how it happens in Ukraine, the Bulgarians, in this regard, are the "dream" of every nation), but let me ponder a little about what the socialists have (or have not) done, about the new political situation, and about our current Government, as well as about what can be expected in Bulgaria, and, let's hope, I will give you in the end some expert rules, so that you alone will be able to judge like the very Myrski about the politics by us, and maybe by you. Good, and now we will begin with
1. What the socialists have done in 42nd National Assembly?
Ah, they have done something, they have succeeded to constrain the prices on communal expenses and even have lowered them with about 10 percents (for central heating and electricity), what is not at all little, having in mind also that they were going to jump up somewhere with 15 percents. These are successes, no matter how the anti-communists will spit on them, but do you know what is bad with our socialists? I will tell you, that is why I intended to write this material. So the bad thing is that one does not know to believe in them or not, one can not find the answer to the question, what kind of party they are, left (which they must be as successors of communist party), or centrists (as they beat themselves in the chest that have become), or maybe even right-wing (only not Russophobes, thank God), when have introduced the flat income tax, but also, in outline, have changed nothing fundamental in the system of social insurance (it is still anti-popular).
So that they have constrained the increase of main communal scourges for the Bulgarian, but as if have overdone the things, because in relation with the heating have introduced one inconceivable system for bigger
distortion of individual readouts, in view of their desire to reduce the big upper peaks. I have explained in my "Survival" that the system of payment for central heating is entirely inconsistent with the devices for individual measuring and that only 1/4 of all consumption can be regulated personally. And now they have decided to introduce some coefficients and conduct the calculations on the basis of the past year, and the averaged consumption for the heating season (but not for the entire year, mark this), what distorts even more the results. So for example, for November, when somewhere till the 20th of the month the leaves have stayed on the trees and when the temperature have not come below 3-4 degrees Celsius above the zero, I have received a bill for 45 levs (1 lv = 0.5 euro), while in the previous year I have had a bill for 29 levs. Yet even a donkey can understand (I beg to be excused by the highly paid experts) that neither two equal years in a row happen, nor is possible to lessen much the consumption in the winter if the averaging is done only for the winter, and in addition to this one simply gets confused in these coefficients and can figure out nothing in advance. In the same time I (having scratched a little my head of a genius) can propose, and this to the whole world, a much better system for
averaging modification of readouts, if it comes to distortion of the exact results.
The thing is simple, the cycle begins from September (when even on the North pole, if there exists central heating there -- but, say, on the Spitsbergen Island, possibly, it exists --, the summer ends), then for the every user is computed the average monthly consumption, AMC, on the basis of doubled amount of the previous year (i.e. cycle, not the calendar year) and single one of the year before the last, and further is proceeded in the following way: for the months without whatever heating is required payment in the amount of 1/3 AMC, for the months in which was heating less than 16 days (in Bulgaria these are: October and April, as a rule) -- in the amount of 1 AMC, and for the other months of actual heating -- in the amount of 1 and 2/3 AMC. This is all. Then in the normal case for us will be 5 winter months, 5 summer months, and 2 transitional ones, what gives in sum: 5 * 5/3 + 5 * 1/3 + 2 * 1 = 25/3 + 5/3 + 2 = 30/3 + 2 = 10 + 2 = 12 AMC. So, and when the heating season ends (by us this is in May, in all cases) is conducted alignment of the consumption and then will happen, either small increase, or such decrease, of the bills for the last 2 months of the cycle.
Let us have a look also in concrete numbers, given in euros, where for a two-room (what for the readers on the West has to be put as one-bedroom) flat in Sofia only for the heating, without the hot water, for one year is collected about 144 euros (I am rounding for easier calculations, but in levs this is between 250 and 300), what gives one AMC equal to 12 euros. Then in the summer will be necessary to pay, without whatever reasons, only 1/3 * 12 = 4 euros, what will not make any problems for the people, because even for the hot water each month normally is used 1 cubic meter and by 3 euros and per person, i.e. for 2.5 persons on the average this will make 8 euros, and besides, for the electricity the averaged bills for such flat are somewhere about 12 euros (25 levs). The payment of 12 euros for October and April can seem a bit increased, especially if the heating was on only 4-5 days, but this is, still, a season, so that people will swallow it, and in winter 5/3 * 12 = 60/3 = 20 euros (40 levs) will look laughably
low, and particularly the extreme amounts usually come up to 40 - 50 euros (80 - 100 levs; in the last year I have a maximal bill for 70 lv in December, but the winter was relatively warm, about 20 percents less heating, where in the other previous years the maximal bills were usually for 80 and 90 levs). And the most important: no intricate coefficients, and everyone
knows in advance how much has to be paid each month, and the alignment will be approximately within the framework of 10% (I have each year aligning bill for about 5-10 euros, and once it was even with the exactness of cents, for the entire year).
So, I have devoted so much time to this issue because it, by itself, is actual, really for the whole world, paying on some basis, and when our specialists have bungled such "miscarriage", then it can freely be so that the situation is similar also in other countries. But if the ex-communists have not tried so beyond their strengths to shine before the others with their cares about the people they would have not "spat out" such pearl. Although they have reduced a bit the taxes on deposits in the banks, from 10%, to 8, and as if promised in the next year to lower them to 7, an so on (because we, as the poorest country in European Union, have taxes on the deposits, what affects mainly the
poor, I repeat,
not the wealthy clients, who keep their money on current accounts for faster access, and on them, because of the bigger sums, the banks give to the clients on the average 3.5%, while for annual deposits these percents are on the average 4.5). So that I don't belittle their successes. Even if in 2015 some communal price jumps up, it can be taken that it did not jump
earlier because of the efforts of the communists, sorry, socialists. And they have succeeded to raise the minimal salary from 310 lv to 340 lv, what nevertheless is only 170 euro in month (or just 1 euro per hour), and for comparison it is, as follows: in Rumania 190 euro, in Czech Republic 308, in Turkey 415, in Spain 750, in Germany will be 8.5 per hour (what has to give, multiplying by 170, 1445), and in France 1430 (with the countries of CIS there is no need to compare because there is not this currency, and in that case comes into force the rule about computing of some consumer basket, taking into account the real buying power, or purchasing power parity -- because there, I thing, one egg of size M is not, like by us, 0.11 euro, or one ticket for the city transport has to be less than our 50 euro-cents).
Naturally, there are many other aspects of the work of our former Government, but it has alone resigned in the end of July, so that we will find no more faults with them. This, what I have predicted, that their positions, obviously, will worsen after their standing at the helm of power, has happened, though not at once, but gradually lower and lower during the whole 2014. And also, if one takes another look at the matter, the other parties would have made similar changes, because something what is highly necessary is seen by everybody (say, now the leader of GERB party, Boiko Borisov, said that he also will conduct negotiations with Russia about the pipeline South Stream, while earlier he did not want to).
And do not overlook also another fact, that for the majority of products, at least by assortment, if not by quantity, or in the sense of urgent need of them, exist
market mechanisms, they are not formed by the politicians, this is not the old totalitarian time. And the market is very stable system, i.e. with strong negative feedback, for this reason it existed since antediluvian times. This is such "beast", that it is capable to take all your free money not even batting an eye. So that if people have money then the prices raise up (in order to take them from the buyers), but when such are absent then the prices drop down. So for example, in 2014 the sugar has fallen roughly twice (from 2.20 lv to 1.20 in December, but I have bought even for a bit less than 1 lv), the sunflower oil, too (it was around 3 lv and now almost everywhere it goes by 1.90), even the eggs, which somewhere in 2012 jumped up nearly two times, little by little have already decreased and now they are with only about 20 percents higher than the situation in 2012 (then one egg, of size M, middle, was 17
stotinki-cents and now it is 21 st). And the industrial goods are also slowly falling all the time (either because by established production they are falling anyway, and /or because in Bulgaria are sold products of very poor quality, but the fact is fact). So that the situation of the people has not improved (it could have not especially improve, the politics is not economy), and whatever the leading party has not done the people would have again remained dissatisfied; if the politicians could have succeeded to lower
all communal expenses, with a magic wand, entire two times, then after a pair of euphoric months would have been set new equilibrium of prices and the people would have again become unsatisfied.
But enough with this, let us see
2. What has happened till September 2014?
Well, it has happened this what could have been expected, the parties acted comparatively reasonable, new blocks of relatively new parties have emerged, or more precisely: already in December 2013 was formed the party RB, Reformist Block, from
five, chiefly right-wing parties (which say that they are for immediate reforms -- because they must somehow invent reasons for their name), then in January was registered the party BWC or Bulgaria Without Censoring (they also have some slogan, and how else?), headed by one media boss, a bit later emerged another new party, ABC (it
isn't exactly so, its name has to be literally translated as Alternative of Bulgarian Renaissance, but in Bulgarian the initials are exactly as our first three letters of the alphabet), headed by the former President Georgi Parvanov (well, the "guy" was accustomed to get good money so that he strained himself a bit and formed his party), and in the middle of May was registered one more party, this time fascist, NFFB, National Front for Free Bulgaria. Also the very BSP, the Bulgarian socialists, changed at last their leader and their Already_Boss (allusion to his family name,
Stanishev, and become_boss in Bulgarian is "
stani-shef") after the end of July has ceased to be more boss of this party, it emerged a new person, Mihail Mikov.
And what caused all these feverish changes in the political life of Bulgaria? Well, the elections in European Parliament on 25 of May 2014, when BSP, and especially its former boss Stanishev, has received a strong slap in the face, Because then the GERB party (its name is Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria but the point again is that "
gerb" in Bulgarian means coat of arms) has won 30.4% (like in the previous National Assembly where they have had 30.5%), BSP has won only 19% (against their previous 26.6), MRF (or
DPS in Bulgarian, the Turks) -- 17.3 (and earlier was 11.3), and ATAKA (what surely means attack, the fascists) 3% (against 7.3%). In short: GERB continues to lead, BSP has lost roughly 1/3 of the votes, the Turks have won another
half, and ATAKA has lost more than the half! And where have gone the other votes? They were taken by the new coalitions: BWC -- 10.7%, RB (5 parties) -- 6.5%, ABC (the former President) -- 4.0%, and NFFB (the new fascists) -- 3.05%. Although by number of Euro-Deputies (only 17) the distribution is: GERB -- 6, BSP -- 4, MRF -- 4, BWC -- 2, and RB -- 1. So. And then in the end of July the Government abdicated.
What other conclusions can be drawn here (in addition to the obvious, that the socialists have ridiculed themselves, and GERB continues to lead and has the same amount of voters)? Well, the one things is that there emerged new fascists and they have taken the half of the votes of the old, in result of what both parties have remained out of the ranking (and it serves them right, when they don't want to coalesce, but it is so between the fascists, they can rarely build coalitions). Another thing is that the media -- they are for that purpose media -- win, but something remains also for other classical right-wing parties. But the more important thing is that
DPS-MRF (the Turks) are nearly aligning with the BSP, and then arises the logical question: from where have come their increase in the votes? I personally think that, in spite of some increase of the voters abroad, the votes to the Turks have come from BSP, i.e. that these are such ethnical Turks who sometimes consider themselves Turks, but sometimes Bulgarians, this is quite natural situation amidst national minorities, and because they can not be between the supporters of the fascists, then this means that earlier they have supported the socialists. But this is not good for the stability in Bulgaria, because it is one thing 7% fascists and 11% Turks and Gypsies (theoretically as percentage of the population there have to be about 20% Turks and 15% Gypsies, but there is nobody who can tell you this exactly), and it is quite another thing when the Turks occupy 1/4 of the places and aim at the second place between parties; it turns out that this confirms the old joke, even since 1991, that "the path to Europe goes through the Bosphorus"!
So, and let us see further
3. What have shown the Parliamentary elections on 5 October 2014?
In two word, not very different picture than for the Euro-Parliament, with this detail that have emerged , PF or Patriotic Front, which unites now two new fascist parties (in addition to the old ATAKA), NFFB and
VMRO (the latter this time are Macedonians), what was necessary because otherwise neither of them would have entered the Parliament, and in this way have emerged whole eight parties in it, or
twice more as parties (or coalitions). This is entirely new disposition, in comparison with the previous Parliament. More precisely the results are the following (taking into account that in our National Assembly are 240 Deputies): GERB -- 32.7%, 84 places (or -13, as percentage they have increased but as number or persons have diminished!), BSP -- 15.4%, 39 places (-45, they have remained less than the half),
DPS-MRF (the ethnical Turks) -- 14.8%, 38 places (only +2, no matter that their percentage has grown with 11.3), further comes RB (new right-wing, coalition) -- 8.9%, 23 places, then PF (two new fascist parties) -- 7.3%, 19 places, then BWC (new, the media boss) -- 5.7%, 15 places, further more are the right-wing
atakists (fascists) -- 4.5%, 11 places (-12 places, but otherwise nearly -3%), and the last are ABC (the former President) -- 4.2%, 11 places. So, and this by electoral activity of 48.7% (against the old 51.3%), i.e. a bit further less.
Well, let us discuss these results. After the emergence of four new political powers in the Parliament the next important moment is this, that nearly all parties having taken part in the elections have succeeded to enter the Parliament (NA), because on all other parties remain 6.6%, and earlier (in the 42nd NA) have left 24.3%. This, surely, is good, this must pacify the political life on the streets, on account of bigger circuses in the very NA. But because of this has become possible that, no matter that GERB have won on two percents more, they have received on 13 places less, or MRF, no matter that have won nearly with one quarter more percents, they have earned only two more places. Nonetheless, this is more equitable situation, and for this, that in the last NA one quarter of the electors have voted for "the one that blows" (as they say in Bulgaria) are to be blamed the parties alone, that they have not taken into account in advance the situation and made the necessary coalitions, as they have done in 2014.
So well, and with whom has our Boiko, general of firefighters, as it turns out, to make a coalition now? Hard question, and because of this he has kept the "ball" a whole month, but at the end made Government. And the question is difficult because with the Turks he can in no way coalesce, as also with the now plucked out socialists, but on the other hand he has experience that to the fascists one can take resort only in the worst case, because they don't agree to listen to him, and not to listen to generals, of course, is not the right thing. So that four parties /coalitions drop out, and there remain: RB (the new, though otherwise old, right-wing), BWC (the media boss), and ABC (of the former communist President). And in the end our
Duce Boiko decided to reject also the media boss and formed Cabinet from GERB, RB, and, as strange as it seems, ABC (well, it is
ABV in Bulgarian). But in recompense of this he prolonged it as only possible and appointed four Vice Premiers and 16 Ministers, record achievement. But the important thing is that we now have legitimate Government, and the state carriage can move further on the way of democratic flourishing.
How the things will evolve further is not worth to predict, but probably he has fifty-fifty chances to withstand till the middle of his mandate, though to the end of it I don't believe much. But he has chances, because the opposition is too opposed, on one side there are the socialists, who have now curled their tails under them and do not dare to give much voice when have so greatly ridiculed themselves, and they have also only 1/6 of the seats in NA, then come the ethnical Turks (as well Gypsies), who have also 1/6 of the seats, and nobody wants even to greet them, all, especially the fascists, cry out to the heavens that the existing of ethnical party is inadmissible (but of fascist one, according to them, is admissible, and even necessary), then come three fascist parties in two blocks, who greet themselves, but do not respect at all one another, and behind all are trailing the fighters for free media, who want only to increase their capitals at the expense of any contradictions (for them the more disturbances and discontent, the better). And you should not miss also the fact that Boiko Borisov is not so self-confident anymore, and will hardly do big blunders, he will divide the responsibility, i.e. say: "Good, I will agree, but that you do not say later that I have proposed this", and similar words.
In general, my personal opinion to a great extent coincides with that of the West, which states that he is the most capable Bulgarian politician. I have said earlier that I am not much impressed by "endowed" men, neither by generals or military people at all, but after all I have been scientific worker, I have become used to think, and to the masses you just give commanders, in order to dictate them what to do, not that they alone wasted much time for thinking. Even this, that he was firefighter, is also to his plus, because he is used to react fast in complex operating environment, as is said, and rely on the work of his subordinates, so that in such big coalition with other parties, and under such motley opposition, he has all chances to make less errors than before. For earlier he has erred maybe in about 20 percent of the cases, but has
erred quickly, and have not lost time to propose at once change of the course, when was put under active pressure.
Then one should not miss to consider also the meaning of
marvelous Angela (because Merkel, if you ask me, means something extraordinary, outstanding, a marker, etc.), who, as the people say, writes him such kind of letters: "
Main lieber Bojko, Ich freue mich sehr über deinem Sieg in den Wahlen ..." and so on, and in the end adds, that she hopes very much that he will find somehow time to pay them a visit and then to stay for a while at her summer cottage, where they will be able to share a bottle of bubbling or "
ruyno", as he says, Rhine wine, on the mat in front of the blazing fireplace, will remind their gone away youth, and, maybe, will surrender a little to inappropriate for heads of states feelings. I mean, when Angela loves him so much then why should I not accept him, too? Paraphrasing it otherwise, if somebody decides to put a knife to my throat and say: "Now, you scum, choose finally somebody for whom to vote!", then I would choose Duce Boiko, in the end (because I will never live to see neither second strong left-wing party, nor centrist-feminist one, nor also with a bit more reasonable and moderate platform, and if not for him then I will be forced to vote for the Turks, and this seems not much inspiring to me).
Well, okay, okay, I was joking about the letter of
Frau Professorin (I think) Angela Merkel, I surely can't know what she writes to him, but the various media say that she is in correspondence with him. Yes, and in relation with these last elections I would like to give some peculiar statistical data about them. So for example, it turns out that vote mainly ... women, i.e. they are in the whole 53.4%, and the men are 46.6%, and if you divide the former on the latter then this means that the women are with 14.5% more, and this ratio is in broad lines the same for all parties, only for ATAKA the men are 65% (what is easily explainable), and for ABC the women are 61% (and I have never thought that Georgi Parvanov was such handsome man). Hence, here is the reason why people have long ago allowed to the women to vote -- because otherwise there would have been even less voting persons. Further, as Turks in Bulgaria acknowledge 10% of the population, and as Gypsies only 3%, but it has to be clear even to pre-school children that the Gypsies are not less than 15%, and the Turks are the whole 20, because there are areas where the population in predominantly Turkish; then for nearly all parties vote somewhere about 95% Bulgarians, with the exception of the fascist parties, where they are 99%, and MRF, where as Bulgarians declare themselves only 16%, as Turks -- 73%, and as Gypsies-- 10% . As I said, the ethnic affiliation is entirely fuzzy notion, and, on the other hand, the presence of obviously Turkish names impresses nobody (say, in GERB enters one Vezhdi Rashidov, who is now Minister of Culture.
Interesting is also what is the distribution by age of the voters, taking into account that the beginning is in 18 years, and as end we will take the average life span, which is approximately 74 years for both sexes, i.e. the interval of voting will be 56 years; this, however, is not exactly so, the people are distributed not uniformly, and somewhere after 50, and especially after 60, they begin little by little to die, so that I will shorten further the last but one interval with 1 year, and the last one with 2, what means that the average interval of voting will become
53 years (these are not exact calculations, but one should also not much trust these agencies, they contradict one another, so that you better trust my mathematical intuition that this will give more accurate account of the situation). Then (according to "Galap International") in the interval of 18 to 25 years (8 years, the last year is included, or 15.1%) vote on the average 10%, but in BSP 6, and in MRF 14; further in the interval 26 - 35 (10 years, 18.9%) vote on the average 16.4%, but in BSP they are 8, and in the others like in the average case; then in the interval 36 - 45 (10 years, again roughly 19%) vote on the average 19.3%, but in BSP they are 10, and in the others about 21%; then for 46 - 55 (10 years, again 19%) vote averagely also 19.3%, and in the individual cases nearly so, only for BSP this percent is 16; then for 56 - 65 (10 лет, which I diminish to 9, what gives 17.0%) vote on the average also 17.5%, and in GERB they are 17.1, but in BSP they are 21, and in MRF 15; and the last interval from 66 and to 74 (9 years, but diminished with 2 years gives 7 years, or 13%), and in GERB they are 13.6, but in BSP now are nearly 40, and in MRF 12; and then if we sum all these calculated by me percents (15.1 + 18.9 + ... 17 + 13) we get 101.8, what means that my error is less than 2 percents. So that BSP is supported mainly by decrepit old men and old women, and MRF mainly by young and unemployed (probably), and in addition to this only in the age from 36 and to 56 vote all who can vote, but the young ones either vote for the fascists, or then for nobody.
Or let us take another statistics, in relation to the employment. There fully working are 50%, for GERB vote 58%, for BSP and MRF -- 34, the others are around the average, and only for RB are 64%. Then for partially working on the average are 8%, but MRF has 14; further for studying and housewives there are no special dissonances; but for the unemployed the average percent is 10.6, but for MRF they are 24; and lastly the pensioners are on the average 24%, but for BSP they are 46, for GERB -- 20, for MRF -- 17, and RB has only 14.6 (in order to recompense the increasing for the fully employed). Or, say, by this who where lives. There in Sofia are on the average 13.4%, but for MRF is only one percent, and for RB they are30; then in the big cities they are 41%, for GERB -- 48, for BSP -- 34, and for MRF -- 13; then in the small towns live on the average 25%, and for GERB they are only 18, for BSP -- 29, for MRF -- whole
70%, and for RB only 11. So that you see how different is the character of the voters for different parties, and for that reason they are needed all, when there is not one
good party for all.
Well, it is time to round up because the main things are said: the political situation in Bulgaria is very unstable, but it is a bit better than was during the communist socialists, and general Borisov is the most popular politic in the moment in Bulgaria, who is able to take quick (though not always right) decisions, and who is equally loved by all circles of population. This will hardly continue for a long time, but let us hope that he will stand the main part of his mandate, because the communists will not succeed to recover earlier than after 10 years, on fascists one should never rely, they are braggarts and loudmouths, on the Turks to rely is at least not ethical, in order not to say scandalous, and all other right-wing parties can hardly scrape together 10%, and there simply don't exist other left-wing parties.
