Liberal totalitarian. Liberalism and totalitarian regime. Liberal fascism as a historical tautology

Once it was an axiom of liberalism - freedom meant the inalienable sovereignty of the individual. You were your property. You could rent yourself out to an employer for a limited period and at a mutually agreed price, but your ownership of yourself could neither be bought nor sold. For two centuries, this liberal, individualistic point of view has legitimized capitalism as a "natural" system inhabited by free people.

The ability to fence off a part of one's life and remain sovereign and self-reliant within those boundaries was the most important part of the liberal conception of the free man, as well as his or her relationship with the public sphere. To enjoy freedom, individuals needed a safe haven within which they could develop as true personalities before entering into relationships - and transactions - with others. Once formed, our personality could grow through commerce and industry, that is, the networks of cooperation between our personal havens, which were built and rebuilt to meet our material and spiritual needs.

However, the border that separates our personality from the outside world, that is, the border on the basis of which liberal individualism created its concept of autonomy, individual sovereignty, and ultimately freedom, turned out to be impossible to maintain. The first breach in this frontier came when manufactured goods went out of fashion and were replaced by brands that captured the attention, feelings and desires of society. In a short time, brands have taken a radical new turn, endowing objects with the properties of "personality".

Once brands acquired personality traits (and this greatly increased consumer loyalty and, consequently, profits), people felt the need to represent themselves as brands. Today, with colleagues, employers, clients, detractors and “friends” constantly monitoring our online life, we are under constant pressure to become a set of cases, images and qualities that would correspond to an attractive, well-selling brand. Personal space, which is so important for the autonomous development of the authentic self (and it is this self that makes individual sovereignty inalienable) has now practically evaporated. The very natural habitat of liberalism is disappearing.

In this environment, a clear boundary between the private and public spheres also separates leisure from work. But one does not have to be a radical critic of capitalism to see that the right to a time when a person is not for sale has also evaporated.

Context

When the power was divided, they forgot to call us

Order versus liberalism

Educated youth flee Russia

Russian youth at attention

Oh, this youth

If they are lucky enough to be invited for an interview (or even hired), the employer will immediately emphasize that they are easily replaceable: “We want you to be true to yourself, so that you follow your feelings, even if it means that we will have to fire you! " That is why they are redoubling their efforts to discover those "feelings" that will appeal to future employers, and to find that mythical "true" self, which, as their bosses tell them, is somewhere inside them.

This quest knows no boundaries or limits. John Maynard Keynes once made the famous comparison - he cited a beauty pageant as an example, explaining why it is never possible to know the "true" value of a stock. Stock market participants are not interested in figuring out which of the contestants is prettier. Their decision is based on predictions who will be considered the most beautiful by the average opinion, and what, according to this average opinion, is the average opinion: a situation arises of cats that hunt for their own tails.

Keynes' beauty pageant sheds light on the tragedy of many young people today. They are trying to figure out which of their potential "true" selves will be perceived as the most attractive by the average opinion of those who shape public opinion. At the same time, they try to fabricate this "true" self online and offline, at work and at home, in general, everywhere and always. Entire industries of counselors and coaches have sprung up, as well as various substance and self-help ecosystems, to guide them through this quest.

The irony of fate is that liberal individualism seems to have lost out to totalitarianism, which is neither fascist nor communist, but which grew out of its own successes in legitimizing brand invasions and commodifying our personal space. To defeat this totalitarianism, that is, to save the liberal idea of ​​freedom as individual sovereignty, may require an all-encompassing reconfiguration of ownership of the instruments of production, distribution, cooperation and communication, which increasingly take on electronic form.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful paradox if, 200 years after the birth of Karl Marx, we decide that in order to save liberalism, we need to return to the idea that freedom requires an end to unbridled commodification (that is, the transformation of everything into a commodity) and the socialization of property rights to the means of production ?

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial board.

Political, economic and socio-cultural changes taking place in the modern world involve virtually all countries, without exception, in a comprehensive transformation of the existing world order. An important means of realizing this goal in the interests of global management community becomes the approval in the mass consciousness of pseudoscientific concepts created in order to protect the liberal social order (as supposedly democratic and horizontally controlled), the existing world division of labor and the geopolitical balance of forces. And if self-identification of the West, since the 1950s, has been carried out within the framework of successive doctrines post-industrialism(including such modern modifications as the "knowledge society" and "network society"), promising a free and secure future for mankind through the development of technologies, the concept of "totalitarianism" is persistently used to characterize alternative regimes, countries, civilizations that are all the more resistant to Western hegemony "(In the meaning of state arbitrariness, violation of human rights, etc.).

