Divine works


eng deu рус

Against anarchy:

I am against anarchism, that's the way:

Anarchists, as a rule, advocate the abolition of most state institutions.
  At the same time, many of them offer good institutions and public mechanisms - instead of state ones.

2 things are in doubt:
  1. Experimental non-verification of anarchist social mechanisms.
  2. Transition period.

It seems more correct:
  To create and not to abolish anything.

Where to create experimental Communities?:

1. In democratic countries. For example, in Greenland - the Confederation of Communities.
  2. In the Sea (Systeming).

Institutes in place of Communities:

Create not so much holistic Communities, as individual social mechanisms, institutions that perform the same functions as state ones.
  For example:
  Parallel to parliamentarism, launch the "Advisory Structure",
  In parallel to the "market" economy, launch the "Network Economy."

Analogue: Abolition of the monarchy:

Where the monarchy was abolished, social costs (Bonapartism, Stalinism) were greater than, for example, in Sweden.

Yes, there is more harm from the government than good, but from the absence of government, there will be even more harm.

I support the goals of anarchism, but against the inefficient anarchist ways of achieving them.

In the 21st century, parasites do not need to be selected, especially through violence.
  - In the "Network Economy" parasites wither themselves.

Attitude to power:

Here I am in solidarity with the anarchists. - For power - do not fight.
  Power is the command of people through coercion, under the threat of violence.
  "Consultative structure" and "Network economy" are purely voluntary.

In this respect, they are adequate to the Internet, with which they form a single whole - they do not have a "Center", hierarchy, or compulsion.
  They are only - operational tools - in real time and effectively coordinating the positions of millions of people.

Instability of democracy:

In this respect, the "Consultative Structure" and "Network Economy" develop "bourgeois" liberal democracy - further.
  - The institutions of Western democracies are unreliable, unstable.
  Examples:
  1. The establishment of fascist dictatorship in Germany - a democratic way - in the 1930s.
  2. The degeneration of democracy in "Managed democracy" - in Russia - now.

Similarity with the Church:

In this respect, the "Advisory Structure" and "Network Economy" are similar to the Church Institute.
  - The Church, at least in the 21st century, does not use violence.
  By the way, that's why I called the site of the "Network Economy" - "Divine Enterprise."

Differences from the Church:

1. Non-religiosity. - In the sense of NOT anti-religiosity, "but - out of religiosity.
  2. Do not use ideological influence, objectivity, scientific.
  This is directly connected with non-religiosity. - The power of the Church is based on ideology.
  Subordination mainly through propaganda instead of violence is the main difference and property of "Managed democracy". In the same - its main danger.

Germination:

Utopian attempt to transform on the principles of nonviolence - the whole society.
  - As a result of the development of political technologies, - in the 21st century there was a social regression not only in the 2 nd, dictatorial, but even in the 1st, "free" world.
  On the other hand, work only with the help of existing mechanisms of influence on power, in the traditional framework of parliamentarism - is ineffective, and dangerous - in the 21st century "antibiotics" for "bacteria" no longer work.

Symbiosis with the state:

Optimal is the policy of "germination", - the creation of parallel public institutions.
  And, to create them realistically, only - in "democratic" countries.
  Moreover, parallel institutions are needed not so much for social "experiments" as for influencing existing traditional - power structures.

Example: 1918, Ukraine, Donbass:

In 1918, in the Donbass, the anarchist movement was more influential than others.
  The workers asked the anarchists to take power. However, those from ideological considerations refused to organize the power protection of enterprises, and, thus, allowed the Bolsheviks to introduce their dictatorship.