So that it is how I have said in the very title, read Chris Myrski, he will not cheat you. Although, on the other hand, also ... do
not read him, because he intends to stop writing more political materials, he wants to engage himself with translations in other languages of this, what has already written, but also to evolve some of his ideas, co create a pair of another books. For this reason I in broad lines tell goodbye to you, and in relation with this, for not to leave you entirely homeless and neglected, I will give you in the end some of my basic expert rules, the majority of which I have touched in various other materials, many of them are obvious, even if I have not touched them (in what I doubt, I have rather told more than necessary instead of less), and some of them I will explain in the process of narration (yet some may not explain, will leave to you to figure them out). So that there follow
4. The expert rules of Chris Myrski in politics.
I will order them somehow, but let's not find fault with this order because the most important thing in one expert system are not so much the very rules, as the succession of their putting in action, there is hidden its intellect, and here I rely mainly on my intuition; if you have not such own infallible (and how else?) intuition, like by the (ingenious) Myrski, then the only advice to you is the following: follow the title of this material! When you read all what he has written, and if succeed to assimilate this without special resistance and keep it in your brains, then you will think like him, wouldn't you? So it is, and it is time to begin.
i) The economy determines the politics, not vice versa. Because of this if in the country approximately everything is in order then
every government, every party, is good and the people will choose it again and again. But if the things do not go, then
no one party will better them! If the situation is very severe then it, anyway, is
not for democratic solution, but for some more centralized or authoritative one. In Bulgaria the economy is very weak, and for this reason not a single government can satisfy us.
i) In bad circumstances who stays at the helm
always compromises himself, and who sits in opposition and only criticizes raises his rating. While when the situation in the country is good then the staying aside politician only loses his chance. So that here a fine estimation is necessary, this is up to some extent an art.
i) All parties are bad because they think about their own interests (not even about the interests of their people, but most often only about the career of their leaders), not about the other people, and for that reason they work good when there are not big differences between them, or at least between the leading parties, i.e. when there is a stable
center. But when the situation is such there is no special need of the existence of parties (and because of this in totalitarian conditions they are not present, then exists only the vanguard of masses). The main reason for their existence is in this, that they raised the necessary questions, were
initiators of activities, but
not executors,
not leaders, yet in democratic conditions this is not possible, so that we are forced to be satisfied with them, what, however does not mean that they are good. As consequence of this usually happens alternating of different parties, so that in this way was reached some averaged value for a longer period of time.
i) When some party leaves the stage usually remain some persons of it, who form new parties. But parties built around persons can not exist for a long time. On the other hand the ideas quite often repeat and with them is speculated, so that parties of personalities have also their advantages.
i) The worse the conditions in the country are, first of all the economic ones, the more the platforms of parties begin to differ, and the political situation sharpens, but this leads chiefly to unrest in the country, not to the right decision, which can be reached in result of many fluctuations between the poles (like the movement of a blind person, who pokes with a stick, now right and then left). Due to this it makes sense to speak about oscillation of a pendulum (what I have observed in one of my earlier materials), where the important thing is to avoid the meaningless tremor in both ends, i.e. to
brake the development of the events, to increase the inertness of the system.
i) In conditions of democracy
not the parties (i.e. their rulers) influence the popular masses but vice versa, the masses form (in a long run) the character of the parties. This, naturally, is entirely wrong, because it means that the uneducated teaches the learned person (or that the beast teaches the shepherd), but this is an inborn drawback of democracy. Only by the centralized forms of ruling is possible influence on part of the leaders on the population, but then it often happens that the leaders defend mainly their own interests and forget about the people, or that simply the ideas age and the rulers defend old things. Nevertheless this is the right way, and the masses understand this in their own way, so that they try to
make idols out of the leading politicians, what, as a rule, worsens the situation (leads to fascism, or to other bloodshed). For this reason it is very important the presence of a third, moralizing, part, which is to show what is good, to teach the people, but
not to govern immediately. In the majority of cases (but not always) the democracy functions good in religious countries, but under separated religion from the state, yet nowadays the number of such countries diminishes.
i) The better the different layers of population are represented in the Parliament, the more quietly is on the streets, but in recompense for this is more unquietly in the Parliament, i.e. it works
worse! Because of this it happens that the best thing of the democracy are the
extra-Parliamentary powers and movements, what reduces to this, that the very parties in the Parliament work badly in conditions of contradictions, and this, too, is an inborn drawback of democracy. But when it works effectively this is similar to the totalitarian model, so that in this respect the democracy
delays the development of society. Id est, no matter that by good democracy the development of society is delayed, this is not so bad, because in this way is maintained the status quo, what is the primary goal of every ruling. Due to this it may happen that one bad and ineffective ruling can show good influence over the society; also quite often the democracy seeks (and finds) various ways for lessening of the fast changes, bringing to power dynasty ruling, there are forming families of leading politicians.
i) The democracy is in some measure
feminine ruling, i.e. weak, strategic, not tactical, it says what has to be done, not how to do it. For this reason participation of women in the ruling is very modern tendency in our times, and it usually shows
positive influence (I have discussed this in several places). But it remains the question with the choice of tacticians, who have to know also how to do the things. Probably in relation with this people often choose also the strong fist, in order to have (at least semblance of) action, i.e. here, too, arises frequent changing of different extremities, on what the democracy also stays, because for it the most important thing is that the persons changed but the system remained the same.
i) The phenomenon of presence of right-wing parties is pretty strange (from the point of view of the reason), because quite big popular masses, who have absolutely
no chances to become strong and wealthy, want that some of them were strong or wealthy, i.e. they simply support their oppressors! This phenomenon is explained with this that people, as a rule, have little brains, but in many cases it is justified, because many careerists are hiding behind the guise of unselfish leaders, and if somebody in the open shows that he is a careerist then people believe in him. So that in this aspect, too, all is reduced to the necessary degree of compromise.
i) The democracy in all events is
based on delusion, but if this delusion is in the interest of peacefulness, then this is justified from the point of view of logic, for it should not be forgotten that the less one understands something, the more convinced one judges about it. And the management nowadays is necessary at least for coordination of the actions. So that all subtlety is in this, how to make the incompetent person to obey, if not by compulsion.
i) When democratic ruling becomes confused often are formed caretakers Governments, which only govern, do pressing or urgent things that can't be left undone, but forget about the circuses for the people. But, in real fact, this is the genuine government, everything else is just dust in the eyes of the people. Id est here, too, this, what is exception to the rules, is more reasonable, but it can not be otherwise when the democracy (according to Myrski, but not he has discovered "America") contradicts to the common sense. In this regard it would have not been bad to have some instance, than will sometimes choose and appoint such Governments, say, some Commission to the European Union. The only reason why this is not done is that such cases are slaps in the face of
Miss Democracy, but earlier the Great Powers have not once gathered and decided some questions for other nations (for example, in its time, after liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman yoke, they have appointed us a King, because for five centuries all our "royal princes" have died, and nobody, I think, has said then that this is bad). So that the caretakers Governments, with which we have begun to become accustomed, are not at all such tragedies, as our politicians try to picture them.
So, my honoured readers -- I have many times explained that you are for me so honoured by the simple reason that you are
not much, but in case you become, say, millions, then I will not at all continue to esteem you, right? So now, this that I wanted to tell you is that I give up to comment anymore the political situation in Bulgaria, because when more than half of the people definitely don't vote, and this now for about a decade, then the people obviously are dissatisfied with the democracy, whatever the political commentators (or whoever only they can be) can say. I personally have tried all possible variants of voting, as reasonable, as well unreasonable ones, and also various possible (they are described in one of my feuilleton) and now 20 years I think that the most reasonable is not to vote, and, do you know, I am happy, because in this regard I have at last
reached unanimity with the masses. Indeed, even now, and for the very first party, have voted 32.7% of the voters, but out of 48.7% possible such, what means that for it, in fact, are only 16% (0.327 * 0.487 = 0.1592), while those who choose
not-a-single-party are 51.3% or more than three times more (51.3 / 15.9 = 3.23). I still think that if by us have voted, say, 30% of the people, then the European Union positively would have interfered in some way, maybe with subsidies, who knows? Because if it is not so then it turns out that the democracy is to be changed, but not how think our "reformists", but how thinks Myrski in various places. Not that I believe in this, but I have made my propositions, have done my part of the things, the creative one. When the people don't want, then how they want. All is justified in this world, whatever only happens, the difference is solely in the social price.
December 2014
ARE YOU READY FOR THE ELECTIONS? (Feuilleton)
As can be seen, there again come elections, how you say in English, and we still don't know what this word means. Although it isn't that we have not heard one Latin word with a bit intimate use, namely ... erection! Well, will somebody say, but there is nothing in common between both words, and he will be
wrong, because every logopedist will tell you that the sounds 'r' and 'l' are pretty similar and often interchangeable. And you know that the English (as well also the Americans), instead of to strain their tongue making it to reverberate for the 'r', just draw it a bit deeper in the throat and pronounce something very near to that sound like in the word 'girl', because it is easy in this way for them. So that these two words are like twins, in the sense that both mean some '
heaving'. For it is really so, because what are the elections, if not some elevation of eminent political figures on the high arena called Parliament? Or, putting it in simple words:
The people make the election, and the politicians get the 'erection'! That is how it is, because the politicians know well where is the 'honey', and it is always good to be near to the barrel with it, or to the state pie.
Yet let we leave the chosen people in peace and think about what we can do for the 'lifters' or electors, because the choice is not at all an easy thing. Some nations have even proverbs for such cases, where the Germans (as well also the Austrians) say:
Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual, what in English means that 'the choice is a torment'. And this torment was known to the people already since Roman times, for the reason that the word 'quality' in English (as well also in Australian, right?) comes from the same torment (to obtain good quality). But, torment or not, the people must choose, so that somebody must help them in this. And exactly this is our task now -- to help the people, offering them some simple algorithms for choosing.
1. Algorithm of the wife
It consists in this, that two or three days before the elections the husband asks his wife for whom she is going to vote. As far as in our situation there are usually two leading parties, then after she names the one party he simply chooses ...
the other one! This rule is known already from Roman times and usually gives very good results in cases of electoral torments of various character. For single living men, naturally, there are not problems to ask their girl friend (or favorite feminine colleague), so that this nearly solves the problem for the masculine half of the population.
2. Algorithm of the husband
It, for its part, is based on the
natural orientation of the man, expressed in the most masculine in him. In the election day, when the husband gets from the bed, washes himself, breakfasts, and becomes dressed, for to go out to vote, his wife simply looks at him attentively, in order to find out ... in which direction of his trousers he has put his masculine part! In this way she now knows whether she must vote for the left-wing or the right-wing parties, and if occasionally sees that it stand by him in the middle, then she votes for the most powerful centrist party. For unmarried women there are no problems to spend the night before the elections with their beloved man, or, if this in the moment is difficult to be done (for some physiological or other reasons), then to call him in the morning by the phone and ask him about this with the inherent for their sex coquetry. Even if this surprises in some extent the man, then this surprise will be only pleasant for him.
3. Algorithm of the home pet
This algorithm can be applied with little dogs, kitties, hamsters, or with a small child which still crawls on the ground. On small pieces of paper are written the initials of 5-6 parties, between which one is in doubt for which one to vote, then they are rolled in small balls and put in the middle of the room, or on a small rug. After this you retreat a bit away, in order not to disturb the natural curiosity of the pet, but watch it carefully, and when it begins to play with some of the balls you take it from the pet, unfold it, and read what you have written on it. In this way your choice is done for you in an objective and impartial way, though it is necessary, of course, to approach the matter
fair, not to allure the 'independent voter' with paper pieces where earlier was wrapped something tasty for it (or him or her). If you occasionally have neither little crawling child, nor animal pet, then you just make a visit to some of your friends who have it, and you can be sure that you will spend an interesting and pleasant meeting with them.
4. Algorithm of the gentleman
As it is known, the gentleman usually defends the weakest party (because the strongest has no need of defence), and in this way he makes his contribution to the creation of more just social order. The weakest party in this case are such parties that have no chances to reach the first place, but at the same time they have interesting platforms or leaders. For this reason the gentleman rejects the first 2-3 leading political powers and votes for some between the weaker ones (eventually using one of the other methods of choice), so that even if his party will not enter the Parliament he remains with a clear conscience that he has done the right thing.
5. Algorithm of the flock
It is directly opposite to the previous method and consists in this, that is voted for those who will win the elections, according to some preliminary examination of public opinion. In this way the elector is sure that he has not wasted his vote and has made full use of his right of voting, but if he still has some doubts about the exact political power from the first three possible then he can apply also some other from the given here algorithms. This is a very good strategy for our country because it unites the population, instead of disuniting it.
6. Algorithm of the proportional choice
It consist in the following: on a cardboard circle with diameter about 25 cm are painted circular sectors with different width, but proportionally to the preliminary prognoses for the parties in the elections. These sectors may be coloured with felt pens or colour pencils, and in the middle of the circle is made a hole (preferably with some sharp tubule) and with the use of a nail inserted in this hole the circle is fixed to the door of the room. This is the electoral target, and in addition to it is needed also some small dart, but if you have not such thing you can make yourself easy one using a bigger needle and passing though its eye a long thread about half to one meter, so that the needle was able to fly straight ahead. You can exercise yourself for days with this target, but in order to have more independent choice is necessary to learn to rotate it, and when you retreat at about two meters, only then to throw the dart. In the day of elections it remains to you to do the final and decisive throw. This algorithm not only alleviates your choice, but also turns it into an interesting and pleasant activity.
7. Algorithm of the enigmatic
This algorithm is based on deciphering of the hidden meaning of some (seemingly unrelated with the elections) texts like, for example: your horoscope from the day preceding the elections in the preferred by you newspaper; some liked by you culinary recipe about something tasty; some publication on the sports page of the newspaper; interesting (or on the contrary, annoying) advertisement; 13th (or first, or last) page of the book that you read; and so on. Then you begin to read the text letter by letter, trying to get the initials of 5-6 parties between which you hesitate. These letters is hardly to expect to go exactly one after the other, and for that reason you write on a piece of paper the
minimal distance between the first and the last letter of each of the parties, for which this became possible to happen. If occasionally you can not succeed to get some initials, then try in reversed order, or read every second letter only (or third, etc.). With enough perseverance and patience it is impossible not to succeed to read sometime something, what the mere fate has predestined as your choice, and in addition to this your time will pass interesting and meaningful.
Well, this is all, dear readers, choose the preferred by you method, or some combination of the given here, and go boldly to vote, without the usual torments and sufferings to whom to give your vote. And if you feel yourself capable, then why not to invent some own algorithm? Take care only that it was sufficiently easy for applying, objective and independent from your moods in the given moment, so that you will not regret later that have lifted not the right politician, not the proper political power which was necessary to be lifted. And don't forget also that if you will not lift the leaders on the high arena, there is nobody else to do this, so that: help at least those people!
April 1999
MANIFESTO OF THE DDD MOVEMENT
(Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship)*
[ * The new word here is "deliberate", which doesn't stand very well, but in Bulgarian (Slavonic) "movement" begins with "d", so I decided to translate it in this way. ]
1. The history of all societies, for 25 centuries now, is a history of
change of democracy with dictatorship, and vice versa! Even in Ancient Greece there were incessant changes of periods (of about ten years, or so) of some kind of democracy (but not for the slaves and the women, of course) with another periods of tyranny (called so because their dictators were simply named tyrants). Similar change was performed in Ancient Rome when times of democratic government were succeeded by absolute monarchy. After the ruination of Roman Empire have arisen some feudal monarchies, which for more than ten centuries have caused such stable
stagnation (still and untroubled as the death itself), which, after that time has passed, have given solid ground to the entire world to call the new tendencies "Renaissance" (i.e. revival or resurrection). And, of course, the Renaissance begins with limitation of the authority of absolute dictators (no matter were they the Church or some Monarch), because "too much good isn't good". Later on, in some countries the Monarch remained as dictator, but his power was limited to a certain point, and in others he was discarded but in his place was established a President (i.e. a man who
presides over all other people, man of highest authority again) because "the Nature avoids empty places", and without a kind of dictator there is no go! Anyway, this process of everlasting change of dictatorship with democracy and v.v. is
entirely natural and unavoidable and here is the place to note two important points, namely:
a) both, the democracy and the dictatorship,
have their
advantages and disadvantages;
b) the perfection is in the very process of changing of one form of government with the other.
The democracy, as it is well known, has the advantage of giving equal opportunities to every common man to express his thoughts about all social problems that trouble him. But it has
the same disadvantage! Because nobody can give us the guaranty that all people
know exactly what is in their interests, nor that the right meaning is that of the majority, or even less, that this meaning is in the interest of the minority, too. From another point of view, however, big intellects, as much as square simpletons, are
only minority and there is no guaranty that suppression (even in democratic way) of the minority's meaning is triumph over the simplicity and not over the reason, what must never be forgotten! To put it in another form, supposing it is true that "errare humanum est" (and one would rarely contest this), then democracy gives the right to everyone to make
his own errors free and unlimited, what in many cases leads to escalation of errors instead of to their diminishing. But it is true, however, that in this way, by merely psychological reasons, "seeing a mote in thy brother's eye", as the proverb goes, one has the opportunity to see one's
own errors, too, reflecting those of the others (which usually turn out to be very similar). Shortly, the main advantage of the democracy lies in the freedom to express oneself, which helps in cases of finding
new ways, or producing ideas, and that is why it is known to be
the most adaptive form of government if there is any need to change things and turn to some new conditions, or, to put it in a technical language, it has the most powerful
feedback from the population (the object of the control) to the controlling "device".
The dictatorship, in its turn, makes all disadvantages of the democracy to become its advantages and
vice versa. The limitation of freedom leads to limitation of human simplicity or stupidity, if the dictator is a clever and thoughtful person, but to oppression of thoughts and progress, if the dictator is not such one (as it often turns out to be the case). Or, if we look at this from another point of view, the dictatorship
suppresses the natural for the folks
tendency to sin (together with the suppression of the freedom) but enables in its place the growth of some specific "sins" (characteristic for the dictators, usually), such as cruelty or humiliation, for example. In this way, however, if the dictator is strong and uncompromising, or, as it is often said, has "an iron fist", then the dictatorship is the
best way for achieving the goal that has brought him to power, what means it is
the most effective government.
Hence, we are bound to come to the conclusion that the truth is somewhere in the middle, i.e. in the compromise. Till nowadays there were found many compromising solutions in different times and countries, such as, for example: Parliamentary Monarchy, Parliament in two Houses, Presidential Republic, and Democratic Centralism. But all these efforts have been done in the space only, and
not in the time! And as far as even the whole mankind is not equal to the God itself, and every single man is too weak, nobody has yet succeeded to bind these two poles in one and the same time interval, and that is why peoples in all times have continually
reverberated between these two antagonistic forms of government providing, in a way, just
an illusion of a middle point, if one takes it in a long time interval! We, of the Movement for
Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship (
DDD), simply take this dynamics in the time for granted and, instead of to reject, confirm it, because it doesn't matter at all whether people approve of it or not, and it is also well-known that life in our Universe is based on cyclical repetition (with inclusion of new elements). Without a cycle there isn't, and it cannot be, stable evolution, and that is the capstone of our Movement!
2. Before to make it clear, however, what is our concrete goal, let us first
idealize the problem in a try to profit as much as possible in finding out the best features of both the democracy and the dictatorship, which are namely:
a) The ideal democracy must provide opportunity for performing of a
representative sample (if we use the terminology of statistics) of the population, which has to convert in form of laws the fuzzy and ever-changeable human notions for good and bad, to make decisions about all principal questions (of the strategy, not the tactics) in the development of the country. The representativeness of the elected people must guarantee that the Parliament fully expresses the wishes and thoughts of the populace, exactly of
the average citizens, not of the best ones (or the worst, respectively).
Never before in the history was this implemented in ideal case, and nearest to the truth, maybe, was the Parliament in Ancient Athens (if we do not count slaves and women for people), where were chosen 10 persons out of every of 50 greatest families (the so called "dems") through some casting of dice (or by voting, but choosing from smaller pool of well known relatives and neighbours). Nowadays all Members of all Parliaments are chosen as best representatives of the citizens (though they very often, at least in our country, turn out to be just people with:
high self-esteem, mediocre intellect, and primitive emotions!). And we state here that
all features of the Members of Parliament (MPs)
must be average or mediocre (but that has nothing to do with the Government, nor with any Commissions to the Parliament), and the best representativeness may be achieved only by using of
random choice by different parameters (such as: age, profession, educational level, marital status, ethnical division, religious beliefs, etc.), or just by some random choice! Very important is also the requirement that all MPs do
not take part in the making of various tactical decisions, or in the writing of laws (this must be left to the specialists) --
only in their voting! Otherwise we may be sure there will be a "contradictio in adjecto" (contradiction in the definition) saying that the MPs are representatives of the citizens, when they are, in fact,
non-representative "representatives"! In democratic periods, of course, the highest authority is the Parliament and no Dictator can exist, hence the top-ranking figure is the Chairman of the Parliament.
b) The ideal dictatorship must fulfill straight and unfaltering
the set goals, deny all other views standing in the way of achieving the goals, and severely punish all who "put stick in its running wheel". In the dictatorial Government tactical decisions for movement in the previously established direction are mostly taken, and if there is not an ultimate goal, i.e. if the most important goal is simply to live an interesting life, then the Dictator meets with serious problems in his activity and might even be found redundant. This, of course, has (or must have had) nothing to do with
the way in which the Dictator itself
comes to power, or leaves its post, and there are no problems this to be done by some kind of election, but when he takes once the state's steering wheel in his own hands he has the right to dismiss all democratic institutions.
c) Undivided from the discussion about the ideal democracy and dictatorship is
the role of the parties in the democracy, as main device for expressing of the (exactly
partial) views of different social classes and divisions of population concerning various strategical or tactical questions -- role of
initiators for some activities in interest of those people. As far as each party is, in a way, an individual body, it must have
its own interests, which are not always equal to those of that part of the population they pretend to represent! This is so, not only because the parties are an intermediate level between the populace and the government, but is due to the fact that the members of all parties in a given country are usually not more then 10 per cent of its population and the left 90 per cent are not directly represented. Even more, in the elections the representatives are chosen
only out of those who have set their candidatures, not out of the whole population, and there is no guaranty that they express better the interests of the voters, nor that the situation will be the same during the whole mandatory period. In this way
all traditional Parliaments express only
the wishes of the parties, not of all the people! What is important in a democratic government is just the role of initiators, the possibility for direct discussions between representatives of the parties in one place (because their number is small enough to hear one another), the personal desires of party members to express themselves better, etc, but ... their place is
not in the Parliament (which must be a representative sample of the population) and, therefore, the only way to save parties is to put them
apart in a similar institution called
Partiment or "Party House", which must serve also as reservoir for electing of local authorities and judges in the Courts, but that organization must be
subordinate to the Parliament.