In fact, as noted V. Kamenev“There is a big ideological lie behind the totalitarian accusations. If we take this point of view, then the modern West has already surpassed Hitler and Stalin in the totalitarianism of its propaganda, at least the exposure of the US intelligence services by Snowden, the revelations of American "economic killers", the practice of secret CIA prisons and legalized ( !) torture of prisoners. " Humanity is witnessing the triumph of aggressive ultra-liberalism, which requires total world domination at any cost, and the transformation of such- totalitarian - liberalism in liberal totalitarianism . No wonder that the phrase “liberal totalitarianism” and synonymous terms (“neototalitarianism”, “informational totalitarianism”, “soft-totalitarianism”, “light-totalitarianism”, etc.) are increasingly becoming stable definitions when characterizing processes and phenomena in the modern world.

In these conditions, the task of a clear conceptual formulation of the concept of "liberal totalitarianism" and the definition of its features, which seems possible on the basis of a comparative analytical review and understanding of scientific and philosophical works devoted to this topic, becomes extremely important. Here it is worth pointing out as deserving attention and rather high ratings for several works by contemporary Russian authors who have already made attempts of this kind in recent years. So, R.R. Vakhitov provides an overview of criticism of the manipulative and repressive mechanisms of Western society by a number of Western European left intellectuals of the middle and second half of the 20th century. V.A. Tuzova considers views on the problem of liberal totalitarianism as totalitarianism information some contemporary Eastern European and Russian authors. Work K.P. Stozhko and A.V. Chernov as a whole is a review of the bibliography of a critical analysis of the economic model of the new totalitarianism. However, in their conclusions, these authors did not come to a conceptual synthesis, to the allocation of an ordered list of signs of liberal totalitarianism, which becomes the main aim of this article.

Recall that the concept of "totalitarianism" was first introduced into political science discourse by Italian anti-fascist liberals J. Amendola and P. Gobetti in the early 20s. XX century for criticism of the established regime of B. Mussolini. In reply J. Gentile made an attempt to eliminate negativity, an interpretation of totalitarianism, relevant to the ideological demands of Italian fascism. In the next decade, rhetoric was adopted in the leading countries of the "free" world, trying to use any common features of fascism and Soviet socialism to unite them under one banner and thereby moral and ideological discredit of the latter (it was, in particular, willingly used L. Trotsky, W. Churchill, G. Truman). The next stage is the desire to bring these statements under a solid theoretical foundation, which they tried to do a little earlier - F. von Hayek(fascism and Nazism are not a reaction to socialist tendencies, but their inevitable continuation and development) and K. Popper(opposition of "open" and "closed" society), a little later - H. Arendt(the quintessence of totalitarian rule is terror, as well as ideology that imposes super-meaning, fulfilling the laws of Nature or History), K. Friedrich and Z. Brzezinski (scroll defining signs of a totalitarian society). By the end of the 1950s - mid-1960s, after the publication of works H. Linz, R. Arona and others, the "canonical" concept of totalitarianism already contained a dozen features, and versatility some of them (such as the denial of traditional morality and the complete subordination of the choice of means to the goals set, the commitment to expansionism, the all-encompassing control of the ruling party over the armed forces and the proliferation of weapons among the population) cause some doubt or bewilderment.

We emphasize once again that practically all theorists of totalitarianism and their followers assert the undoubted (for them) identity communism and Nazism as anti-democratic regimes existing in opposition to the “free” society of liberalism, “which does not know the unifying goal, ... enjoys the process of life, not the result. Therefore, later attempts to create an empirical theory of totalitarianism, built on the basis of real, verifiable facts, did not have much success, more and more diverged from reality as the political regime of the socialist countries was liberalized and, moreover, did not reflect the fundamental differences property, social justice, orientation towards nationalism or internationalism, etc.). Due to its quite definite political orientation, such a concept of totalitarianism turned out to be too simplified, even somewhat primitive, continuing to exist exclusively as an ideological weapon.