3. The problem of
uniting the ideal democracy with the ideal dictatorship
in the time will be done simply
by their alternation for, say, four years, and at most two mandates! And now remains to make clear
how the Parliament and the Dictator, respectively, must be chosen with a good guaranty that they will always change one another, and how the appointment of the other authorities will be made. We propose the following:
a) The democratic Parliament has to be elected by the current Dictator during the time of dictatorship! There are no problems for doing this because there is
no need at all for free elections -- all will be done on computers according to previously set criteria and in strictly established sequence of their applying, so that there always will be possibility to check whether they are satisfied or not (though it will be impossible to prove that the choice was
really random, because, frankly speaking, when we say something is random this may serve only to show that our knowledge of the process is limited). The important thing is to note that this multi-parametric random choice of the Parliament not only guarantees the representativeness of the chosen persons, but also enables the possibility
to follow the current political orientation of the population, a feature
no other conventional Parliament could provide, and after some time (but often before its mandate has been elapsed) it turns out it significantly disagrees with the current political views of the electorate, what is explainable with the fact that the populace easily changes its views while all party members, led by their own interests and ambitions, usually make some delay in this process. In our randomly chosen Parliament there could be no inertness because, if we take that only 10 per cent of the population has membership in any of the political parties, then the situation in the Parliament will be just
the same and, therefore, its members will have no moral obligations to stick to the principles of the chosen party, coalition, or union, i.e. this will be a
really free and objective Parliament!
We have to note here that it is in the interest of the Dictator to leave the political scene for the democracy when his mandate comes to an end because in times of worldwide intervention of all information media even from the space it is very difficult to hide an obvious fact of elapsing of the once and for all established period of ruling. Besides, let not forget the pure psychological moment that the Dictator, usually, enforces his power not because he is bad, wicked, or evil, but because
he is sure he does his best in the interests of many people, and that is why he always has his true followers, hence there is one and only way for him to be (possibly) elected again after the democratic period -- if he succeeded to show himself best off during the dictatorship!
b) The Dictator must be chosen by the democratic Parliament at the end of the democratic period! This is to be performed by indirect voting in the Parliament using the propositions of the Partiment and other possible institutions, where the exact procedure, naturally, must be established strictly and there may be several rounds (it is possible also to accept a direct voting but taking into account that our Parliament is a representative selection of the population, this would be only an expensive and not motivated difficulty). After the Dictator takes the rule, however, he usually dismisses the Parliament and the Partiment as redundant institutions because more then one view diverts from achievement of the set goals, but he may maintain his own structures based on (part of) the above mentioned to help him.
The Parliament has no way to stay for a longer time and thus to be a hindrance for giving the power to the incumbent Dictator because there, similarly, exist the Constitution and all the media to make it impossible, but there is a psychological point, too, that every MP is merely a
mediocre citizen and it is only his or her duty to serve as an MP (something like mandatory military service, for example), and we even propose a certain procedure for rejecting this duty to be accepted, if one wish not to do it, and electing the next one instead, again by computer program. It would be better to imagine that the MPs are like the public in a theater, but of a special kind, and instead of showing them plays tedious laws are shown for giving an opinion -- they do not govern (there is Government to do this), they do not judge (this is done in the Courts), and they are not making any political career (there are political parties for that activity) -- they simply express the holy "vox populi" about the current notions for good and evil.
c) The other authorities have to be elected by the conditions in the current half-period (of democracy or dictatorship) in a way which is characteristic for that half, but the exact procedure must be fixed in the law. In general terms, however, in times of dictatorship all decisions have to be made by the Dictator only and he is to take the whole responsibility for them, namely: he personally appoints the Governmental body, approves the local authorities and the judges (with the exception of Constitutional Court which has to be elected by the legal authorities), sends and dismisses the ambassadors and consuls, and will he use any democratic institutions to help him, will he sympathize with some political party or not, will he pay money to different, domestic or foreign, scientific consultants, or he will decide all by himself -- this is his own business.
Similarly, during the democratic period the Parliament is the institution that chooses the Partiment, approves the Governmental body, calls elections for local authorities and for judges, by propositions from the political parties, and appoints all ambassadors. In relation to the Partiment we have to make the point more clear because the Parliament does not hold any new elections but establishes only
the quotas for different parties in it, while the exact party members are chosen by each party in its own way. As far as all MPs make one really representative sample of the population, the quotas may be established on the base of
their own political orientation, what is an important simplification in the voting procedure, at least thousand times less expensive, fast, operative, and may be held once each year (or even more often, if needed), providing in this way possibility for easy following of the current political orientation of the population in the Partiment, too, making in this way public political demonstrations and strikes wholly redundant.
d) The prolongation of the mandate for second time (at most) must be done by some other part but not by the same one about which we speak. In this spirit, whether the Parliament has to stay for another mandate depends on the voting in the Partiment at the end of the democratic half-period when the party members there have, anyway, to decide either to prolong the democracy or to make propositions for the next Dictator. During the dictatorship a similar decision must be taken by the old Parliament, brought together specially for the purpose after adding some new MPs, if needed; or by the current Parliament, because the Dictator might have saved the old one; or, else, new helping Parliament has to be chosen by the same computer procedure. As a kind of exception of the two mandates rule we may propose the possibility for
self ceasing, either permanently or temporarily (the last meaning preservation of top control), of the mandatory half-period (of democracy or dictatorship). This may be significant in war times, for example, when the Parliament, rejecting its own mandate, may elect the old or a new Dictator, or in times of stable development, when there simply is no need of a Dictator and he decides to leave the ruling to the Parliament (and, if he still preserves his post, this will be a kind of equivalent to the Presidential Republic, but with "real" President, not with person with formal and limited powers). In this way the mandates for each of the two polar kinds of power turn out to vary from zero to two.
4. Let us
in conclusion make some remarks describing more clearly the role and the place of our DDD Movement, namely:
a) During the democratic half-period even
four powers will
exist and they are:
approving and top power -- of the Parliament (and personally of its Chairman, but he is not a dictator, because he easily can be substituted by another MP);
initiative and law-creative -- of the Partiment; executive -- of the Government (Ministerial body), and also of the local authorities; and judicial -- of the Courts. In other words, moving all parties out of the Parliament we reach to
dividing of the legislative power in law-creative (in the Partiment)
, and (law-) approving one (in the Parliament), but this is
natural evolution and specialization, and, obviously, it is better to do the estimation (the decision making) by an uninterested part (from the point of view of political career) and unrelated with the creative group (it is something similar to the splitting of activities in the Courts), what will, unavoidable, lead to less partiality and more objectiveness in the legislature. Although it is preposterous to imagine any kind of competition (here "competition" for better laws), in which the competitors make also the jury, nevertheless this funny situation
exists in all of the conventional Parliaments?! Now about the legal competence (i.e.
incompetence) of the randomly chosen Parliament -- well, this question stands before each of the usual Parliaments, too, and is solved by hiring of competent consultants (various Commissions to the Parliament, and other institutions), whose task is to check the soundness of the new laws and their congruence with the previously set goals.
b) Transition to DDD might be performed from any of the existing forms of democracy, or from dictatorial ruling, too, because the computerized election of the new Parliament may be run by some kind of Dictator (President or Monarch), as much as by some Parliament, and the election of the new Dictator may be done indirectly in the Parliament, or by direct public voting. This is to say that the beginning of this new form of social governing may be established with the democratic half-period, or with the dictatorial one, though it is more natural if we begin with the democratic half, because the needed democratic institutions are better to be created from the very beginning, as more tedious and slowly to be build up, when the dictatorial institution may build new structures, or else, use partly the existing ones. Even more, the needed Governmental structures (excluding the Partiment) are well known in the world and in nearly ready for inclusion as elements of the DDD form, and the new things to be done are practically a few, though of cardinal value! The only required step is to establish a new Election Law and then to make the population familiar with the goals and tasks of our Movement because every new social invention is instinctively rejected at first, and let in this connection recall the simple fact that the democracy in Ancient Greece has not been initiated by the general public, but efforts of many people (and dictators, too) were needed to make it worldwide accepted nowadays.
The Movement for Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship has
no precedents in human history, though it does not come to an empty place but is a result of natural evolution in the domain of social government. We state something more, namely, that
the Democratic Dictatorship is unavoidable and, therefore, it is much better to perform planned transition instead of chaotic one, which will have then greater social price. The future of any reasonable government, either of dictatorship, or of democracy, in all their variations, converges to one and only form -- that of the Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship!
We are not a party but a
movement for better parties!
We do not fight for partaking in the Government but for
improvement of the Government itself!
Give support to us and our Movement for Deliberate Democratic Dictatorship!
HURRAY, IS IT POSSIBLE?*
(Government of the Reasonable Alternative)
[ * This is a later inclusion (to the"Curious Manifestos", from 2007), where the question is considered not so biased, but for all this also more sketchy, as is becoming for a draft version of project-proposal. It, however, is wholly realizable, if properly discussed and completed with necessary details. And one more remark for the translation in English: "Hurrah" in the original is "Ura", and these 3 letters are the initials of "Government of Reasonable Alternative". ]
1. Why?
The history of all societies is a history of
counteraction between the masses and the rulers, or between the lower and upper,
for better and
moral, justly
government. This is so because there can't be no government (the idea that each person will alone know what to do is more than Utopian), but also every man has sufficiently good idea of morality and justice, because this is something
innate and operating on the basis of comparison with the others (so that if someone violates some moral or legal norms then this almost always is
not because he, if of age, of course, does not know what is good and what bad, but because hopes to remain unpunished, something that even if it does not bring direct gains and pleasures to him at least raises his self-esteem). As a result of this counteraction is reached to finding of compromise between the wishes of the people and the interests of the rulers, which, in principle,
should not be antagonistic, but usually are exactly such, and what compromise most often is reduced to ...
sticking to the one end (because the golden mean, alas, is unattainable for us), so that this is either some strongly centralized government, or some form of anarchy.
Well, if they are extreme, then neither the dictatorship (respectively, the tyranny -- a matter of naming) can't last for a long time (there are many examples for this in the history), nor the anarchy (which in the end is reduced to one or another form of expression of people's wishes by at least minimal discipline, as it is under the democracy). We think that it is clear that the good decisions must be near to the center, which is generally accepted to be named democracy (though the idea of the democratic centralism is not very different -- it defended /defends the interests of the people, but without so much circuses as under the Western, and now also Bulgarian, democracy). But it remains also the question about the moral, which simply is
obliged to be present in whatever form of governing but, alas, from the time of Renaissance the moral (i.e. the religion) was thrown out of the government -- because it turned that it (the moral and religion) is aging much faster than the economic relations in the society and begins to hinder the government (which nowadays is also put on a good scientific base). The throwing of the moral out of the government, however, does
not mean that it is not present invisibly in the people's minds (to remind you about the absurd, but realized in USA, dry law imposed by the Puritans), its power was just lessened a bit, whereas nowadays, when the influence of the church is already quite weakened (and, by the way, substituted by the media), and especially in countries with, on the whole, atheist population (as ours) it turns out that we must yet
insert the moral in the government (thing that the communists have done, according to their own views, of course).
The point, though, is not only about the moral but also about the intellect (or just the wisdom of the folks), which can, and must, oppose the (unavoidably) selfish interests of the ruling. In many Western countries, where the people are wealthy enough for to allow to their morality to say its word if they occupy ruling positions, or as the communists said it would have been when one begins to live for to work, instead of to work for to live, and what was the rule for many centuries between the hereditary aristocracy (and what is the only excuse for its existence), the things may go better (albeit also in such cases not seldom problems arise), but not in poor countries like ours, or between not much religious citizens (again like ours).
And the point isn't only in the morality also because the population continues
not to be proportionally represented, as one statistical variable, in the Parliament. Nor the ruling persons are chosen as good professionals; they are mainly prominent politicians (understand: rope-walkers, charlatans, at least good orators, and we are talking not only about our country but about any democratic one), and just then, if this sometimes happens, also good professionals. Nor somebody tries to remove at last these obviously
partial (or defending private interests) party members, what makes us to think that the communist viewpoint for one party consisting simply of the best ones (the cream of society, in their view) was not at all unfounded (one should have just seen to what extent the politicians succeeded to vulgarize
each idea, in our case that about the pluralism, for to believe that in the communist idea was much reason). And these are not bubble stories because, if we leave aside the economic problems, the democracy runs well in those countries where are
not big
differences between the various parties, i.e. there, where the folks can change the politicians without changing significantly the policy -- as the man alters his tie, which is only a decorative element in the garment, so that, in fact, one can do well without it.
2. How?
In view of this, and by a number of other, non listed here (but dealt with in other parts of this book) problems, we think that a reasonable government (the Government itself, or the Parliament, or the Supreme Authority), which is very suitable to be named in Bulgarian (or also in Russian) URA (or
GRA in English), as abbreviation from
Government of the Reasonable Alternative, must contain the following
three elements, namely: a
House of the Rulers (HR for short), a
House of the People (HP for short), and a
House of the Sages (HS for short). Let us discuss all of them in succession.
2.1. House of the Rulers
It, in principle, is the present-day Parliament or National Assembly, and this is the reason why we assert that the transition to such democratic model (basically, this is a kind of democracy, only that it is
better than the existing forms) can be done also these days. In this situation, and at first time, we can assume that the party system, however rotten it is, may be preserved in the beginning, but later on must be devised some variant for selection of good
professionals, managers or businessmen, who must be chosen
for certain position (not because we like their "mugs") and by them alone (not by whole nation of laymen!). It is better for them to be
100 persons on a national level (at regional -- according to the concrete decision, but maybe: 5, 7, or 9), and out of them to be chosen: the Ministers, the President, and the other ruling positions in the country, and the left majority of them to be allocated in different Commissions, as well as to take part in their mass by voting of important documents and decisions. As far as, and until, they are party members then the choice of
quotas for each party (the number of persons, or their percent) can be estimated via general election, though it is better for this purpose to be used the enlarged assembly of the HS (or HP and HS, where their average value is taken), what will not only be much faster, but will also allow
continuous monitoring of the political orientation in the country (something that is absent from all contemporary Parliaments), where such establishing of the quotas is performed, say, each half year.
This isn't at all some fiction, because similar procedure
is applied by the choice of the Pope (he is not elected by all believers, right?), by the election of referees for sporting competitions, in the Boards of various companies, on party level in most of the parties (i.e. iterative, by delegates), and elsewhere. So that this is real and possible and this is how it must be done, if we want to work properly, not only to throw dust in the eyes. But this is just
one third of the whole Government,
its tactical part, and the decisions of HR are proposals, which come into force only
after being voted in both of the other Houses (which play the role of opposition), first (say) in HS and later in HP. The paradox, when one and the same group of people both, proposes and approves, here can't exist, and there are no grounds to expect to be confirmed things profitable only for the ruling in the moment, which later, when another Government takes the power, will be radically changed. Naturally, in the cases of decisions of various Ministries, they take effect after their acceptance by the persons in HR (in fact, only by the Ministers, but they may be more persons, a whole Commission), but
HS and HP must
be allowed to cease each inappropriate decision, if they choose to examine it and find it wrong.
With other words: till here nothing radical, only that the opposition is separated from the rulers (in order to work properly and to be no ways for incessant quarrels), but it is also rightly formed (as
other people, looking at the things from another positions, from those of the masses and the intellectuals, not of people who until yesterday have ruled and today just find flaws, or vice versa), where in addition exists one more level, third level, of dividing of the functions. Well, this probably will slow a bit the work of the GRA, but then, if one begins to think, the point isn't in the fast procedure but in the
rightful and well thought one, and we have also good guaranties that the decisions will be well received by the people and will not be some next trash, which every more or less intelligent person could have marked at ones.
2.2. House of the People
It is this, what the National Assembly, essentially,
should have been -- a
representative selection of the people as supreme judge (and not a place for talkings and blowing of bubbles, judging by the name "Parliament"). This is a new structure, but obviously necessary (the so called
vox populi -- we discussed this in the other Manifestos), which is clear that has
to be chosen by arbitrary method, where we propose here to be also
100 persons, chosen by ordinary random selection by UCN, Unique Citizenship Number (equivalent of insurance number, an unique code for each citizen), of
by two persons of each year of birth
from 20 years inclusive
to 70 years exclusive; it is necessary also to have
Enlarged HP of 1,000 persons (chosen by the same procedure), and even 10,000 (if this will be find suitable), where each year (or half year) may be reelected anew one half of them, arbitrary chosen. This House must have also some initiative rights, if it has to put some question which is met with resistance from the HR, but it
isn't this that makes the laws, it only adopts them or not.
It is true, that at a first sight it seems too risky to choose a motley bunch of nincompoops and to leave them to decide the destiny of the country, but these people just
estimate whether this, what is proposed to them, is good or bad for them, and exactly this do also the jurors, so that we don't see especial problems in this case; after all, the uncertain person may choose somebody for a model (and the things go first via the HS), besides, it is normal to allow to each one of HP the right to refuse, if he /she wishes, to take the post (as far as the people there are chosen
without them having applied, just supposing that they agree). This, that these people will
not be professionals (i.e., most often jurists, judging by the actual Parliaments) and many things may be needed to be explained to them -- well, that is precisely the purpose of the task: to adopt clear for the people laws, not just to outsmart one another.
2.3. House of the Sages
This House (or also of the Wise, or of the Elders, or also of the Judicious, Virtuous, Models for us, etc.) is now one
fundamentally new element in the Government, missing from all contemporary Parliaments, though it can't be said that it is entirely unexpected one, because it is based on the idea for
choice from below, choice incompetent, but
not for professionals, rather for people who we respect, appreciate, trust them. Here is the place for the
actual democratic elections, only not just for to fool the masses (with a new baby's pacifier), but for
iterative choice from below, choice of people
not only from the top (like: prominent scientists, artists, clergymen, and if you like also pop stars or footballers, etc.), but also of such from our intermediate surroundings (say: husband, father, mother, chief, and so on), where in each higher round choose
only those who are already chosen and only between the chosen -- in the same way as each respecting itself party does.
Generally said, this means that
on the first iteration vote all, and not only for one person, this is too simplified, but
for five (or ten)
persons (
not from parties, here are chosen personalities), making no difference about priority between them, where for each one (by UCN, and with computer, obviously) are added the voices of the voted for him (her) persons, later this list (for the whole country on national level, but the modern computers will not be hampered by this) is arranged in diminishing order of the received voices, and is separated its beginning, for example as 5 to 10 times (as it will be decided for each iteration)
less people than before the iteration. This procedure is applied also for the next iterations, only that (in addition to the fact that there vote just the people from the shortened list -- a kind of delegates) by counting of the votes is added
not by one for each voted for him, but
the number of votes, which the latter has already received (i.e.
the weight of the vote). Furthermore,
on the last iteration, when there remain
1,000 persons (or 1,200, with a bit of reserve), is necessary to gather these persons together face to face in one place (say, in a resort) in order to get acquainted one with the other as much as possible, which process must last at least one week. So at the end is chosen
HS again
of 100 persons, as also
an Enlarged HS of 1,000 persons. This choice also can be performed each year, via Internet, or using special terminals, and it is
open, because there is no need to keep it a secret when we do not choose big chiefs but just people who we value and respect.
So these are our Sages or Elders,
people on whose, not only intellect, but also
morality we rely and
stake. Well, it seems strange to learn how to behave, or copy morality, from pop stars, fashion models, or footballers, but, funny or not, such people, really, very often are role models for many of us (and this will also provide some "freshness" for the crew, so to say). But
even the persons from HS will not govern (we are not supporters of the Platonian idea that the country must be governed by philosophers -- if not for other reasons then at least because the people will, neither choose them, nor understand them; and pop stars, for example, certainly shouldn't
really govern us).
These people, though, are the
strategists, who must be able to tell
what to do, what are the problems, on what matters must work in the HR, and whether the latter have well done their job. This is the House in which can and must be discussions, which can (and is preferable) to be followed by the public, not the left two Houses, and in it alone one may feel proud to be chosen, not in HR (where simply must be worked hard), and even less in HP (where the people are, in a way, the "kibitzers"). This House must have, together with the approving or not of the laws and other important documents, also primary initiative functions; it is, basically, also the opposition, but one reasonable opposition, exercising constructive, not destructive, critique (according to the rule that if something comes not from us then it is necessarily bad).
3. Whether to do it?
Well, roughly, this is the idea of the GRA, but isn't it just another utopia? Isn't it good only in theory, but in practice will turn out to be worse than the traditional democracy (though, looking at the Bulgarian democracy, it is
hardly to imagine that there can be something worse than it -- when even under the totalitarianism it was significantly better, at least in sense of standard of life for the people --, but we speak about the democracy in general, so that let us not fall victims to our emotions)? Now, it isn't likely to be worse, at least
a priori speaking. Because the work of the HR will, maybe, be a bit less effective (for reasons of the enhanced control from the parts of HS and HP), but it, in spite of all this, may turn to be even more effective, because under separated from the "Speaking Hall" opposition the rulers will simply not have with whom to quarrel and will be forced to do their work; and they will also be not only ambitious orators (and wealthy enough for to apply for the job, or at least backed up by wealthy and, respectively, with dubious origin of their resources, circles), but genuine professionals in the governing (as much as it is possible at all to introduce exact criteria there, where the work is not only routine, but rather is an art).
Next, HP obviously will be one really representative choice of the population, one
National Assembly; next, HS unavoidably will bring some morality and reason in the government (i.e., it is impossible to happen
only ignoramuses in the Parliament, as it, I'm afraid, happens in Bulgaria now and then). And the
counteraction between three powers, not so much as the Christian Holy Trinity, but as in the spirit of the ancient Eastern philosophy expressed by the gods: Vishnu (the Doer, the maintenance, or the tactics for us, the HR), Brahma (the god who makes the things to buzz --
bramchat in Bulgarian --, the creator, or the strategist here, the HS), and Shiva (the Destroyer, that who will ... strike us --
nashiba in Bulgarian -- with a stick if we don't obey, up to some extent analogue of the people or HP in our case, who are capable to destroy all things created by the rulers or the sages), is preferable to two Houses, especially to our unicameral Parliament; in this way the dialectical contradictions can better unfold itself! In addition to this the elections in different Houses must differ in the time, and if in the HR they are for four (or three, or even two) years, then the HP may be renewed to a half at least once yearly, and the HS can be elected once in one or two years, the President can be chosen half an year after the coming in power of the new HR, and so on.
And something more
on the question of morality:
it becomes wrong not because it is bad to have moral in the governing (this is an obligatory requirement and we very well see that without moral we came to nowhere), but
when only one chosen group has the right to
instruct, when only one truth is good, only one religion is accepted and official -- because then comes the
stagnation, where the moral marches on the spot while the perceptions of the people are changing. But under the governing of GRA this can never happen, because we elect strong personalities and
role models, about half of which are well known and succeeded in life, so then they, obviously have their
own views,
not commonly accepted prejudices, and they are different people, as by professions, also by habits, they are not united in whatever parties, nor have some common platforms (apart from this, what we call wisdom or virtue). So that by them can never exist one single belief, and, hence, can't be stagnation; they may form only this, what is right to be called
intersection of all religions (beliefs, truths, etc.), and what, if it can be shaped, then ... well, praised be the God! Because this is the hardest thing in life of a given community -- to achieve unified view on the main questions of life,
tolerating the various views of all different groups ans stratas. Seeking for a common view there, where each one, as the saying goes, pulls the rug to himself, can be reached to one
moral minimum, which is to be applied to all, to be clear for all, and to be respected by all!
Well, it is true that in the contemporary global world is very difficult to introduce radical changes in social area in one isolated country, more so in such with population only ...
one per mil from the world's, but, as you know, a chain breaks at its weakest link, so that it is not excluded that we will be honoured to conduce this important experiment (initially, say, on a local level, in one town or region). After all, in later times is much spoken about civil society, but it
nowhere works good enough, if it existed, so that this can be our Bulgarian variant. Because if it will not be applied in our country we have to hope for this to happen, say, on Alaska, or by the tribe of Mumbo-Jumbo, or ... on the Moon. In any case, when something is necessary it sooner or later
happens, or, as our
Shoppe (ethical minority around Sofia) says, "What is needed, it is required by itself", and the sole reason (according to the author) for which this can also not happen (at least in a near future) is that
the idea of GRA is entirely ... reasonable.
But then, think for yourself: isn't it better to say GRA-hurray, than later to grieve that have not accepted one idea simply because it has turned to be more intelligent than us?
ESSAY ON THE COMMON SENSE -- II
As it is evident from the title the subject of this material is a social order which contradicts, in some extent, to the common sense of its citizens, only that this time this isn't the communist socialism but the contemporary democracy. I hesitated for a long time to write this paper or not, because it is obvious, and I alone have emphasized this many times, have written whole books, or, if by papers or chapters of books, then more than 50 (rather near to hundred) things, where have explained that, putting it aphoristically,
the democracy is the most flagrant contradiction to the common sense, and exactly for this reason it is the very biggest achievement of humankind in the social area! Saying it otherwise, if all people want to deceive one another, then here is the democracy. Your rulers will cheat you so bold that you will even like this. So that from this viewpoint there is no more need to ... "stir with stick the
guano" (in order not to use here indecent English words, but foreign is allowed).
So, but my readers in the Internet continue to pay bigger attention to this essay (under the implied now number one), compared with others much more interesting papers of mine, so that I have begun to give a thought to really writing continuation on this theme. Because there the question is posed quite naive, we wanted then that the society was humane, for it is
obliged to care about people, while now it, even if takes some care, then this is for defending of the pockets of the wealthy persons of this world, for the simple reason that the hungry and discontented people (as also home animals, the situation is similar) perform worse their duties, i.e. there are
not proper conditions for exploitation! But this, too, at least for me, is obvious, and there is no need to "dig a hole in the sea". Still, when 25 years later I have begun to translate myself in English, I have come to the conclusion that it is good to write this second essay, in order not only to state that the capitalism, i.e. the democracy of Western type, that of the stronger in this world, is inhumane, corrupt, and so on, but also to try to point out the
possible ways for its improving, which are much more difficult than in the times of totalitarianism (when it sufficed to reach somehow the ruling place -- not that this was easy, but it sometimes happens -- and then perform changes on a big scale, how, for example, has done Gorby in his time).
And, in general, 25 years is not a short time for to allow oneself to raise again old questions, under new condition. So that I will write this review, using initially the same points of the former material, and later something will be added. But I must warn you that this, to what I will lead you, is ... well, to
vindicate the communism, of course, for there were many good ideas in it, only the realization was limping (but under the democracy there is not at all worthy idea or moral -- if we exclude the clever deceiving of the common people). In what there is nothing surprising, because all totalitarian forms of ruling (like, say: church state, Sultan ruling, the idea of aristocracy, and others, the pharaohs, if you want) go out of the assumption that the people are simple and they must be taught, not to put the "cart" before the "horse", as the democracy does, spreading the delusion that exactly the masses must teach their rulers what to do, or, using words from proverbs, the calf will teach its mother. So that I will whiten the communism and blacken the democracy, and if somebody does not like this, then let him not read further.
But let us begin.
1. About the unnecessary prohibitions. Oh, God, they become not at all less, they have become now more. Earlier there were predominantly such, where minor servants, hiding behind their posts, have shown redundant zeal, so that the others, if they do not respect them, at least to be afraid of them (we even have a proverb saying that the King permits but the guard doesn't), and now it is shockingly full with such where the jurists "wash their hands" and the "plebs" suffers. Because, for example, when you go in a bank to open a deposit you must sign a document of
20, usually, pages, and confirm that you agree with the conditions, and the same is the situation with protection of rights of given products, and it is pretty funny this to be applied also for some software products or on the Internet sites, where nobody can check is it really so or not (for example, confirm that you are of full age -- certainly one can bet that every adolescent will eagerly confirm that he or she is such, how it is needed), but this forces people to
lie (that they have read it) if they want that the things move further. This is utterly incomprehensible teaching of honesty through accustoming at an early age to deceive, but it exists, because is "democratically".
Or also, that the cigarettes harm the health, even lead to death -- and tell me, please, how one must live in order to
avoid the death, because for me, in my old age, this point is of great concern -- but nonetheless they are sold everywhere; the same also about the prostitution (well, not exactly the same, there they don't warn you that it is unmoral, there you know pretty well how the matters stand, but it exists wholly legally, so that the inconsistency between the said and the existing is entirely obvious); the same also when is advertised some medicament and you are advised, just in case, to read the leaflet with the instructions; or when they proclaim that buying and selling of votes is offense (especially when it does
not exist, for everyone can promise to vote how they want, and vote how he or she wants, since the voting is anonymous). Id est these are not only prohibitions that are unnecessary, with which nobody complies, but you are even warned what you are not to do, what you, anyway, don't intend to do, with the only purpose that somebody else wins from this. And this, what is necessary, say, that after each advertisement they must be forced to add that commercials are cheating, or something of the kind, is missing, of course.
And so on. For example, in the recent time I even become infuriated when in shops and in other public places they are directly "selling" politeness to you, repeating without whatever necessity "thank you in advance" or something of the kind, when this is simply a regular ... advertising, of course, that, look at us, please, how polite we all are, just a feast for the ears, so that go on, come to us again. Earlier we have said that there is nothing so cheap and which is valued so high like the politeness, but then the prices were of almost no importance, and now, when they are really important, this slogan is used to the full, because the politeness, really, costs nothing (yet it cheats the people, like the smile, by the way). Because of this I have come in my "Constitution of Cynicland" to the conclusion, that if we want that everything is honest and frank then it must be written in the Constitution the
right of everybody to
deceive, that this is basic inalienable right for each civilized society! And isn't it really so? Well, people don't like cynics and, surely, there is no radical way for fighting with the superfluous prohibitions and other annoying elements of life -- and nowadays the most annoying element are the ads --, because this is reduced to moderate way of life, and the
immoderation is main characteristic of the living matter, especially of the young individuals (humans or animals), so that we must cope with this, it is so, but something can be done, if we only want to. Like I have proposed above to mention by the commercials that this is delusion; or to revive the morality and try to raise it
above the law, because the law can easily be changed, where the morality is more inertial.
The morality, obviously, is a very fuzzy notion, but if this is desired it can be concretized by some procedure, I have hinted this somewhere: say, it can exist some Council of Moralists or Elders (what is the idea of Latin Senate, and the sirs and other titles of nobility), but in such way that there were included big number of independent thinkers, and this according to the estimation of the people, i.e.
there must be expressed the democracy, in the defining what is moral, not in the governing, where there are some procedures, standards, requirements. The simplest variant of such Council is some congregation of all beliefs in the country, plus independent candidates, plus people who have achieved publicity. This isn't easy to be done, but I don't propose things that will be one and the same for thousand of years (like the fascist thousand years of peace, to which they, anyway, have not succeeded to come), I propose dynamically maintained structures. And this Council can easily pay attention also to all kinds of unnecessary prohibitions and complications of life -- after all, there exists a Council (or Commission) for protection of the rights of customers /users /citizens, but it is engaged only with cases where the health of people is endangered, and that somebody have cheated, well, that is what the democracy is.
2. Initiative and money mechanism. Well, here I have judged not very correct before, but I simply wanted to raise the question that
in addition to the price tables there must exist also some ways for tying with the demand, i.e. not to stay only on one pole, and in this sense I am right. I am right, as you alone can see, because we just jumped from the one extremity to the other, but the things are again not moderated, not properly linked, for there exist obligatory things and moments, and exist also such where must be acted according to the demand; now everything is the same, only in dual meaning, from the standpoint of the other side. Now in Bulgaria, at least in the period of initial robbing (well, let it be accumulating) of capitals, everything is subjugated to the demand, and if, for example, there is no particular demand on intellectuals (when they don't provide actions, thrillers, sado, maso, vaso -- maybe? -- and other forms of delusion, or simply something amoral), then, as a result, they can even die of hunger. It has happened so also by other revolutions, those intellectuals, who were linked up to some extent with the ruling class, by the overthrowing of rulers were overthrown, too. Yeah, but the intellectuals study and are built long time, while they go out of order very fast (approximately for two years, according to Western views by applying for work), lose their form. In the normal Western countries the society tries somehow to take care of all people, especially of the intellectuals, but it isn't so by us. We have destroyed our pro-communist intellectuals and have created just pro-
commercial such, what, in my view, definitely, is worse.
But let us take more concrete look here. I have spoken earlier about the medics, that they have not received good payment; now they more or less provide it themselves, but through advertising and delusion, where inconsistencies can also be seen. For example, in order to go to the physician now one who pays his (her) installments (I am not speaking about uninsured ones) must anyway pay to his JP for a referral to another doctor sum equal to one percent of minimal monthly salary, MMS (what makes roughly about ... 20 eggs, what isn't a few, I'll tell you), for routine paper work. And, in general, all payments for necessary expenditures, like healthcare, education, but also others, do
not go out of people's
personal incomes, but these are officially recognized social services without which nowadays there is no go; the only thing that is done in this regard is to outline some groups of people in dire need (say, disabled, with oncological diseases, or of Gypsy origin, etc.) and for them to make discounts, but there are no intermediate levels, what isn't a right way for doing of these things, in this way people may only be debased forcing them to beg (and in many cases even this does not help, because for Gypsies, as I have just said, there are such helps, but for Bulgarians, as a whole, there aren't, this only pours water in the mill of fascists).
In regard of stimulation of the young as more initiative part of the society, not only that the things have not bettered, but they have definitely worsened, at least in Bulgaria. Earlier dwelling houses were given for deserves "in the building of socialism and communism", and today they are bought by people with deserves "in the delusion and cheating of citizens", so to say. According to my approximate estimation in Bulgaria the population (for, say, 30 years) has diminished with about 15 percents, the housing stock has increased with about 25%, what gives real
global bettering in the living space of 45% and more (1.25 / 0.85 = 1.47), but this has expressed itself in this, that homes are bought just to be used as
capital investments, i.e. somewhere about one quarter of all homes are, either bought as second homes, or they are simply not yet bought because people have not enough money! Id est the situation with the living space in principle has not changed, the young continue not to have where to live, and when nowadays there were almost not left families, then people can more difficult provide themselves with decent home or flat; this is confirmed with the fact that the rentals at market prices continue to reach nearly one MMS for a decent flat, or they come to this including the communal expenses where the major "weights" are the central heating and electricity, and, besides, all banks for more than 10 years are directly "pushing" offering loans for purchase of homes. Add to this also the paid education (in colleges or universities), as also for healthcare, and you will see how the horizon of the young is darkened to the unimaginable.
Ah, in regard of the fight with monopoly of the state -- also nothing is done, we have only changed the monopoly of state with the monopoly of big companies, where roughly half of them are with foreign participation; the small and media-sized business, however, continues to experience great difficulties, but the latter is, at least in my view, the proper business where the competition is good and necessity, by the large-scale companies in any case is needed some control on the part of foreign to the business (i.e. of the state) instances, there such companies are not many, they can somehow reach agreement, make analyses of clients and act reasonably. In addition, as I think (if something has not changed in the recent years, but hardly), the companies are divided in two natural categories according to the paying of VAT (value added tax), in big, which return to the state the VAT from bought raw materials and other expenses, so that for them everything comes about 20 percent cheaper), and in small fry, which either must maintain their own cycles of buying and selling with companies like themselves, what wide away from always is easy to be achieved, or else they buy everything more expensive and their production becomes also more expensive; moreover, they apply also more manufacture production methods what hinders the competition with the big business even higher.
But for the communists of the past there are some excuses, they have defended the monopoly of the state for otherwise, by the low prices of majority of goods and services taken to be necessary for the population, without this it was impossible, without this these goods would have not been offered at all. And in the current time I see no reason why people, who -- to put it bluntly -- are ready to lick the other people's bottoms with the purpose to receive more money, receive them really and exercise monopoly on decent homes, on rental prices, on education, if you want, of the young (because when there must be paid then surely not all who want are studying but mostly go immediately after school in the sales), and from here also on the moral of the whole population. The money mechanism is again badly used. And how it can be made so that it will be properly used I speak in my materials on moderate communism or on the social ministry, and in other places here and there (I have also a good idea about better provision of pensions and partially, so to say, retirement).
3. Questions related with the property. Well, after the moment of writing of my first essay I have thought quite enough about the question of property and my views are expressed in other places where I speak about the future of the property. They are reduced mainly to this, that it has to be divided not on state owned or not, but on exploitative, which is used for exploitation of the others, and personal. If we approach so this question then there is no difference between the capitalism and the communism (only that by the latter was one exploiter, and now they are many); the only difficulty for mass application of this my view is expressed in
psychological aspect, that people don't want to accept the existence of exploitation, but if one goes out of its inevitability in every society, then this view is very fitting, I think. So, and in this regard something is done, the various forms of property are more or less equalized, but this, nevertheless, does not significantly change the things.
Why it does not change them? But because there exist large scale and small and medium-scale businesses, I have spoken above about this. If all forms of property are equal then, more than obvious, wins the bigger owner, and this that now in every area of production exist about 10 (rarely more, in one country, especially in not very big one like ours) instead of one universal owner-exploiter does not change the things essentially. About the living premises I have just spoken, that they are not bought by those in need of them, the same is the case also with the private cars, I suppose, because by us it isn't so (like in the USA), that one is able to buy a car for some pennies (say, for half of MMS) and it will work by him and the petrol will cost him almost nothing. By us even the fact that one ticket for city transport costs as much as a loaf (kilogram) of bread for the majority of people means that the transport by us has incredibly risen (and how it will not be expensive when the price of a ticket by us is only twice cheaper than in Europe, but there the salaries are from 10 to 20, and even more, times higher than by us, i.e. by us the situation is about 10
times worse). So that, again, it turns out that the old situation was much better than the correct (from the standpoint of the right capitalism) situation nowadays.
Ah yes, it has remained the question with the agricultural land. But there we present, I suppose, an example of the worst possible decision compared with all former communist countries, we have given it in real borders after many years of meaningless debates, and who has received it just
keeps it for himself (and even does nor admire it). Now, whole 25 years later, it continued to be bought (of course pretty cheap, that is why people don't want to sell it) by companies-resellers and we are going to form our new, democratic, kulaks (wealthy peasants), where in a worldwide scale the existence of family firms in agriculture is rejected (and, for example, in USA the quantity of
all farmers is given as roughly 4%). Notwithstanding this wide away from all agricultural land is used, and I have told my readers that somewhere about 2013 I have seen that we have at last begun to plow our "democratic virgin lands".
4. Questions related with the education. Here something is changed, but far from being for the better. Id est we have chosen the easiest (and silliest) method for solving of the problem and have introduced everywhere paid education, but without well thought system for paying it from aside, not from the pockets of the parents, because this method, naturally, means that the wealthy retain for themselves the right of monopoly on education; the only good nuance in this relation, in comparison with the situation in 18th - 20th centuries (on the West, what concerns the 20th century), is that nowadays, when there are left almost no families, the parents do not pay for the education of their children, they can not afford themselves this. This can hardly be called good moment, but maybe exactly because of this it will force a decision, which, I suppose, will consist in
returning to the old system with distributions after the graduation, and complete financing from the part of the state or big companies. What concerns the level of our education in the present days I will not engage myself in asserting now that it is especially low, but when the prices by us for foreign students are equalized (nearly, I suppose) with those in Germany, for example, or France etc., then this will hardly contribute to the influx of students from abroad (this only restrains the migration of our students in those countries, but not much, I think). So that there is again nothing good; who of the young people can go abroad to study he goes, the selective emigration from Bulgaria continues, this explains to a great extent also why our population has decreased, as I said above, with roughly 15% (even I alone, no matter that I have a pair of tertiary educations, would have departed from here to study somewhere on the West, as I have done this for an year earlier, but at an age of
65 to receive a new tertiary education is at least unethically, isn't it?). Only the question with educational levels and their names is now solved, when we are part of European Union (although the very names do not sound very good to me)
And what exactly must be done here, I think, is clear. Every citizen of the state must have the
possibility (not just the bare right but for money) to study in the major universities of the country, when he (or she, surely) shows on the basis of entrance examinations, and further via his grades during the study, that he does not spend in vain the invested in him money. Only sums of the order of 10 to 20 percents of education costs can be required from the parents and this
in accordance with their income (i.e. from the poorer less, and even nothing), in order that the students (as also their parents) do not remain with the impression that the education is of bad quality, when there is paid nothing for it. It is possible also, as an exception (though the exceptions are always fraught with various problems), to require payment for such kinds of education where a big influx exists (because of repaying later, after finishing the education), like, first of all, in the sphere of business, but also of law, maybe something else, too; and /or can exist paid education in the usual, people's so to say, universities, for the weak students (when their parents have superfluous money, then why not to take it from them?), as also for such from abroad. In one word,
nearly to return to the well-tested system in the time of totalitarianism (which needed only some small reforms, not such revolutionary).
5. Questions of financial policy. Earlier I have spoken here that the money gives good one-dimensional scale of values, about hard currency, about taxes and all kinds of contributions to the state, about updating of pensions, lower salaries for intelligence, stimulating of important industrial branches, and about different price discrepancies. Now many things have changed, but, alas, again not to the best (though, still, not to the worst -- I am realist). In the present time we have hard currency, but under the conditions of Currency Board, which I have sharply criticized in various places, and now continue to criticize, because it has taken away our independence as a state, and this in the worst possible moment when our own currency has begun to grow stronger after spending of all totalitarian savings of the population. But in all cases in the current moment, more than 15 years after introducing of this Board, many things have stabilized (on the bottom, surely), and there are not such turbulent changes like in the first, not a pair, but 7-8 years, after the transition to democracy.
The questions about updating of the pensions are always actual, so that there is no sense to dwell on them (they as if are updating, but this is not the radical decision, I have spoken about this, I think, somewhere; this, what is necessary to be done, is to establish the pensions
not in absolute money units, but as coefficient to MMS, and update them even each quarter, or when the MMS is changed). That the salaries of intellectuals were pretty low earlier this is so, but I have never supposed that we can reach nearly to a state of
genocide to the intelligence! And yet we have come to this, because it became necessary for the small business to support those people, and this was not it its abilities (and it has never intended to do this). We had, if I am not mistaken, about 30,000 scientific workers (including the professors and above, what out of nearly 9 mln people gives quite normal 3-4 per mil), from which, I think, at least 2/3 have simply disqualified themselves (like your author), and the new ones, who have emerged only there, where the students paid for them, are not of the same quality, because the creative worker works in his or her pleasure, not for money, as a rule (though I don't deny that there are exceptions here, but hardly more that 10%). How the situation is to be bettered, and not only for the intellectuals but also for the whole population, I have given a proposition (surely, what only I have not proposed?), and these are the elaborations on moderate communism, which are reduced roughly speaking to this, that the people must receive each month some minimal sum, and later, in the end of the month, it must be restored in most of the cases subtracting it from the received salary, and that if this is done via some bank then there are no special problems for realization of this.
Well, I have touched earlier also questions about stimulating of important industrial sectors, as well of many price discrepancies due to our "soft" in that time currency. It is clear that earlier these questions were badly solved, but on the other hand nowadays they are ... not at all solving! There is no sense to stimulate sectors that are unprofitable, at least under conditions of severe capitalist competition this is in no way necessary. And the price discrepancies continue to exist, only now they are between the established by market mechanisms prices (on foodstuffs, but also on manufactured goods etc.) and the communal expenses (like central heating, electricity, homes, transport, etc.). I do not want to repeat myself but here I also have expressed my view, which is reduced to this, that by us, Bulgarians, there is no social feeling at all, no awareness of the injustice to apply the same prices for communal expenses for people which personal income differs at least 10 times; more than this, we have now the most right-wing from all possible views on taxation, no matter that we are officially recognized as the most poor in Euro Union state (we were before on nearly the same level with Romania, but now I think we are left in the very end). But, by God, the West will not teach us how to live in a well organized state, the social measures are work of each particular nation, if we are so unfeeling to our neighbour nobody is guilty that we stumble at every our step.