True, it is for this reason that under the conditions of the capitulation of the socialist system in the late 1980s - early 1990s. In the post-Soviet information space, the classical concept of totalitarianism was at one time widely used in order to discredit the very principles of social justice and altruism.

Ideas are typical examples. K.S. Hajiyeva, which, separating totalitarianism from absolutism, authoritarianism, despotism as a phenomenon that belongs exclusively to the XX century, made its simple typology on right(fascism and national socialism) and left(communism). The goal of totalitarianism, in his opinion, is not only the forced transformation of all types of social relations and institutions, destruction of social stratification(italics of the author of the article), the destruction of tradition, but also in the purposeful change of human existence itself, "complete alteration, transformation of a person in accordance with ideological attitudes", the constitution of a new type of person, atomization and fragmentation of society. Terror is viewed by Hajiyev as an essential characteristic of totalitarianism, and is used not only for destruction and intimidation, but also as an everyday tool for controlling the masses.

Mainly with K.S. Gadzhiev agree A.G. Tauberger, claiming, however, to search for objective laws, interpreting totalitarianism as "a method of mobilizing the masses, a specific mobilization response to a sharply crisis situation", which inevitably follows from the tasks of "catch-up modernization". In his opinion, "the main essential feature of totalitarianism is the desire to create a" new man "with a change in his inner nature so that he equates the interests of society (state) with his personal interests" the authorities of the media are secondary elements of totalitarianism.

This picture of models of social structure is reasonably criticized based on comparison with empirical reality. And here it turns out that O. Huxley derived his "brave new world" from the capitalist liberal democracy of his day, and the closed society described by K. Popper (as well as, say, J. Orwell's dystopia) is just a cast of the dark sides the very same Western civilization. Liberalism today is an ideology that requires any state to serve not its people, but global monopolies. The United States, as a world geopolitical entity, has declared its systemic "moral" monopoly on truth, in which there is absolutely no hint of the possibility of the existence of other systems, ideologies and projects. The strategy of action proposed by the idea of ​​globalization is a priori considered absolute and superior to any alternative. From now on, topics such as the market or the pursuit of private interests appear as an expression of not even the best, but the only possible lifestyle. The market acquires a sacred character (despite the fact that in practice it has long turned into a fiction), the hierarchy of consumerism is likened to a divine hierarchy.

In a situation where more and more new signs of totalitarianism are clearly revealed in the social life of precisely the leading states of the Western world (according to M.G. Delyagina, “… Modern liberalism is fascism today, fascism is not industrial, but informational era”), its “non-classical” versions are acquiring actual sound.

As noted by R.R. Vakhitov, the phenomenon of this "soft, liberal totalitarianism" has been deeply studied in the works of the "new left", who sought to push the boundaries of classical Marxism by synthesizing its humanistic content with other philosophical trends of modern times - psychoanalysis, structuralism, existentialism and revealed the very mechanism of action of capitalist ideology.

At the origins of this trend in understanding the phenomenon of totalitarianism is A. Gramsci, who borrowed the term "hegemony" from Russian Marxism, but filled it with new content. The hegemony of the bourgeoisie is carried out with the help of a number of institutions - schools, trade unions, parties, associations, which gradually instill in the masses completely definite ideas, representing its rule as a "natural, unshakable order of things." Moreover, a special social group nurtured by the ruling elite - bourgeois intellectuals - acts as a conductor of such ideas, the impact of which is especially great due to the fact that it is largely composed of people from the people. The main means of hegemony is the ideology created by such intellectuals and carried out by them to the masses, which is expressed in a variety of forms - from direct political appeals to half-hints contained in seemingly "apolitical" works of literature or in school curricula. Regardless of this, they are all aimed at forming a certain - beneficial to the hegemon - a way of thinking.

A huge role in expanding the view on the subject of totalitarianism belongs to Frankfurt School.