6. Attitude to the nature. Well, here was dealt with the environmental pollution, the bad planning of towns, and the same type of high panel houses. Here something is changed and for the best, now the pollution is less, and the towns look better, this is so. Only that this has happened as if by itself, because we have begun to use better means of transport, or have closed unprofitable productions, although we have also strengthen the control of environmental pollution, but nowadays this is just fashionable. I mean that in old times it was accepted that if it goes about industry then there a dust has to rise high (what is exactly the root of your word industry), but the times change and we would have come to this also under the ruling of "Party and Government". Only about the better houses is clear that the private initiative helps, it is more flexible than the centralized ruling, this is obvious, though with the time here, too, the centralized ruling would have come to the right decision, everything depends on the priority of tasks, so that here also are no special merits of democracy.
7. About political life. Well, we have now multi-party system, legal opposition, and competition, but this has led to so many new problems, that now, on the basis of real democracy, I am not convinced that "the game was worth the candles", as is said. Because when there exists opposition the people (and the parties, too) think that they are obliged (or, then, compelled) to show the opposite meaning even when there is no special necessity in this, just in order to show off with something, to be different. I personally, in the conditions of our totalitarian "greenhouse", have never supposed that people can be to such extent ... amoral, maybe, impudent, brutal, et cetera. So that I continue to think that the democratic requirements are necessary in a decent state, but now I simply see well why the communists have not allowed the opposition, because people must be restrained somehow, they have no provided by nature restraints, they come to incredible extremes with the only purpose later on to reject them and ... again come to the other extreme! I have dwelt on this human phenomenon in various places, so that I will not digress here, but I like to stress that the presence of right to vote presupposes at least a good upbringing, as also obligation not to misuse this right in the name of bare egoism.
Ah, I have said further something original, that every dictatorship expresses weakness (of the government), what is so, surely, but the democracy is a weak ruling at all, for it there is no necessity to express this! And with the fact that the communism, still, dared to perform such radical changes, the perestroika, it deserves any laudations; the perestroika-change might not have succeeded everywhere (like, for example in Bulgaria), but it was necessary for to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, and it (in Russian it is "she", ends on "a") has succeeded in this. The communists were not at all simpletons, as many people (especially between the young ones) may now think, and where the communists have done errors are guilty the very
people, they would have done even more errors without the communism, believe me! Nothing will convince me that the centralized ruling is worse than the decentralized (to what we will return in the end), everything depends on the correct stating of questions and on the collecting of return information from the public. The compulsory communism, as I call it for to distinguish it from prognosticated by Marx natural communism, which long ago exists in many Western countries (say, in the Scandinavian), has arisen as temporary ruling in conditions of war, and because of this, being a strong ruling, it could have not so easy quit the scene, this must be taken in consideration. And later has come the Second World War, which, obviously has required strong centralized ruling, then has come the cold war, which has not allowed to "loosen the belt", the arms race, the danger of nuclear war, and so on. Please, don't forget these things.
I even dare affirm that if the capitalists (chiefly the Americans) had not so persistently wielded the battle hatchet in the 50ies and 60ies (and maybe also in the 70ies, too), then they would have dethroned the communism about 20 years earlier, I have hinted at this moment, so that guilty for the so prolonged existence of the communism are first of all the well developed Western states, in the same way as they are, in outline, guilty also for its emergence! Instead of this, to make efforts to support with what they can and as much as this is possible this great social experiment (surely not less great than the democracy in Ancient Greece, because it has
bettered the world capitalism -- only look how differs the fight with contemporary economic crisis from those "measures" that were taken in the times of World War One and Two), the wealthy capitalist countries have succumbed to the foolish desire to see the enemy defeated, or at least begging to them on their knees, and such naivety I can't agree to forgive to intelligent or reasonable rulers. But where from will come these intelligent rulers under democratic conditions, ah? They, surely, are bound to "dance" so as the people beg them to, and to the people (i.e. to all nations) you just let to gloat. But at the same time the clever people long ago know (although I personally have not known this earlier) the English rule how to make a horse to trot -- either with a whip, or with a carrot. You will persist only with the whip, you will achieve nothing, as also with the carrot only (I will come soon to this, too, though I have discussed this question in other materials).
So that, however you turn it, by the totalitarianism was done this, what was possible to be done, this was not a real democracy, but under the particular international conditions this was the best, what could have been done. I have whitened the communism as much as I could, I wait applauses.
Though, hold them a bit, it is a bit early now, I have not yet ended entirely. I have finished with what have written 25 years ago in the spirit of perestroika, and now follow some new (and more mature, I would add) moments.
8. Each form of ruling is supported by the popular masses. If one begins to think (and not I have first come to the conclusion that the important thing is to raise the question, and then the answer will be found), then this is so, every ruling, not only the democracy, is supported by the masses. Id est the dictatorship is supported by the very population not necessarily directly, but indirectly, with their unspoken approval. After all, the humankind leads sedentary civilized (well, as much as this is possible) life at least for 10 thousand years, some date back to this time the development of ... wine making (because it is not possible to lead nomadic way of life and to keep wine or beer or mead to age, this is clear), and from all this time democratic ruling has existed only a pair of centuries in Ancient Greece, and a pair of centuries nowadays, and in the whole left time has existed some centralized ruling, another variant is impossible, ergo, the people like and support the power! Democratic
elements have existed, they say, even in the primitive communities, where the leaders were chosen by the very fighters, but these are elements, this is not real choice, this is fight between competitors, often real, in duels, like also amidst the animals. In any case this is reasonable. But for ruling of big masses of people are needed strong rulers, like: kings, sultans, tyrants, pharaohs, cardinals and popes, or at least heads of bandits. I think there is no need to convince ourselves in this now.
Good, and if this is so then the people have just tried to take somehow part in this strong centralized ruling and to serve the strong rulers. So that the dictatorship is such, which the population makes it, people like or not a given dictator, and if they don't like him then, in the end, they find ways to change him. The dictatorship is the real, strong, masculine ruling, and because of this also nowadays at the first opportunity people try to choose strong "fists", and on this is based, in general, the right-wing, i.e. of the strong hand, politics. Similarly the democracy is also supported by the people, what today is quite natural for us, but in Ancient Greece, when it was introduced, it turned out that was necessary to show a lot of efforts in order to convince the people that this is (also) in their own interest (not only of the rulers, by the way). The end poles, they always touch one another in some other aspect, and here also happens that the democracy and dictatorship are alike in this, that the people approve of them, as well also ...
not approves of them, of course -- the masses are always a little dissatisfied (just like the women, usually, isn't it so?). For this reason the simultaneous presence of these both poles is necessary, what also exists in some extent, but it also can be improved in different ways, about what I have also dwelt in other places (in my "Manifestos").
But the poles also differ (first of all) and when the people support the dictatorship they often overdo the things, "twist" them, go too far, what oft leads to unnecessary cruelties, but, mark, that the major part of the cruelties during the strong centralized governing are result of actions of the very
people, not of the dictator alone (he couldn't have managed to be present everywhere, but I stress that often he does not require big extremities). And in the other case, by the democracy, when the people again overdo, often is come to usual ...
chaos, in result of what by the democracy is not at all diminished the number of police force. And now I personally
can not say what is better! The big majority of people (say, 90%) think (and are even convinced) that the dictatorship is worse, but I allow myself to doubt in this. People think that the dictatorship is worse because there exists a concrete person, he stays before all the others, who always (as if there are no exceptions here) later on becomes a scapegoat, while the "demos" is impersonal. It is true that the parties have leaders, and they often suffer afterwards, but with the changing of parties everything is pacified and people forget about vengeance, but the thing is that, after all, the people have chosen these leaders, the latter have danced according to the flute of the public, so that if one looks unbiased here then the very democracy is to be blamed; the very dictatorship as form of ruling also is sometimes to be blamed (for its inborn drawbacks), but under different dictators it is different, it corresponds more closely to the dictator, than the democracy to the demos, isn't it so? And the chaos which comes then can be much worse than the crimes of the dictatorship!
Now, I have no intention to dig in this direction, but it is worth reminding, as I have indicated it many times, that the necessity of strong compulsion (or violence) is in this to avoid in this way the necessity of ... even bigger violence! And the dictators usually succeed in this respect. And the chaos generated by the democracy can be regulated as if only with subsequent dictatorship, although it happens also vice versa, the processes are cyclical. In any case the fascism in Germany has come in its time in quite peaceful democratic way, and this, that the communism in Russia has come after the October Revolution, but this revolution was only named so, on a small ship, and the tsarist Government has surrendered at once (it, maybe, would have surrendered even earlier, yet there was no one to whom to do this), but the people, if they were asked, almost surely would have chosen the communists. What does not mean that the people wouldn't have made error, exactly on the contrary, people very often make errors, and because of this they are not to be asked in crucial moments. With what I want to say that the dictatorship may very often be just (to call it good would hardly be suitable), but even when it makes severe errors, even then it is more effective than the democracy, but this is obvious.
9. What is this "common sense"? Well, this, surely, is basic notion which is not defined (like God, for example), but even in such case it is worth to give some explanations, in order to avoid further contradictions, and this, on what I want to stress now, is that the common sense is
not an averaged view of the population to the things, because the big masses simply "noise" (or suppress) the voice of the reason. No, this is the view of more wiser of the people, i.e. usually of the old ones, so that it is expressed more often in folk sayings and religious teachings. The common people usually know these things, they are thought to the masses, but the latter, or rather the young ones, don't pay much attention to them, they want to make their own ... errors, and they do them, don't doubt in this. In philosophical sense this is right, the young are not to listen to the old, but the old are to teach them, here simply exist struggle between the opposites, as the communist dialectics said.
And now I want (again, for this is not a new topic for me) turn your attention to the fact that there exist chiefly two
effective ways to force the people to listen to the commandments of common sense, or, generally, to do something what they don't want to, and these are the compulsion and the delusion (equivalent to the whip and carrot, about which we have spoken above); the first is the main trump of the dictatorship, and the second -- of the democracy, but, as I have said earlier, it is better to use both these ways.
In theory there are also other ways, I have made them once to be exactly five, for I have needed this number, but they are simply weak for the masses. They are, say, the genetic code, education, logical reasoning, personal example, our sense organs, and maybe others, they are used from time to time in various places, but they are not so effective. For me personally the reason is the most convincing argument, but I am an exception, don't look at me. The people, as a result of evolution (or God's creation -- as you like it, this
isn't essential), are first of all animals, and as such they obey the instincts, and the reason is only an addition (a whim of God in the last moment to improve His creation, if you like), it is quite often dubious and does not bring emotions to the people. Where the power is another thing; or the self-conceit, that if they ask me then I am considered very clever. The common sense, as if, stays maximally close to the scientific views, and at the same time is accessible for everybody -- say, that the Sun "runs" around the Earth, we see it every day, after all, and although this contradicts to the contemporary scientific conceptions for the everyday life on Earth this contradiction isn't essential. So also my explanations in the majority of cases are based on the common sense, they may sometimes not correspond strictly to the scientific views, but they seem convincing.
10. The reasonable ruling is utopia. But, after so many explanations, if some of you thinks that when both things, the dictatorship and the democracy, are bad and also good, and when there are better variants, then in the near future we will come to more reasonable look at the ruling and then will reign, as I call it in one of my science fiction stories, "reasonocracy", then I must disappoint him or her because this will happen not soon. In any case not before one
millennium, I suppose, but it might as well make five or ten such time chunks. Because we are people and, up to some extent, we even
have no rights to be very reasonable! For, from the viewpoint of the God-Nature, what is reasonable, ah? Well, reasonable selection of better species, surviving of most fittest, what is reduced to this, that the "unfittest" must die, there is, after all, enough proteinaceous matter on Earth, and to make children is easy (to give birth is a
bit more difficult, but the women still manage). And in the name of this
selection were carried out, come to think of this, the First and Second World Wars, because they, the wars, to what are reduced, ah? They are reduced to this that "we will show now them, to these Germans, of Frenchmen, or Russians, or Japaneses, etc. etc."! For the people is much more reasonable that there were no wars but for the nature this is not so, and because of this something as if pushes us from within to fight and there were wars even from the time when the monkey came down from the tree, and still earlier. But in the previous times there was some reason in such selection, while nowadays, by all these weapons for mass destruction, this is not a selection anymore. Nonetheless, name me some state in which there is no army, or in which the young children are not brought up in a spirit of patriotism, but the latter means, after all, that we, our nation, is better than the others, isn't it so? Well, the defense is one thing and the offense is another, but when the best defense is the offense, then what to do, ah?
Or also: what forces us (except some religions and habits) to give and give birth? A pair of children nowadays, surely, suffices, but only look, in China they are already milli
ard and a third, and in India they are not much less. But it turns out that something in us just pushes us to procreate like flies. And the religions welcome this, because wasn't it said somewhere in the Christianity: "Be fruitful and multiply"? Now my last hope is on ... the homosexuals, for they even if they wish it they can't (well, for the moment, but it might be possible some cloning or mixing of chromosomes, how can I know?) give birth to a child. And generally, taking into account the wars and the overpopulation, I think that somewhere from the times of ... Babylon, not to say earlier (but I have not a well known benchmark) people suffer most of all
not from the nature but from their own human nature! What is a massive earthquake in comparison with a "decent" war? Or what is a swarm of locusts in comparison with a "swarm" of people, especially looking in the long run? The locusts can't, after all, make themselves artificial meat, or cheese, or butter, and so on, but we can, and produce. And now you count alone, what will happen by period of doubling of the population of 35 years, or three times in a century (i.e. 8-fold increase, "only"), after some centuries. We will settle on the bottom of oceans, I suppose, because the cosmos, anyway, will be much expensive.
Or further: all religions state that it is not worth living for material benefits, but we, nevertheless, do exactly this. And we are doing this, mark, not when it is hard for us to find enough food, or clothes, or roof above the heads, not at all. In each country begin to be accumulated regions with unpopulated apartments, and people now often buy themselves a pair of homes -- simply because they can afford this, have extra money. And from all sides they are trumpeting that you have to compete with the others, no matter in baseball, rugby, with personal car, home, haircut, dog, boy- or girl- friend, and so on. But not with something
really personal, what can't be bought or taken ready, isn't it so? Be different, but with what the busyness offers to you, and that these are differences at the level of psyche of the kindergarten -- but who comes to realizing of this? Let us select ourselves, don't stop competing, for otherwise you are just not living! It is not enough that one aims at this by himself, but the busyness and upbringing, too, and this in the developed Western countries, push him (or her) in this direction. And do you know why? I will reveal this "secret" to you: because this contributes to the
strengthening of exploitation, and, from this, to the increasing of (unnecessary for them, frankly speaking) capitals of the wealthy. And here I even do not defend the thesis that the wealthy people are bad, no, they are just partaking in the game, they can't go out of it, the capitals must be used, multiplied, like the people.
But, on the other hand, scratching your head, you are bound to come to the conclusion that to work for money this is ... debasing of human dignity! Look at the dog, for example, it is an intelligent animal, but it does not want money -- and there is no money in the world of animals, right? -- it (or he or she) wants to make something good for its (or his etc.) owner, to be liked by the humans. For it is one thing to live decently (as it is written in Arab fairy tales, at least in translation, of course, I don't understand Arabic: "they ate till were satiated"), and it is another thing to want 5 and 10 times more than one needs. The animals don't behave so, they are moderate, but the humans are not! The humans try to toil, usually doing some services to the others (in order not to say being servile or licking like lackeys), with the purpose to be in position after this to require from the others in their turn to serve to them! Because it is so, the majority of activities nowadays are such that everyone can alone perform them, but it is far more beneficial and
prestigious if other people are doing this for him or her. Think a little about this, I am not exaggerating, our civilization has evolved to such an extent, that now one can live more or less so like earlier the crowned heads have lived, we can alone do at home nearly everything (wash clothes or kitchen plates, cook, even bake bread, automated and easy, do the work, of maybe five home helpers or slaves), but all this is nothing for us, we want that the others swirled around us, and in this case we, in our turn, must gyrate around the others; and the wealthy on this world gyrate around their money.
It is everything a question of moderation, id est of our
immoderation. Naturally there are needed specialists like: physicians, policemen, construction workers, teachers, and so on, but approximately half (I have done some rough estimations) of the activities are absolutely superfluous, and the people could have done them alone if they have had time for them, but it is something that they haven't -- now, with all these home appliances, means of transport, et cetera (but before our era they have had time). And about the money: I don't say that it must be taken away, but each one of us should be able to satisfy his (or her) own needs, and work only for acquiring of luxury goods, if he wants; and the salary must be fixed, with possibility to have about 30 to 50% bonuses, as it is long ago in the whole world at least for the high qualified and creative workers; id est there may exist stimulus for receiving of something more, but not only on the basis of piecework, and who wants to stay idle and laze then let him do this, but without luxury things he will soon get bored by this, or if he will not get bored by doing nothing then he has his own ambitions, which must be allowed to him to evolve.
And so on. From what follows that for the presence of this reasonocracy: must exist a
single world state; in it must live approximately so many people like in one medium-large state, i.e. roughly speaking from 50 to 100 milli
ons (not -ards); all must have the right
not to work and receive sufficient means for reasonable life; children must be allowed not more than three on a pair of parents, but be assumed as right till two, and even better if each child is attached to one of the parents, and then each parent must be allowed to have one living child (else there must be fines and other punishments); the governing must be divided in three major directions, where the proper or
tactical must be performed by highly qualified persons, with the necessary education, chosen somehow from above, by competent commissions, then in it must be present also a representative sample from the population for
assessment of its decisions, and also some body of moralizers or sages, who must set tasks to the rulers and do the
strategy and who
exactly must be chosen by national (but better one, iterative from the very bottom) choice; and maybe also something else. And at the same time our contemporary society (how I have explained in another place) is at the level of organization of ... simpler organisms (say, amoebas), without whatever specialization of the individuals in it, and this isn't freedom, as it is popularized en mass, because the real freedom consist in this, that each one has the possibility to develop fully these qualities, which the God or chance have put in him.
And do you know what will happen if we succeed to establish the reasonocracy? Well, it will happen that we will begin to live so reasonable, that for the majority of people this will become uninteresting and they will be simply bored by it! Or that till those times -- several thousand years isn't a short time -- will arise a new, really reasonable man, who will find pleasure not in some actions and thrillers, but in his own evolvement and improvement, as also in the very reason in general. So that, all things considered, we wholly deserve this social organization that we have.
This is reasoning in the style of ancient Eastern philosophy, that our world is the only possible, and if there was possible something else then it should have happened (and that, to give an example, was necessary that the kamikaze-"lads" of Bin Laden have blown up the twin-towers in New York, for, if it wasn't necessary, it wouldn't have happened). It may be so, in general, and if you like the contemporary democracy, then so much the better, the important thing is to minimize the bloodshed. But don't forget that these talks about nationwide democracy, or genuine one, and so on, are simply the regular catches of those in power (i.e. bathing in money), these are not essential novelties, which must occur in the democracy, and the improvement measures must be complex, as I have hinted.
June 2015
HUNDRED YEARS LATER
(To The Centenary Of October Revolution)
0. Introduction
This is my next, and maybe last, apologetic of communism in my traditional, what meant entirely
untraditional, stile of reasonable and impartial observation. I have, in principle, decided not to increase more my publicistical works, because they are quite voluminous, yet in this case just noblesse obliges, as is said, i.e. that for such a big anniversary the great
demo-critical realist Chris Myrski had missed to say his word is simply improper. Because I as if will say nothing new, will review the things from the standpoint of a normal left-wing but non-party member (because on the right there is no idea, there works the rough force, I have spoken about this), will defend the communists, but in the same time I usually defend debasing, or debase elevating -- it is so in the dialectics --, so that in some aspects my ideas from the time of my first book ("The communism as religion") have evolved, and some details have appeared, and they all, as I definitely hint, are not at all obvious for the majority of people, for the right-winged, as well for the left-winged, or for whomever.
So, and the plan of this material will be generally the following: first about the Revolution, then about Lenin, then Stalin, then the communism with its basic principles, about the future of communism (which has not gone away, don't be misled), where the principal moments are the kind of exploitation, kind of communes, most probable evolution of the communism (inasmuch as for me one Pentaism is not enough), and some comic ideas about the spirit of communism. Yet comic ideas will emerge all the time, don't worry, I myself get bored to say only serious things. These judgments nowadays, in the time of virtual reality, are necessary, because the people are up to such extent used to listen to every kind of fabrications, that they are simply dumbfounded, they don't know what to believe and what not to (I personally have met one intelligent high school student, who has said to me that all this, see, about the fascist concentration camps and the massive killing of Hebrews, are things which he does not believe -- because this is incredible). But you all remember, I think, what was the beginning of the third millennium from the point of one "good" guy with a nice "stature" -- this here needs explanation because '
ladnyj' in Russian is good and 'osanka' is a stature, appearance --, and I hope you can guess who he might be?
With what I mean that if the necessary changes do not come in reasonable way, they will come in unreasonable, believe me, please. And our society of general affluence (in the whole world I mean) leads not to abundance for all, but to more deprivation for some of us, to more drug addicted, suicidal persons, etc., i.e. to more inconsistencies, which do not exist in the nature, surely, we for a long time, a pair of centuries already, if not more, suffer significantly more as a consequence of our
own errors, than because of the inhospitable to us nature. Because, to give an example, I see sometimes, in my poor Bulgaria, thrown to the garbage entirely suitable (or will be such after little repair) furniture, that as new is sold (I have seen this occasionally) for 500 lv (whatever these levs can be worthy, and they are worthy half an euro), what still exceeds one minimal monthly salary (in 2017 it was about 400 lv), and at the same time some of us (myself, for example) live on -- if you do not know this you will not believe it (as with the gas "showers" for the Hebrews) -- 3 (three) bus tickets daily for
all expenses! (But, well, I have studied much and worked little for the democracy, but the others, approximately 20 % of the population, have not studied, there are no "excuses" for their contemporary democratic misery -- except the rejection of the communism.)
So that sirs, as well also girls and madams, and young children and babies, I advise you to pay the necessary attention to me, while reading this long (as I expect that it will happen) material about the communist revolution, what is bed or good in it, and were it possible to conduct it better.
1. About the Revolution
Listen, people, avoid applying unsuitable measures to the things, in another scale they can look entirely different (and I, an mathematician, can tell you that in logarithmic scale the logarithmic curve, that is pretty decently
curved, looks like straight line). You try to feel the spirit of time. Somewhere since the time of Karl Marks, or of a heap of bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, or also the liberation of Bulgaria from Turkish (or Ottoman, as you like it) yoke in 1878, or at least the Eiffel Tower of 1899, or the Ford conveyor of 1905, or the discovering of electricity around 1900 (to say nothing about the radio, television, computers, and so on of later time) the society has begun not to correspond to the means for production, the people could have had significantly more than earlier, but they have had even less than this. Because of this they have begun to rebel, for it is not proper when some swim in luxury and others -- and these are usually the
better ones, don't forget about this -- almost not make the ends meet; it is one thing when, for example, only in emperor's court people could have bath tubs with hot water, but that they can be in every home yet it is far away from this. People's masses can suffer and accept the supremacy of the top rulers if they are convinced that not all can have everything, but when all can have it this is quite anther matter. And the throwing away of food stuff in seas and oceans has arisen somewhere about this time, because people produce but there is nobody to buy the things, and not because the other people don't want to. (Now we all consume, things that are produced en masse, but this is not at all what we need, people must feel satisfaction from the fight with surmountable difficulties, to have before them some hard-to-reach ideals, not just to fill their guts and acquire all sort of illnesses in the name of empty life, so that also in the current days the abilities of society do
not correspond with the social organization in many countries.)
For this reason then all nations have simply lost the right road, and they have still not come over this confusion, they don't know why they live, they think that they must -- due to some atavistic (and known only to the God almighty) reasons -- fight for
selection of better people, of better nations! Or at least for better organization in the country. Because, what was the purpose of the World war one, ah? Well, there was simply no purpose! People just fought in order to show one to the other who is better, say, the Germans or the Frenchmen, and in order not to fight each with each they have split themselves in two groups. (Like also the French word
pari, a bet, presupposes some parity, finding of the pair, or contest, what in Italian is
scommettere and says "let us split in two commands".) You check at least when it has ended, if I am not wrong, exactly at 11 hours, 11th day, 11th month, as if this is some game, or a magic formula. And because it has not resolved the contradictions in Western Europe, then people have waited about one generation, to accumulate enough born soldiers, and have begun anew to fight in the Word war second for better selection of people. And this are the same people who are so strong in order to raise an 300-meter tower in Paris just so, out of bragging, to hit their breasts -- look what brave "cocks" we are! And let us design new world map, catch colonies, yet the nations are now not so really wild, and this is also not a solution, this is only temporary. These wars are like -- I have long ago come to this conclusion, although there is nothing difficult in it for everyone -- bloodletting, which for centuries were applied in the medicine and ... it
helped in many cases!? Id est, if we can build useless towers then why not to kill ourselves for the sake of actions?
Then comes the next moment, this is the
spirit of terrorism! At that time the terroristic acts were a kind of fashion cry, it is in this way how the World War one has begun. I have spoken somewhere and before many years, that the terrorism is the most bloodless war, and that is why it is applied, but in it die innocent people, and, well, a pair of dozen humans more or less is not so terrible sometimes -- all this is sh#t compared with the world revolution (there was such remark in Russian), ah? -- yet the point is that this does
not solve the problems, it
only raises them! So that one can come to it when there is no other stronger power, when the problems can't be solved but can be set in the open (how has done this
ladnyj-nice person, because it turns out that after the war in Persian Gulf the living standard in Arab lands has fallen four times -- this is more than even the average decreasing of standard of life in Bulgaria through the fault of the transition to democracy, which I estimate in 2.5 - 3 times, before 20 years as well nowadays, our transition lasts
forever, and to all appearances will extend itself up to 50 years). And Mr. Lenin -- because the Russian word
tovarishsc-comrade, if not a cursing is at least improper (I have discussed this -- alone with myself -- in one multilingual verse) --, having stood on the pedestal of Marxian communism, has felt strength in itself, has begun to believe that the common people, under proper organization, might be capable to resolve the problems, not only to declare them, that while the civilized nations in the center of Europe kill one another, one whole big nation, even enormously big concerning the territory, has nothing to eat. From what follows that Lenin has had not a big choice, the terrorism just did not solve the problems.
And which were the problems, principally? Well, the poverty and misery, of course, because, you see, the earth has fed the humans for many centuries, but after the technical revolutions and accumulating of proletariats has turned out that people have begun to starve, they for one thing have become stronger and could have allowed themselves a heap of new things, but for another thing they
have allowed them even less than before, living away from the nursing Earth. These are elementary conclusions, yet they are not so trivial for the common people, but for some great brains they turned out to be obvious and necessary, i.e.
obviously necessary, up to such extent necessary that if people could not succeed to make them it would be worse, that's it. For instance, the social security, or rather the pensioning, turns out that has been introduced firstly in Germany by Otto von Bismarck, who was not much loved by the people in his time, yet he tried to do what is possible from the high throne where he presided, and this being in no way communist, to be sure, because otherwise the disturbances and discontent among the people increase and all this ... well, just hinders moderate, set for centuries, exploitation, of course. Id est, this is perilous in equal measure for the rich and the poor.
But let us continue about the poverty. It, see, is not a sin, but is yet a dirty business, isn't it? And by this to starve are forced people who have deserved with nothing this "God's punishment", to starve must one mighty, possibly the mightiest, at least what concerns the territory, empire, the Russian one, which comprises the main part of Asia, and Asia is the main part of the Earth, the center of primeval continent, which over millenniums, scattered in different directions, forming in this way one insignificant appendage called Europe, which has begun to teach the world how to live, ah? Because the word "Europe" is old Greek and means something wide away, broad, not our lands (take in consideration that earlier it was pronounced 'oiropa'), and under this name the old Greeks have understood initially only the territory a bit away from Athens, and later this has become the whole continent, but this continent is no more and no less than an usual peninsula of Asia.
So that, dear readers, if I was on the place of Lenin I on no price would have agreed to wait a pair of centuries, or in the best case half a century, until the capitalism in Russia developed itself enough -- how has said Marx, and with what I entirely agree, the capitalism simply moves to the communism, or to bigger socialization and communization (for the simple reason that it can move to nowhere else, else leaves only its demise, its tomb). And then till the West succeeds to solve its own contradictions, which, as you see, it has begun to manage only to the end of 20th century, and it can't be said that has managed them entirely, it as if lives more civilized than USA, yet this is questionable, and the Americans, again as you see, are not much loved by the nations in the world, but until West (of Europe) will succeed to cope with itself what will do this great empire, ah? So that it was necessary to act, not to postpone and not to rely on the terrorism, such is the reality. And when for to be able to give somebody something, this something had to be taken from somebody, well, and how else, trust in God, ah? But the clever people say: trust in God, but help also yourself alone, if you can, so that he has made no errors, he has organized and conducted this epochal revolution.
Then about the very revolution, because my personal views at this have also changed a bit, and I suppose that many people have still preserved wrong opinion. So I have not liked this, that, how Lenin has explained, the revolutions are not good, it is always better to have smooth evolutionary development, but our socialist revolution is even very good -- because it is our own, of course. This is judgment by the model, I beg your pardon for the expression, "your own sh#t does not smell", what generally is so, it does not smell, yet is a sh#t all the same. But I have made (in my young years) the excusable error that have given free interpretation of his words, where he must have had in mind that revolutions are worse than evolutions, yet there comes time when it is
necessary to make revolutions, when it is simply impossible to wait! And when something is a necessity, is required by the situation, here is no place for arguing.
And then, my God, what revolution was this, were there big fights, have there fallen many people? No, of course, this was practically bloodless coup d'etat, what often happens when the situation is entangled and all simply wait some power to which to resign and obey. And as far as all wait some changes then they don't bother much, well, not this king then somebody else, it doesn't matter much, the point is that was a stable ruling. Because practically every ruling is better than the chaos, gentlemen! This is so very much chewed phrase, that I don't think necessary to give it more attention, I will only remind you (or tell you my own opinion), that on this is based the right-wing ruling, on the strong fist: it is not so bad that the boss can make a heap of errors, the important thing is that all went in one direction, not everybody in his own, and that fought not everyone with everybody, but only with one single recognized enemy. I personally do not agree with this, I think that it is always necessary to search the right direction of movement, but if we accept the hypothesis for impossibility (or uncertainty) of the right direction, then this is really
better, otherwise we have to stay and think like a Buridan's donkey (I don't know why in English people prefer to use the word "ass" here) what to do first (and doing nothing in the meantime).
So that the revolution was very peaceful, all disturbances began
after the revolution, but nobody can state with certainty that they wouldn't have been more if the revolution was not really performed, because it was performed in order to avoid them. Anyway, in the last time, what means some 20 years already, I have begun more and more to believe in the ancient Eastern view at the things and the whole world, that
if something happened, than this means that
it was necessary to happen exactly
this, that was realized one of the parallel possibilities, we live in one of the parallel Universes. Sometimes this is pretty delicate statement -- for this means that, say, the atom bomb over Hiroshima was necessary (in order to seriously scare the Japanese), or that the attentat of Laden was necessary (to teach to bullies-Americans), or that (in order to give example with inanimate causer or agent) the appearance of AIDS was necessary (for to punish us for our boundless lechery), or that all this artificial food (like the latest hit in the culinary industry -- sausages from potato flour and emulsions of ... pig skins), or also this boom of homosexuality (to what has led, so by the way, the emancipation of women), all this was absolutely necessary (when we can not reduce the birth rate to several percents in a
century, and not twice in 35 years), and other examples. Such kind of reasoning must always be approached with caution, but in all appearance it is justified and should be adopted, at least due to the impossibility to have exact criterion for the usefulness of a given event, because the factor time must always be taken in consideration, for when enough time passes the situation changes radically and to look at it in the old light is simply wrong (like to judge about the October Revolution from contemporary "democratic" positions).
Well, sirs, I don't know, but if I was in the ... boots of Lenin (as you like to say in English), or in his pants (I would have entered in them, I am slim -- on 3 tickets daily for alle xpenses one can not put much weight), and if I could have organized all this so brilliantly like Lenin (what I could have not done, I may be not a very bad theoretician, yet I am worthless as practitioner working with big human masses), than I would have conducted the same revolution and in the same (or similar) way! Because I have many ideas about bettering of the communism, or capitalism, or religions, and so on, but these are naked ideas, they must be first discussed (what usually means spat at -- it is so, don't be misled, the Latin word "discussion" means tearing in pieces with teeth and nails, how the dogs do; and shortly I have come to similar conclusions about the word "disput", because in Italian sputare is to spit), for a long time, and only after this destructive deliberation to begin to think how to implement them. And for implementation of something useful, for convincing the people to do something without what is no go, what is simply necessary for all (like, say, that there were no beggars, relatively poor this is possible -- and as if even necessary -- to allow, but not really miserable), for this our palette is pretty meager and there exist only two effective ways:
either compulsion, or delusion (with some fable, like about the nice capitalism, when one dies with desire to be exploited)!
In my first "Communism" I have extended them to 5, yet the remaining are not pretty effective (like, for example, upbringing), so that Lenin has really
virtuously used both, the delusion and the compulsion (like in the humorous phrase that "Kolkhoz is a voluntary business, if you don't want to, we will force you to"), he tried to reform the military-time communism introducing the NEP (new economic policy), what has made also Gorbachev in his time, and not to rely only on the force, this was Stalin who relied predominantly on the force. I repeat, I have made later many propositions about bettering of the communism (or capitalism, what in many cases is reduced to practically the same), but I don't see what could have been done in those remote times before a century, and in that left behind (obviously, for me, yet then) Asian (like I have said) country. Many can object against the nationalistic policy of Lenin, but this is chiefly in the times of Stalin, and was dictated by elementary considerations of territorial security, and everything is questionable, because this that Georgia, for example, renounced the alliance with Russia (and this when its "steely" man -- because this is what the pseudonym of Stalin means -- has spoiled as much as he could have there), or that the Baltic countries also have rejected the alliance (no matter that the very Russians have always looked at them as at a kind of aristocrats), or then Ukraine also does not know what it wants, and how much of the Ukrainians are for this then as much are for that (I have expressed similar meaning on this question), but during the Revolution I simply don't see errors, and the times were very hard, and without the Red Army there was no go, the chaos would have been much more, obviously. So that let me finish with this point and move to the next.
2. About Lenin
Gentlemen, Lenin was a genius, this is (now) obvious for me, but this, what in some extent disgusted me then (before about half a century), was that everywhere was spoken about him, i.e. in every town was raised a monument to him, and I am a person with sense of proportion. But such am I, not the others, and then there all the time are born new people, they must be brought up, so that I don't know, from the standpoint of PRs (i.e. public relations, contacts with the masses, what is reduced chiefly to manipulation) probably all was according the canons! Because you look today at the ads, at the official policy, at the activity of whatever religion, and so on, and you'll see that everything reduces to the this, i.e. to the phrase that "every many times repeated
lie becomes a truth"; I would have proposed that at least the words were changed when retaining the same meaning, yet it is not so, everything is exactly in the repetition of one and the same phrase, in the mantra, in the self-suggestion, such is the human material, we are not much better than the parrots.
So, but I personally was misled for some time thinking that he is just an evil genius, like also Marx before him, yet this also is not so, he is a man good by nature -- when nobody contradicts him, naturally, I am also such person, because one may object, but if substantially, not just out of love for contradictions --, and do you know why? Ah, I, in fact, am a pacer, with my own steps, nontrivial person, and I often apply ... linguistic proofs, and here I mean his, well, pseudonym, "Lenin"! Do you understand, it means only that this is a person from around the river Lena, but here also the very river is probably quiet, when it carries such peaceful and feminine name, this is not the turbulent or thundering Don or Danube, or the crying Niagara, and so on, it is probably like the river Po, sings (what is 'poiot /petj' in Rusian) or murmurs to itself noiselessly. And this pseudonym implies no power (like, say, Stalin, or then Genghis Khan, or the "hit" Hitler, etc.). Here the things stay a bit like with me, Myrski, for I am simply a peaceful and worldly (in Russian 'mir' means both, peace and world) person, and everything that I propose is reduced to peaceful changes, and is applicable in the entire world (and people have begun, little by little, to read me, in various languages). And the name, gentlemen, is a very important thing, it determines the behaviour of the person, he adapts himself somehow to his name. (Like, for example, the name Masoch, where from come the masochists, it has become such interesting because the root here is old Greek and Latin and this is the woman's breast,
mazos, mastos, mazecto- sometimes, also Sacher is not like by other people, so that it has become denominative for the simple reason that -- what is to be expected by some "breast squeezer"?)
Then Lenin is also a moderate man, and this in my view, from the pedestal of my nearly 70 years, is the main symptom of intellect. Yet this is not my personal view, of course, I like to reinvent the "wheel", as is said, this is the ancient slogan "Nothing excessive", which is old-Greek but also Sanskrit in some measure, this is in fact dialectics, because everything must try to stay somewhere in the middle of the "elastic string" on which it is hanged and away from the very ends, from the extreme point. And he is moderate because 10 years after the revolution he has begun to think how to make more moderate this military-time communism, has begun to introduce the NEP; and also when he has taken the land from the big-owners, the kulaks, he has left something for them, has not made them paupers, and he avoided the terrorism, too, and has not thought to export the revolution (and you just compare with some religion, even with the Christian: were there not Christian missions in all countries, where this was only possible?). So that Lenin was not an extremist, and if he has made use of a bloodless revolution then this was only due to the simple necessity.
But for my error somewhere in the 90-ies about his malice was important the meaning of some of our prominent UDF-leaders (from the Union of the Democratic Forces, the "single" democrats, if one believes their bravado pretensions), who stated that, see, he has written in one letter to Maxim Gorki that some intellectuals were not intellectuals but mere sh#t. This is probably so, but, gentlemen, I have needed to work in the publicistic genre for more than 10 years, and have begin to translate myself in
more foreign languages (from Bulgaria first to Russian and then to English), in order to grasp the elementary truth that the word "sh." is
not a cursing, it is so, a strong word, yet used quite en masse on the West (i.e. in the whole world)
cultural expression, in order not to use more harsh and uncivilized words. He has lived all over the Europe in the beginning of the previous century, he has known what is accepted by the people.
(The word "sh." is German
Scheisse, what is much better than "f#ck it" or
pitain et cetera. I can even teach you one Italian cursing that nowadays all Italians, young girls and teenagers including, especially the latter, use nearly on breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and by 5 times daily between the meals, this is their
vaffanculo, where is clear only the end,
culo, what means, I beg your pardon, ass, and about the beginning is explained that this comes from the main verb
vado /vadere, or punctually
va in 3rd singular, and a variation of their massively used verb
fare meaning to do, yet -
fan- is entirely incorrect, and the meaning of the whole is reduced to Russian or Polish "go to the ass". Do you think this is cultural speaking? Of course not, but people use it. This is, well,
self-expression, so to say -- read Eilenspiegel, he liked to do this, to leave his excrements anywhere, on a bed, in a bible, etc.)
And about this, that some intellectuals chiefly only parade with something indecent, but catching the eye of people, I can cite as example, say, the so called art consisting in painting over a ... naked women body, on the breasts, bottom, everywhere. I don't say that this is easy, here some talent is necessary, but this is a sh., if you'll excuse me, this is not serious. And not only this, you take our first democratic actions consisting in the legalization of prostitution -- Lenin in his first decree solves the question with the land for the poor peasants, and our democrats have in the very beginning legalized the most amoral behaviour according
all religions -- these are side effects, they can have their place in one tolerant society, yet not in conditions of an absolute boycott of the whole West against the young Soviet state, what obviously threatened the very existence of this state, here are needed activities for saving of life, so to say, not showing of naked bottoms (not that I know about what it went in this letter of Lenin, but most probably this was something in style of the popular Russian humorous "chastushki" -- without rhyme here -- saying: "by the home of my mother in low I never go quietly, or shove my prick in the window, or then show my bare bottom"). Such non-serious art may have place only in conditions of (decaying) democracy, like this in which we now live (and in which I alone can allow myself to write humorous limericks, and other pretty vulgar verses, yet even this after having written a heap of serious materials).
So, but I think that I have one significantly good reason for assessment of Lenin's intellect, and this is again related with the languages. I mean simply that he has known 3-4 European languages, and not by the textbook, because he has been in London, in Berlin, in Paris, and somewhere else. Now, see, I explained this also in another place, but if in short then the very languages are considered even from Ancient Greece as logical actions (not that this is exactly so, but if one speaks educatedly then this, probably, is so), and in the brain are formed language spots (in plural if one knows several languages). I am not quite sure that they are really spots, i.e. that they are localized in the space, but when they are several they begin to
correspond between them! They do this because everything one studies he studies in some language, and when he must later express this in another language he must think, must build
frames, like is said, and this is very hard work for the neural endings. This is, first of all, making of links between one brain area and some other, between different words, but every word is described by its own frames, tables, lists, relations with other words, it is not just written somewhere, for this are necessary thousands and thousands of intersections of neurons.
The very thinking has complicated biochemical basis, it consists in exchange of ... ions, say, one ion says to the other in one synapse: hey, give me some calcium ions, and I will give you for this ... import pantyhose, if I allow myself to use the jargon from totalitarian times in Russia. But the important thing is that the neurons are interested in this exchange, and in this way through them pass impulses, and if intersect only 100 neurons with other 100 of their brethren, then this makes already 10,000 joints. So that this is, for one thing, necessary activity for the brain, but for another thing also further thinking, improving,
additional processing of information, producing of
new knowledge, and this is all the time when you translate something in your head, incessantly! I will give you an example, because I have been doing linguistic researches for more than 10 years, maybe whole 20, and I have learned something during the time. Let us take Slavonic word "sreda", which means in English (but not only) two different things, to which one can come only trying to translate it, these are core or middle,
and the environment, so that here are hidden, in fact, two frames, two notions, and this is old Eastern (if you ask me) inheritance.
Did you get it, this is strongest
dialectics, this is dualism, this comes from the Sanskrit, I explain this in more details elsewhere (if not anywhere else then in my
Urrh surely). Or take the relations of usual sexual intercourse with various semi-decent words used in various languages (like your screw, or Russian "trahat", or
scopare in Italian). All these are new and interesting ideas, and in every language there are its own idioms, they may look a bit similar, but they also differ strongly, so that learning a new language one acquires a new psychology, tries to find compromise solutions, because he sees that all nations are in their way right, and this unquestionably makes the person wiser. Until one can not get rid of his own mother language and rise above it, see the things also through the eyes of other nations, he can not become wise enough, believe me. I know this by my own experience, because I use already 4 foreign languages, beside my Bulgarian, I don't read for long time books in Bulgarian, this is boring for me, so that we with Mr. Lenin are colleagues in some sense, we understand one another from a half-word, or sometimes even without words. Yeah, but I have come to this knowledge when I am approaching 70, where he was such already in his 20-s, at most 30-s, that's how it is.
And, generally, if Lenin could have lived for another 20 years, or at least 10, then positively everything would have been better, he probably would have found way also for better centering of the communism, i.e. for its nearing to the capitalism, and for more suitable exploitation (because this, with what the capitalism turned out to be better than the socialism or communism, this is first of all the better exploitation under the capitalism, this is obvious for me), and maybe would have succeeded to better also the form of communes, were this in the villages or in the cities, but all these are question to which I will come to the end of the material. So that I move to the next point.
3. About Stalin
Well, here I will not absolve him especially, yet will give some extenuating circumstances. I will begin with his pseudonym, this that he is a steely man (because some Dzhugashvili is not very nice name for making of career in Russia, and is also long, and says nothing to the people). So that he has come to the steel, yet here is important when this has happened, somewhere in the years of Second world war or a bit earlier. And how I have read in one book he has begun to sign with this pseudonym somewhere around the 1920th, when till the Supreme Commander was very very long, it was not at all clear could this have been expected or this were only dreams. Id est, the man has lived under the sign of this name, he has eagerly wished this (like myself, who has chosen my pseudonym approximately in 1995, but then I have neither thought nor dreamed, that will become the greatest -- for this is so, right? --
demo-critical realist of the 20th and 21st century). This is very important, I think, he has alone made himself such, which he wanted to become.
And which he wanted, ah? But of course greater communist than the very Lenin, the greatest possible communist, to the marrow of his bones (and to the fingertips, and to the end of the hairs, etc.). This is his essence, gentlemen, he is not villain and not tyrant, he is just the true communist, and for this reason he has discredited so heavy the system, the system of communism, and nowadays people in the West under communism understand Stalinism, because this suits them, what is so and also isn't so. As blind following of the ideas this is so, but from the standpoint of a normal man this is distortion, perversion of the communism, I would have said
barbarization of the communism! Do you like this expression? But have in mind that I know something about the barbarism, for I am intelligent enough to have a sight in such things, and am also Bulgarian, so that I have to know in what the Bulgarian spirit itself expresses. And we very quickly succeeded to discredit the democracy and the contemporary capitalism, which is bad, surely, I curse it, it can be and must be better, yet it is nowhere else so bad like in my poor Bulgaria, ergo without our guilt there is no go, we can't hide only behind objective circumstances (that we are poor country, without enough democratic experience, and so on, as well also that the communists have stolen everything, over what they could have put their hands, and have exported it in foreign countries, what now it quite away from the truth), because exactly in the poorest country from half-milliard people in the united Europe we have built the most
right-wing capitalism, so about the times before the First world war.
And when I have already digressed to the Bulgarians and the barbarism, I can briefly define what is a barbarian: this is a person who lives alone by himself, does not take the other people in consideration, neither in the space (i.e. around him), nor in the time (i.e. with the past and future generations), and in the same time the less he know the more he thinks that knows everything. The barbarians can have ideas and convictions, but they draw them out of themselves only, and they are as extreme as possible. Roughly in this way has acted with the communism the comrade Stalin, who stuck to the letter, because this allowed him to differ from the others, but not to some idealized communism, to what I am going, and which stayed put at least in the head of Lenin (for he introduced after all the NEP, and this is exactly rejection of the communist ideas and returning to the capitalism and private property). In the same time Stalin has pursued unswervingly his extremal ideas about the communism, where everyone has to think
only about the others, and in no case about him- or her- self. The extremal solutions are synonymous with stupidity, in my opinion, yet here the point is not only in restricted intellect, I don't intend to state that Stalin was uneducated, no, he was simply a
fanatic, and a person who places himself between the others can't be fanatic, he will unavoidably become realist and moderate, because all people are weak or sinful.
But, gentlemen, on the other side -- it is only the surface of Möbius that has one only side (yet it is obtained with the use of trick, it is not quite real) -- Stalin to some extent also
helped the communism, preserved it, maybe with quite violent measures, yet he has acted properly in the atmosphere of disorders and aggressive plans of Western states! He has become that "stone", about which is spoken in Slavonic proverb that "the scythe has run on a stone", he has not only defeated the fascism, but has also developed the economy of backward Russia, because this country was obviously much behind in comparison with the countries of Western Europe. I don't know, maybe to some of you the following statement will seem quite tendentious, but I can at least express it, and if somebody wants he can dispute and deny it. It is the following:
without Stalin would have been no ... Gagarin! How's this, ah? Look at this Myrski, will some of you say, but I find it pretty plausible and if it can't be proved, we can at least judge unprejudiced at it. Because now the very Americans use the Russian space station
Mir, also Russian space rockets, in spite of the fact that they are communist, ah? And then, when now also the Russians have atomic weapons then maybe for this reason the Americans (as well the Frenchmen, and others) don't throw more atom bombs, because they are very fond of this!
As you see everything is mutually tied, there is no bad without good, as well other way round. I don't say that the Stalinism can be repeated, or that it is a glorious page in the history of communism, but when it has happened, then it was, in some extent, necessary and unavoidable, i.e. it would not have happened if the West did not wanted to fight, if there were not these World wars, if people from all the world had begun to
help the Russian state, at least for the fact that there the people live (i.e. lived) bad, in the name of better future of humankind -- and if somebody of you will begin to deny that thanks to the communist experiment the capitalism all over the world (with the exception of, maybe, only the gone astray Bulgaria) today is significantly better than that capitalism from the times of Eiffel Tower and Ford's conveyor etc., then I simply will pay no attention to him, because he is either an insane person, or another fanatic of his idea. The Stalinism nowadays is unquestionably wrong, but in the times of Stalin -- God (or devil) knows this.
The conclusion, how to avoid such situations, people have made long ago, this is the existence of the rule for two mandates, yet here also can be argued, and there can be exceptions (say, in conditions of wars). And then this rule exists only for Presidents, but not for all political figures, and, after all, it can always be somehow got around it. People, don't forget the statement of Machiavelli in his "Prince" or "King" that the big statesman, especially Emperor or Pharaoh (or Generalissimus) must stay in power as
longer as possible, in order that people become used to him and obeyed seeking no faults with him. Here one can do nothing, such is the the psyche of people, and of animals, that if they are in conditions to change something they also try to do this, no matter is this necessary or not, they just can't stay idly without work, not that they are always bad, this is simply a thirst for activity. The democracy applies one quite
original method, it asks about things about which it is better not to ask, in order that later people felt themselves somehow bound by the obligation to obey, but they all the same want to change the rulers as often as they can, and this really happens not infrequently.
But in the same time people alone want somehow to support the strong fist, that will not allow them not to obey. If somebody of my readers thinks that here Myrski contradicts himself let him or her forget about this (for the simple reason that Myrski
can't contradict himself, or then
must contradict himself -- such is the dialectics, gentlemen), because you all have heard about some "Presidential" families, like Gandhi in India, or Kennedy, or even Bush (if I am not wrong) in USA, and others, and on the love to the strong fist is based all right-wing parties (as also the left-wing). In addition to this the Russians have shortly proved -- you know, this is a country of records, to some extend, of revolutionary ideas -- that the rule of two mandates can be bypassed easily if you have a trusted subordinate who formally (or not entirely) will substitute you for one mandate, and then everything from the beginning.
And generally, about the rules and the exceptions, I will give you now this maxim: every stable system of rules has to contain at least one rule that allows to
change the rules of the system! That's it, in Myrski's manner. Id est, the restriction to occupy responsible state posts must exist, but it must allow exceptions (like Napoleon in his time succeeded to go round the rule, that the Supreme consul, or how he was called, must not be younger than 40 years). And then, gentlemen, you imagine what is it like to be Generalisimuss, ah? For I personally can't imagine this exactly, this is something like the dear God, or the Roman Pope, or Pharaoh (guiding ... light or lantern, if you ask me, because a headlight in Slavonic is '
far' what is Latin, Greek, and older), or Emperor, he is not like the other people, not a mere mortal. And then even gods can make sometimes errors, or at least nobody has proved the opposite.
And now let us judge a little about the punishments of Stalin, about the GULAG, the terror in which lived people in those times. That it was hard this is obvious, yet the times also were hard, the conditions were extraordinary, or at least it was so from the point of view of infallible Stalin, but now I will raise the statement that the
victims themselves are also to be blamed (that they have happened to be between the suffering ones)! Why I think so? Well, for one ting because the official acknowledging of something does
not make it true! This is simply a proof for the obedience of the person, what usually is the important thing (in order that people did not contradict and did not interfere with the movement of the state's cart). This is not Jesuitry, this is an obvious fact. Take for example the case with some old scientist Galileo, and some young guy Giordano, it was Galileo who discovered that circles after all the Earth around the Sun and not vice versa, how was written in the Holy Scripture, yet he, wise with the experience of his years, decided that there is nothing difficult for him to deny this statement, when the interests of Church require this, while the stubborn (like all young men) Giordano simply was burned at the stake. So it is. And do you think that, when Galileo has renounced his statement, the Earth has stopped to move around the Sun, ah? But Giordano simply wanted to show how unshakable he is, wanted to become a martyr, and he succeeded, of course, nobody hindered him in this, least of all the uneducated people's masses, for the sake of which he struggled.
With what I want to say, that the heroism, when it leads to something, is one thing, but the unnecessaru bragging and defending of even obvious ideas, though against the officially accepted in the moment dogma, is quite another thing, these are useless efforts, the posterity can remember their names, yet at least in the moment of their deed they will change nothing. And then comes the next moment, namely, that exist truth and
truth, i.e. that there is a hierarchy of truths, and some truths can be more important than others, and, in the end, everything is relative, we will never reach the absolute truth. And more important can turn to be more general truths, like, say, the obedience of the masses. Because the most important question in the social management (according to Myrski) is the question how to make those, who do not understand the necessity of implementing of some reasonable for all in the moment behavior, to obey, and this can be done only in two ways, like I have said in the beginning, with compulsion, or with delusion. And in the name of
necessary delusion one (intelligent) person can sometimes renounce his beliefs and some specific truth.
Add to this also the fact that those, who were caught in GULAG, were chiefly communists, or intellectuals, not common workers, so that in this sense Stalin has done this, what also any other form of barbarism does, hindered its
own people, weakened the very communism (in his eager desire to strengthen it -- the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, right?). This is a sad story, but if the people have had more sense then the sufferings would have been less. And then, Heavens, don't forget that at the end this man was simply sick, and there was also that spy Beria, to whom he trusted, and as it often happens, one suffers more precisely from his friends, while from the enemies he defends himself somehow. So that I, as far as possible, has "whitened" also Stalin, his mustaches, nails, and everything else. What I am doing because I also am inclined to compromises (in my old years) and because have heard the sentence, to which I fully subscribe, namely: that
an intelligent person accepts every ruling (for it helps to avoid the chaos), while the common and uneducated one opposes to any (even the best) ruling.
Well, as if it is enough to discuss this "martyr" of communism, and is time to move to the next point.
4. About The Communism
To tell you the truth, my dear (being not many, right?) readers, I have not thought first to include this point, because this as if is clear to everybody (what is this communism, and how it is to be "eaten", like the Russians like to say sometimes), but maybe this is not so clear, maybe people confuse the desirable with the real, or approach formally the question, do not understand what is more important, so that I decided to give you also my viewpoint at that phenomenon. Here will be the following subpoints:
a) Alpha and Omega
The communism, gentlemen, this is the alpha and omega of all human desires, from deep antiquity and to current days! This is to what people have aspired in the primitive societies, and at what aims each religion, this is the paradise on Earth, not more and not less! Because, judge for yourselves, with what it is characterized? Well, with this, that to everybody was given according to his needs, isn't it? And that to be taken must be according to his abilities then this is simply justified. And it was (or will be) so also in the paradise, if one gives credence to whatever religion. For example, one feels desire to put something in his guts, then he only stretches his hand at the nearest fruit tree (excluded the forbidden one), tears a fruit, and gulps it, I mean chews until is sated, right? Or he is caught by thirst, then he drinks water from the nearest brook and the thing is done. Or he must dress himself a bit -- takes a vine leaf, of from a palm tree, as well also a maple one, what is at hand, and covers with it what must be covered, or then manufactures a plaid or whatever. Or wishes to do some copulation for a while (if God allows, what He could have allowed, had not Adam and Eve begun so shamelessly to practice the entire Kama Sutra before His indignant eyes), then he lies down somewhere and begins quietly to test all the organs, because there could have happened some defect somewhere. And things similar to this.
And now it is not so, even in the (filthy) rich America one must think at least not to forget the bank card, because without it in no super will give him anything for eating or drinking, and with the clothes and the housing is much worse, and with the healthcare not all is set as it must be, and with the education, and with the communication with the others is not so (if you are not like the others around you are everywhere shunned, and the girls do not agree), and so on. And however much the human society will not develop after the post-industrial, the people will always want to satisfy their basic needs, which (and this according Western criteria) are the following: food, roof, continuation of the gender (i.e. common sex -- without sado /mazo). After this comes the career making, wish to move forward, and on the fifth and last place stays the wish (if one succeeds to come to it, and if knows how) for enhancement and improvement of himself (say, to ... move the ears -- surely far away from all can do this --, or dance boogie-woogie, or draw pictures, sing, learn foreign languages, solve mathematical tasks, and so on). The only thing that one does not necessarily want, but what he needs, if you ask the psychologists (or Myrski, he knows everything), is that he encounters
difficulties on his way, yet such that he can surmount; to what can be added, maybe, also the usual luck (say, not to happen to come in the way of a falling from the roof tile).
In this sense it is simply impossible to run away from the communism, whatever society only existed it can be united with the ideas of communism. Say, primitive-communal, or religious, or monarchical, and in the days of Pharaohs or serfdom people have wanted to eat and drink enough, and have at some extent the other elements of communism, which follow.
b) Ownership
The question with ownership is the main question in each society, and it is still not resolved properly, and to all appearance nobody intends to solve it. Here is useful to come from time to time to parallels with the life in paradise or between animals, because there was no private ownership in the paradise, and also between the animals such things do not exist, with the exception of obviously necessary, i.e. the place of habitation, housing. In the contrast with this between the humans it existed, and is
justified, I don't say that it is not. Take for example even the old religious requirements that only the firstborn son becomes owner of everything, not the second or third, and not a daughter. The ownership is justified because, how the Serbs say, in someone else's hand only the ... penis grows, it is so, and one cares more about it than if it belongs to someone else, of if this is something that grows in the woods. On the other hand, though, the property is given just so, for there was someone, who will own it, but not at all to those, who will care more about it and will multiply it, or at least keep it in good condition. That when one is born it is not clear what kind of person he (or she) will become, this is obvious, yet he develops himself, often is seen who is more capable, but no, the money has its own laws and it accumulate in heaps, sticks to another money, and if the sums are insignificant then one simply never will succeed to become wealthy.
So that the question is complicated, but it is in no way insoluble, I think, we simply have not the habit to think reasonable, we want to outsmart the others. And as result of this with the ownership or property happens so like with the right of the stronger, it is taken that the stronger is right, what far away from always is so, and the money remains by that one who has had it, has inherited it, do not go to that, who will make a better use of it. Here exist some self-adjusting mechanism -- I don't see everything in black, I try to think -- and usually it happens so that, when one has not money he wants to have it, but when he has so much that, as the Russians say, even chicken don't peck at it, then he tries somehow to distribute it, to do good with it, but just to take the money and begin to give it on the left and on the right, with this will be helped nobody, because people, as I have said, want to have some surmountable difficulties, and this, what is given for nothing, is not valued much (like in one old anecdote about some Georgian in Russia, who has brought home an easy-going girl and she quickly undressed and jumped in the bed, but then he said: stay up, dress yourself, and resist me!). Due to this some nations have the clever saying, that the firms exist mainly 3 generations, where the first creates them, the second expands them, and the third begins to squander them. I have my meaning in this regard and will express it shortly in the next point about the future of the communism.
c) Communes
Here also not everything is as it has to be, but I will first mention that communes exist from ancient times, have existed in all religions, and whenever some time passes they appear again. Because all sciences and education -- I think nobody will begin to deny this -- have begun to develop in communes, to monasteries (or in the so called
madrasah to Turkish mosques), where the proof for this is again etymological, the word Dean (of an Institute) and Dean /Deacon (in a church), also in other languages. Then also the caring about people's health, as you know, have begun to apply first under the aegis of churches (the Red Cross, or Crescent), and shelters for homeless children were firstly built to monasteries, and so on (the majority of social activities are taken by the churches, because else there is nobody who will occupy with this). What is so due to the fact that the communes help people when they are weak, obviously, only when they begin to feel themselves stronger, get rich, only then they start kicking and don't want to enter into communes, what is a thing remarked already by Platon before some 25 centuries.
So that I can with clear conscience state that bad are not the communes by themselves, but the
bad communes! And what means good or bad? Well, such that correspond to the productive forces, would have said the communists, what I find a bit hazily and would have said: such that allow
better exploitation, such exploitation which people like! Because that is how it is, it exists such exploitation which is well rewarded and one alone aspires to it -- say in the sex, where every woman wants that was "worked" by a man, that her sexual organs were exploited, and she in her turn does the same with the man, sucks all his strength out of him, and he likes this. I have come long ago to this conclusion, and for this reason I do not reject the exploitation, this word is not as bad as it seems, and then, to say that: society begins to exist with the appearance of dividing of the labour and creation of conditions for exploitation, and by the communism it at once will disappear, is the same as to say that the communism is an idealized society, which do not exist in the nature.
Well, to the better exploitation I will come shortly, but the communes are done not only for this purpose, they tie the people together, and the human is herd animal, he can't exist in isolation. Then they care about the weak, so that it is quite natural that they will require from the members of communes to do something for the very communes. So that, as you see, people both, don't want the communes, yet also want them, everything depends on the kind of communes and on the moment. Then do not forget also the following important fact, some groups of people must always exist, but we have today neither big tribal communities, nor closed rural life, where people help themselves with what they can, nor even countries, nationalities, everything becomes multinational (say, everywhere is full of Chinese and Arabs, not counting the Hebrews, or Gypsies, etc.), and for about half a century there are already
no families, they have nearly disappeared (I don't know how it is in other countries, most probably the same, but in Bulgaria, according to the census for 2010, 55%, i.e. more than the half of live born children are out of wedlock!). This is the reason why the alienation of people is increasing more and this leads to various disorders, to losing of meaning of life, to drug addiction, and so on. Something has to take place of the families and /or communes, yet I will dwell on this in the next point.
d) Relations with the society
Here I mean the relation of communism with the other social structures, because to take that all will be convinced communists is simply unrealistic, this can exist only for some time when everything is seething and life has not yet adapted to the new situation. In this regard the communism, and especially the Stalinism, had not the right approach, and because of this has happened this, what has happened in 1989th and 90th, but, on the other hand, maybe it must have happened so, because the common people are ungrateful and silly, alas. I mean that, of course, it would have been better if we have found some compromise solution, so that there were different forms of property, both paid and free education and healthcare, etc., but in all appearance this is very difficult to manage, and how shows the experience of long-suffering Bulgaria, if people have the right to choose they choose exactly this, what is not for them, they are really like silly children. But well, when we have returned to the mainstream of capitalism, then we must think what can be done under this conditions, to what I will come quite soon, but here I thought chiefly about the correlation of communism with the Church, with people's traditions, with the monarchy, with small business, and so on, which was not quite tolerant, not to say more.
Yet, see, all depends on the nation and the developed in it conditions and traditions. For example, I want to explain why only the Frenchmen have begun to kill their aristocrats and feel proud before the entire world with their guillotine, while in other countries the people were nor so acerbated. I have quite recently come to this conclusion when reading again one children book about the Middle Ages, where everything, in order not to digress much, has begun from the history with their ... Joan of Arc, who has saved France from the raids of neighboring England, has really begun together with her knight's army to beat the Englishmen, and had never thought to seize the power of the king, but the aristocracy has literally betrayed her and given in the hands of the enemy, have closed the gates of the fortress, when she has gone out to fight with the foe, and then did not let her back! Such doings the people do not forgive many centuries.
Well, to the aristocracy sometimes must be added also the Church, which has had different attitude to the revolution, and because of this in Bulgaria and Russia the attitude towards the Church on the part of the communists was different, in Russia the communist terror was far away stronger than in Bulgaria. And in Italy, for example, exists even now the party of communist catholics, or vice versa, and in Bulgaria was not long ago Government of directly
incredible triple coalition of: the socialists (or former communists), the Kind's party NMSS (or NDSV in Bulgarian), and the ethnic party of Turkish minority (called enigmatically MRF) -- and nothing, they have ruled not worse than the others, even better in some aspects. The most important for one stable, established society is the tolerance to all groups of people, that differs in something from the massively accepted (like, say, to homosexuals), otherwise such society will not last long. And, generally, the ability to make compromises, to find moderate solutions, is the basis of any skillful governing. So, and now let us move to the future (of communism).
5. About the Future
Well, this topic also is as if not related with the Revolution, but as far as it proposes revision and development of communist ideas in a new light, then it is proper here, and also principal according to the author. Why? So because I have a heap of propositions, they are put in other of my materials, yet the world evolves, something is changed, and I alone have also not thought through some details, and nobody reads me entirely, so that some repetition, or rather accenting om more important moments, is even very necessary, methinks. Here the sub-points are motivated by the sub-divisions of the previous point.
a) Exploitational minimum
My dear readers, the money fulfils two functions, it is necessary for satisfying of personal necessities, and for organization of some productivity, what is related with exploitation of workers, and however difficult it were to draw a clear boundary line between these two functions, some boundary must exist. I have decided that a sum of
1000 MMS (minimal monthly salaries), and measured exactly in this way, so that it was not necessary all the time to change it and adapt to the conditions in every country, is quite sufficient both, to provide any person with all necessary even for his entire life, and also for organization of some business, and is one round number, too (although it can be adjusted, maybe). This means that, for example, in one Bulgaria, where in 2017 the average MMS in month is 200 euro, this sum will be 200,000 euro, what is quite sufficient for beginning of some business, even the half or one quarter of this sum is enough, and in the same time, if there are 12 months in an year, then this gives 80 years by one MMS each month, on what one can quietly live even without any other income; in one USA, however, where for round calculations we can take that MMS equals 2,000 euro (or US$, how you like), this will give now 2,000,000 euro.
Of course one can win giving for rent one room of his one-bedroom (what we call two-rooms) apartment and this will be some kind of business, but can also have three apartments (say, in New York, Paris, and Istanbul), and a pair of country houses (in Switzerland and the Canary Islands), also 3-4 cars, yacht, own little airplane, etc., and use all this only for himself, where the second will be at least 100 times more expensive than the first, but we will use 1000 MMS as 1
EM (exploitational minimum), because this is convenient, and will take that both, the first and the second, are exceptions, and an average person will own on the average 0.1 - 0.3 EM. It is really so, and in normal conditions nobody will begin to do business not having in his disposition at least a hundred MMS. But this EM has special importance by ...
inheriting of money or property, when will be applied a
drastical tax, that will reduce the sum so that, how I propose, from 10 EM for the person will remain only 2 EM, and this by exponent, where 1 EM remains on its place and everything less than this also!
You see, this is absolutely justified, for many reasons. On one hand there is taken nothing from anybody during his life, and everybody can pass any property to somebody of his (or her) close relatives even when he jumps over 50, and especially when reaches 70 years, under condition that they will allow him to manage this money while he is alive (if they will not "forget" about this). Id est, everybody can accumulate as much as he wants, become a real big capitalist, yet if he can, and he alone, but not his sons or daughters or wife or mother-in-law or whoever else, they will be forced to be satisfied with
only 1 EM. On the other hand the most unjustified circumstance, which obviously violates the equality of people, this is inheritance of big property, this is what makes ones to be princes and others beggars, and absolutely
not in relation with their own abilities. This is what makes people resent, not this, that somebody has had luck in his life or business, if he alone has reached this people take it like God's justice, what is really so, but enormous difference between individuals only as result of some lottery of genes is now absolutely unmotivated, such things in the world of animals do not happen, there everybody is responsible for himself and everybody reaches everything alone. Id est, I have come to the conclusion that the root of evil is not in the capital as such, but in the inheriting, and I propose measures for avoiding of this.
Then, on some other hand, from this may suffer only very big companies, the small and middle-sized will pass in the old way from one hands into another, and there is the real competition, there the capitals live, where the big enterprises (where work hundred and more workers), in one extent or another, must be, if not directly state owned, then municipal, or ownership of some group of people (some commune, to what I am coming), or at least must stay in the spotlight of attention of the state (because their destiny affects many people -- they are in some way like the banks, which are independent, but not entirely, there exists some state's control, security of the deposits of citizens, and this is a thing which no one calls communism, though it is exactly so). And at the end, if you believe in what I have said about the three generations in life of every company, then this measure will even
help the company, causing some forced diminishing of its size, will lead to its dividing in several smaller and more manageable companies.
For more details seek my specific material, but also think the ideas through alone, yet the most important is that this is idea which will allow to put as
more as possible
communism in the capitalism, and this is my primary desire, this is very important compromise.
b) Minimal Income for Everybody
This also is an idea about communization of capitalism, and my contribution is only in some fixing of the minimal sum and in the way for paying it to everybody. Here the calculations are also in MMS, and I think that the normal minimal
pension or allowance, advance for everybody during his
whole life, beginning even with the very birth, but at first let it be after 12 or 14 or 16 years, this is
1/3 MMS, in the worst case (in such miserable countries like my Bulgaria) 1/4 MMS. This does not cancel all other paid sums to some citizens, like pensions, stipends, sickness benefits, allowances for birth and rearing of children, etc., but simply stands like cap, on top of all other allowances, and because of this is put under aegis of the state, and is done via some bank, which I have christened BUM-bank! You take that this is some advanced sum that is paid in the beginning of each month and to
everybody, I repeat. Then, when the month expires, is done a recapitulation of the received sums and this advance is subtracted from the received sums, if this can be made, and if it can't be, then, like the Russian proverb says, "there is no punishment for no".
Now, look here, these sums are not so big as it seems at first sight and they concern normally about 10 percent of people, at most 20 in such outsider, in the sense of poverty, countries like Bulgaria and Bangladesh (and maybe also Bimbinistan, ah?). Very poor people, with
personal income (respectively recalculated when there are dependent persons, like children etc.) below 1/3 (especially below 1/4) MMS must not exist in whatever state, yet usually there are some 10 percents. If we add also all children, from the very moment of birth, then this percent, obviously, will increase, but this can be left for a later stage, and there also something is subtracted, because there are children allowances, and the society can reorganize itself in a different way, when the children also will have income. Besides, more than the half of the people, in any event, receive something from the state, really, so that the bigger part of the people has already went in this direction. Well, judge alone: the pensioners are 1/4 (at least in Bulgaria they are so much), children must not be less (although at the moment far away from all of them receive a stipend), then come the ailing people, leaving work during the rearing of little children, allowances for unemployed, maybe something more (because there really are necessary less and less people, you look around, there are heap of professions just in order to find work for the people), and the number of employed people is usually about the half of the whole. So that it has left not much, why not to introduce one common rule?
See, this is necessary if we liken the communism with the paradise, where everybody can pick the necessary fruit and eat it, and when this is needed then it must be done. But this will also facilitate the monitoring of property status of the whole population (when something is given then there will be also a better control about this to whom is given and why, and must not this be transferred to some other fund), and the collecting of money by the tax authorities, too (because the paying of money to all citizens must be done initially via this BUM-bank, by an unique personal number, as if now called everywhere PIN-code); this bank, after paying out the money, will search from what fund to restore the paid, when possible. And then this is a new, communist right on minimal allowance for all citizens, it is fully motivated by the contemporary state of economy in the entire world, and will be even easier to be performed in the wealthy capitalist countries, but must be in the beginning experimented exactly in the poor and in limited amount, say in one town of the order of 50-100 thousand citizens. The important thing is that this task is completely in the capacity of contemporary computing systems and according with the abilities for global organization, which were not present even half a century before.
c) Communes or Patrons
The communes have to be organized on professional principle, I suppose, like a kind of guilds, yet not excluding any other variant. I decided to call them
Patrons, because the people as if are fed enough by the word commune, and this is the idea of the patron as defender of the person, so that such has to be the purpose of these Patrons, to defend old people, to accept and educate new members, and take the place of the obsolete now families, i.e. to become
voluntarily chosen families! I think that you already feel that this idea is worth a Nobel prize, but I can accept it only under some conditions (I will give below one of them). Here by me everything is still quite raw, but I am not a lawyer, I can not very precise formulate the requirements, yet there is no need to fix them pretty exactly. The important thing is that one must easily enter in such Patron, even be member of two or three, but be more difficult to exit out of them; otherwise said one must by entering take some obligations to pay part of his income, but by exiting he will receive, and probably not personally, but to be transferred in another Patron, a sum proportional to the people in the Patron with their ranks, something like this. Id est it may happen that he will pay more and receive less than paid, like also vice versa. And then, after his death, his part in the Patron will remain for the other members, this will be the inheritance!
More concrete I imagine this so: an young person (a girl, too) to the age of receiving of his passport, or however later, of course (this is not obligation), must choose some Patron that will become his second (if not first, who knows how people will come to this world after a pair of centuries) family, submit the necessary documents, and after (the most probable) approval begin to live either on the territory of this family or on his own, and work or be educated either in the framework of the family or not, but pay part of his income, say 10%, as a kind of payments for his insurance. I mean that, in the same manner how one pays taxes to the state and it carries some responsibility for him, in the same way he can pay also to some more concrete organization. He can even ensure himself in two families, yet this will be done usually in adulthood, when one will begin to think chiefly about the others and what to leave them, not about himself.
If we take that the contributions will be of 10% (although there can be small differences), then paying these percents he will receive full insurance, quite similar to the pensioner, proportionally with the years in this Patron, and if less, then proportionally less. But can be, and it is right that there were, some scores or ranks of membership, depending on the position in the Patron (say, in the management, or in training and patronizing of the young, or in another field, or even in no position of this Patron). In recompense of this he will pay reduced prices using the services of his Patron, also in relation with the years of membership or of his rank. Id est nothing revolutionary, how it is often done also today in a number of cases (one big part of the decent big companies offer to their workers something more on the top of their salaries, and not only how much coffee they want, or cheaper lunch, but also a company car if necessary, semi-paid vacation in some resort, et cetera, these are the so called perks benefits).
This is a very important thing for the life of everybody, gentlemen, because every collectively owned property comes
cheaper than the one's own, and is used more fully (it is not thrown to the garbage materialized human labour); this that the contemporary consumer society takes for justified that each one has to have his own things, no matter how thorough he uses them (living quarter, car, but be it also a washing machine or coffee maker), is dictated ultimately from the increased
exploitation, of course, in order that one earns more and consumes more. But the point is not only in the prise, when people live together this is more interesting. And if everyone will choose alone his Patron-commune or -family then he will like it, or if will not, then will leave it and move to another one, as well to the central, of the municipality, state, country. In addition to this the proposed measures will make life of everyone more quiet and ensured, because there are many things, which are profitable only for the bigger owner, they have a
critical mass, and below it they are non-rentable.
For example, what kind of money to keep and where to keep them? As if in the banks, but even there if you have small sums they look at you awry, and for a bank sums less than even hundreds of EMs are still small. I will give you again one etymological proof, the term "real property" used for the unmovable property means exactly that the other property is not real, it is just so, toys for children. And you see that it often happens so, either goes a knocking-down inflation, when the central interest rate becomes 500 and more percents, or comes such stagnation, which has not existed not only under the communism but also under the current right-wing capitalism, when in 2017 in many banks the interest rates are a bit negative and if you want to keep your money there you have to pay percents, not to receive (I personally am a witness of changing of the interest rates from 700 to 0.3, and they continue to fall down). And for whom and to what purpose to keep money, when there are no more families today, and nobody has taken his savings to the other world, they always remain here. But the communes are another thing, there some people work and support the others, and the others can help with something, can produce things between themselves, the money is not so necessary for them. However one looks at the communes, I can't see anything better than well organized communes, that will not hinder their members to express themselves, but will chiefly help them, because all, what such people will earn, will remain for the very communes.
So, and the condition which I will put, if people will want to give me a Nobel (or some other) prize for my brilliant invention of voluntary chosen families (or for some other of my numerous proposals), this is to erect a monument to me -- during my lifetime, or course, after this I will not see it, and what if they will deceive me? -- on the square before the General Assembly of UN, as well also by a monument in all countries of this community, with the following composition: I, the brilliant Myrski, sit at my desk and write something with a goose feather (by tradition, in this way will be clear what I am doing), to my right stays Mr Lenin, who has put patronizingly his hand on my shoulder (as sign of approval and participation), and to my left peeps into my papers the very Miss Democracy, who can be recognized by her divine breasts and obliquely put ribbon where is written "Democra..." (it is not necessary to show the whole text). Yeah, but I have inclined my head so, that have put my right ear close to the brilliant mouth of Lenin, an in the same time with my left hand, and not looking at the semi-goddess, I show her ... the sign of fig (or
figue, fic, fico, depending on the language; and my left fist can be a little zoomed to be better seen).
d) Communist Morality
Gentlemen, this is also very important, this gives the face of the communism (even for non-communists, like myself, because I have never showed any desire to become such, when this was place chiefly for careerists, but now, when have seen that the democracy carried far beyond the worst careerists from the past, have begun to spit at it, from my awakening in the morning, during the whole day, and in the night falling asleep). The communism in this idealized form like I describe it, not like reality with all its minuses, but like (divine) idea -- the ideas are always divine, they come from the
deo /theos -- this is first of all this, to what one aspires and will always aspire, this is only the good, here is nothing bad. Because of this people of the future must try always to be good, while, for example, to work for money this, surely, debases the person, this is a shame, and as result of this all want, along with the things that they buy, make also presents to their friends and acquaintances, regale them, live like colleagues, isn't it? Or also to try to deceive everybody selling him something, while every commerce is in its core a swindle, in order to by from you not from some other person of shop (which, in conditions of saturated market, offer the same thing, he /she /it can't offer something else). Or to pay crazy money for the most necessary things, like health, education, basic foodstuffs, and so on (and the money, surely, can be crazy, when somebody somewhere, like myself and in Bulgaria, receive a pension in the amount, as I have said, of 3 bus tickets daily for all expenses). In the same time under the real socialism -- I have lived 40 years in such conditions -- all prices were coherent with one another, and the ruling was directed to satisfying of the needs of population, first of all.
And then let me propose you one new name, not communism, but ... commun
ionism, from the Latin and catholic communion, because there the idea is the same, the idea of a commune of all believers! Gentlemen, let us not spit at the good ideas of communism, but try to make it better, in conditions of communism, as well also in other condition (when this is the everlasting dream of humankind). Because the ideas of communism, really, have intersection with quite different ideas, with the religion, with the monarchy, with the capitalism, and with anything; I personally want to see uniting of the communist (or socialists) with the fascists, because they are the universally recognized two poles, yet I don't exclude the possibility for such uniting, taking into account that if some movement is tolerant enough to the differences, then it should try to make any allowable compromise. Say, there are not problems for organizing of practical socialism under conditions of right-wing capitalism, this was done in the Scandinavian countries in the distant 70-ies or there around. Nowadays there are no problems to perform monitoring and reallocation of funds, with the help of modern organizational techniques, in conditions of exploitation, not eliminating it, but only softening it a little in special cases. If we look at the idea, then we can implement it in nearly every conditions, but if we stick unswervingly to the letter of the communism, then it turns out that it is only temporary social order in times of war or crisis. This is it.
6. About the Spirit of Communism
Ah, I have put you, my readers, to many tortures, with this long material, yet I am nearing the end, I will only make you laugh a bit with ideas about how looks like this notorious
spirit of communism. Because there must be raised somewhere monuments to it, it is no go without any monuments, yet not dedicated to specific individuals, who will, surely, begin after some time not to be liked by the people, for everything changes, ages, only the spirit of communism can't grow older, being this all the good that we can imagine. Well, this spirit can look different, as to who how likes it! Here can be any abstract forms, this is without saying, straight or curved lines, planes, figures, regular or deformed, every sculptor will have his own ideas, even my brain has born one little idea.
See, this is an inverted tetrahedron, on the sides there are four equilateral triangles, yet it is put not with a plane down but with a vertex, do you get it? This will be unstable, but then could be explained that this symbolizes the difficult process of reaching of dinamic equilibrium in the society, and fix it in this way, so that it will not fall down, people will somehow succeed. Yet this isn't enough for me, I want that on the top platform stays an usual pot with flower, metallic, of course, but this is not whatever flower, this is communistic flower, because it will have exactly five opened buds each of which with five petals (called from Ancient Greece
petalons because they are pente-five, as well also in form of a ... heel, which in Slavonic is 'peta /pjatka', I have explained this somewhere long ago). So that this will be five-tuple glorification of pentagonal star of the communism, think over this, gentlemen.
But nobody hinders the sculptor to show even atomic nuclei, or power transmission lines, or space satellites, or rockets, airplanes, helicopters (only not guns and cannons, please), or limousines, lathes, computers, any product of industry, even baby prams. There always will be possible to explain that this symbolizes something very important for the communism, like every ... national flag means something (no matter that it does
not mean anything, this is just a symbol, icon). Or there can be various kinds of food, tomatoes, cucumbers (at least one cucumber with two tomatoes, what forms an understandable "sculptural composition"), eggplant, pepper (be it hot or not), all sorts of fruits, and so on. Or also animals, in "fresh" form, or baked, food products, sausages, anything. Why this will symbolize the communism? Well, because this is something good, necessary for us, the food is the basis of our existence, like also the sex,
naturellement. This latter for the reason that exists the notion
hedonism, what in Greek and Latin includes
all kinds of pleasures, gustatory and carnal, and because this comes from the ancient name of
paradise like
Edem (or
Eden), and in addition to this exists the well known Slavonic word, I beg your pardon, 'eblja' in Russian or 'ebane' in Bulgarian meaning exactly copulation, what according to the great Myrski is just the same like Greek
edone (with Latin chars), due to this, that the Greek
letter delta is written in the same way like Cyrillic 'b', that's it.
And when it so, then there can be a monument to the great phallus (as symbol of communism, and why not?), only in order to communize it a bit I think that it will be better to equip it with five egg's "belongings" (if you see what I mean). And then it is proper to place around also five "homological" feminine organs, so in the spaces between the "balls", and make then in form, either of water taps, or like armchairs, or also as outlets selling soft drinks. It is possible also to make these balls elastic, so that by kicking them slightly with a foot they will throw out water splashes upward. Nice, isn't it? Or simply a naked girl standing on the left (this detail, naturally, is important) leg and having heaved the right leg under right angle and pointing to the East -- of course, on the West nothing good can appear, it can only repeat distorted ideas of the East, let us leave it to rot calmly --, who with her right hand covers with a big red star the place in question between her legs in front, and with her left hand either waves to somebody, or makes herself wind with a fan.
These monuments must be called monuments of the Spirit, or of the Communism, or of the Naked Idea, and if there will be several of them in the given town then will be additional qualifying adjectives, like: northern, or large, or old /new, or vegetable, sexy, industrial, and so on. Can exist also monuments that will release fragrances in the air, and there will smell around, say, in Monday of raspberry, in Tuesday of orange, and further in this manner, the children will like to promenade there, especially if the monuments are in public gardens, and in this way will from young age become acquainted with the communist ideals. And do not laugh, please, because it is so, if one has lived to this to be able to giggle over something own, this means that he takes it light-heartedly, without malice and discontent, and the hunting of communist "witches" is still widely spread in the world, some people are fiercely defending obsolete dogmas, while others spit at them without offering something better, just out of eager wish to contradict. We, in the whole world, have not commonly accepted morality, and the idea of non-perishing good can comprise anything.
Or also can be a monument that is
animated object, say a nice tree! And why not? The important thing is not to forget to leave around roughly so much place as for the crown also for its roots under the earth (though they can be covered with something, not to trample on the ground), This can be a slender pinus /penis, or something Japanese or Chinese, or decorative, or fruit trees, but then let this be a combination (I think this must be possible to realize) of five different trees, say: apple, pear, plum, peach, apricot. Or combination of flowers. Or some sundials, playgrounds, et cetera.
Well, you see, the spirit is spirit, the communism these are all aspirations of the mankind taken together, it can't be rejected, errors were and will be, but it is impossible to live without ideals, we must always try to lead righteous life, and reform the society, when necessary (but it is
always necessary, yet let we do this not quite often, once in a century as if is enough), seek compromise solutions, resolve the problems centralized, and leaving some place for possible corrections in the specific case, take the egoistic human nature in consideration, but also strive to diminish the amount of "human material" (as well any biological matter), don't forget that in the world everything is related, and that it is dynamical and imperfect, and if we could not succeed to resolve the problems reasonable, then we will
again solve them, yet on the cost of absolutely unnecessary victims. After what it remains for me only to pay the necessary tribute to the main initiator of the new changes exactly one century earlier in my traditional (already) style, i.e. with a short acrostic (in English, for universality).
L_et it be that all try to be happy,
E_ven when don't personally win.
N_ot success is this what matters, rapid,
I_n the end important's not to sin!
N_ew ideas are the same old epic.
Oct. 2017
ACTUAL POLITICAL DICTIONARY
Politician -- insulting nickname for a person who states that he knows all, but the only thing that he does is to "beat his breasts" always when there are people around him.
Good Politician -- there is
no objective criteria for determining of this, and for that reason is used the rule that who is the
most spat-upon is the best.
Bad Politician -- a politician who no one condemns.
Independent Politician -- a politician who
does not want to tell on whom he is dependent.
Political party -- Partial group of people with equal views about manipulation of the masses, equal
inability for logical thinking, equal short-sightedness on given matters, as well also equal goals for personal benefits.
Political tolerance -- admitting the
hypothesis that the political adversary is also human being.
Political reorientation -- political
games, aiming at total confusing of the voters, so that the latter voted for new parties but for the same persons.
Adherence to political principles -- mental illness which is expressed in defending of ideas which no normal person will defend to the end.
President -- chosen for fixed term "father" of the nation, what is necessary because the people are like naughty children and there must exist somebody to punish them and whom they must obey.
Good President -- President who outlives on the political arena the party which has proposed him.
Monarch -- lifelong "father" of the nation, and due to the lifetime
every monarch is good.
Democracy -- the sacred right of the people to express the opinions of those
politicians who have manipulated them best of all.
Balkan syndrome -- Balkan variant of the statement that power corrupts the man, namely: power acts as
purgative.
National Assembly /Parliament / "Talking Shop" (translation from Bulgarian) --tribune designed for entertainment of the people, as well also for avoiding of street collisions between differently thinking.
Representative of the Peoples-- chosen by the people politic, who has high opinion of himself, mediocre intellect, and primitive emotions.
Oppositionist -- person who is convinced that the other is wrong even
before he has heard what the other will say.
National concord --
utopian unanimity which is expressed in lack of opinion on questions for which everybody has his definite opinion.
Caretaker Government -- Government that serves to the State, in contrast with the other Governments that serve to the people and parties in it.
Constitution -- main law in countries where the common sense is missing, or is questioned.
Freedom of speech -- the right of everybody to read about the others things, which he will
not agree that they have written about him.
Journalist -- specialist in spreading of mass rumors.
Good journalist -- journalist whose rumors turn to be true.
Police -- institution for armed protection of property and social
inequality between the people.
Legal Courts -- institutions where
against payment are proved allegations, which later are taken for true.
Legality -- legalization of the innate wish of everybody to
deceive or cheat his neighbour.
Religion -- allowed (and recommended) opium for mass consumption.
Communism -- popular
religion of 20th century, gained spreading mainly in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Social justice -- advocating the idea that everybody has the right to live
below the social minimum.
Shocking therapy -- popular method for loosing weight between some more savage nations.
Educational qualification -- the reason for which the "learned"
can't receive as much money as the "unlearned".
Highlife -- chosen part of the society, which does nothing useful for it, and
because of this is taken by it for a sample.
Market economy -- changing of the economy with the market.
Merchant -- person who takes goods from people who don't need them, and money from people who have not enough of it, gaining by this from both parties.
Capitalist -- person having substituted the concerns for ensuring money for his personal needs, with the concerns for multiplying of money in which he has no need.
Wage-earner -- contemporary slave of capital.
Unemployed -- the sole free person in the contemporary society, who has paid dearly for his freedom.
Millionaire -- polite addressing by us in the near future
*.
[ * This, unfortunately, is not so now, and because of this we try the word "democrat", but this does not sound so "
milo"-dear (this is what "mil" in Bulgarian means, and here is meant that the million is something nice from the root mild, or milk, etc.). ]
Good payment -- the surest way for compensation of human
stupidity.
Private property -- everything what one, on the contrary to his intellect, can buy or sell.
1993 ?