Already representatives of her "older" generation - T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer - put forward the thesis of the connection between scientific rationality and political totalitarianism, the development of which led them to the conclusion that fascism is a kind of dialectical fruit of the Enlightenment paradigm: hypertrophy rational led to self-disclosure in this rationality of its irrational, mythological nature. Based on this thesis G. Marcuse- a representative of the "younger" generation of Frankfurt - believed that from the thesis: "we must completely subjugate nature" directly follows the thesis: "we must learn to manage society and man", in other words, technology cannot be neutral, and classical mechanics and a steam engine give birth to Auschwitz. The ideal of a totalitarian project is a machine society, where people play the role of cogs. Nothing of the kind could have occurred to a man of antiquity or the Middle Ages, when the organic understanding of the cosmos and society prevailed. The process of society's transition to totalitarianism accelerated during the First World War - it was then that the formation of mechanisms of social control based on scientific rationality began (before that, the government did not set itself the goal of methodically subjugating the minds and will of all citizens and was satisfied with the necessary, episodic political and ideological violence ).

The meaning of the liberal variety of totalitarianism is focused by G. Marcuse in the following statement: "In a developed industrial civilization, comfortable, moderate, democratic lack of freedom reigns, evidence of technological progress." The most powerful information and technical mechanisms have been created to suppress skepticism and protest in the very bud (television, shows, advertising, lottery, etc.). The world of “one-dimensional people” is a “society without opposition”, since under the rule of a loyal “happy Consciousness” satisfied with controlled comfort, lulled with false freedom and unwilling to use even the critical institutions available to it, there are almost no people who can think independently. Everywhere the cult of unification reigns - they buy those goods that are advertised, repeat those thoughts that are recognized as "progressive". The assortment of this society is large, but at the same time it is the poorest, since it cannot offer a person anything but goods. The freedom that this society is so proud of is illusory; it is the freedom to choose between goods of approximately the same quality. At the same time, the ruling elite has the most powerful mechanisms of suppression, hidden ideology, strong precisely because the majority of people in this society are sincerely convinced that there is no ideology in it, that they live in a "free world."

The doctrine is also directly related to the formation of the theory of liberal totalitarianism. G. Deborah about modern capitalism as the "Society of the Spectacle". The play is the apogee of the capitalist alienation discovered by K. Mark (where a person loses not material goods, as in economic exploitation, but himself, his creative essence, becoming a passive, obedient object of manipulation, a thing, a commodity) - everything has turned - political debates in parliament, terrorist acts, sale of discounted goods. A specially edited and thought-out performance with its own constant plots (plane crashes, terrorist attacks, sexual adventures of "stars", etc.) imperiously invades life, deforms it, filling it with its meanings. ideology and begins to pass itself off as life itself. As a result, it becomes impossible to discern where the Performance ends and reality begins, for the performance becomes so total that even those who create it begin to believe in it.

Later, in his Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle, G. Debord prophetically advanced the idea that the collapse of the USSR and the monopoly of the market would lead to the triumph of a new kind of performance - integrated, which will combine the dictates of consumption and a strong repressive apparatus.

I. Wallerstein after the capitulation of the socialist system, he not only substantiated the absence of opposition between totalitarian ideologies, on the one hand, and liberalism, on the other, but also questioned the traditional presentation of the post-war history of the 20th century. as stories of the bipolar world. The confrontation between socialism and liberalism, according to Wallerstein, was part of a consensual political game in the interests of global world politics and a global liberal project, the elements of which they were: "There was only one true ideology - liberalism, which found its manifestations in three main guises." The collapse of socialism ultimately results in a deep crisis of liberalism, which is rapidly losing its legitimacy.

The presence of a direct link between liberalism and totalitarianism establishes T. Sunich... He notes that by placing people exclusively in economic dependence on each other and destroying the more traditional ties of kinship and patriotism, modern liberalism will inevitably lead to the creation of a society where in difficult times everyone will seek to outbid, outwit and bypass others, thus clearing the field for "terror of all against all" and paving the way for the emergence of new totalitarian systems.

Z. Vidoevich already states the onset of liberal totalitarianism in the modern world, due to the lack of a new life philosophy in the Western world, since “the satiety of things and the exhaustion of the civilizational paradigm as an endless accumulation of objects and power make the Western project essentially unrealistic in a historical perspective, since it cannot offer anything - something essentially new. " Totalitarianism is not a stochastic social phenomenon, but is "a constantly present tendency in Western civilization and an inevitable consequence of the degeneration of liberal democracy." The sources of liberal (or postmodern, in the terminology of Z. Vidoevich himself) totalitarianism are rooted in the political economy of modern capitalism, based on the global role of multinational companies striving to act as de facto planetary power, planetary violence and cutting edge technologies. The latter provide unlimited possibilities for manipulating the mass consciousness (and subconsciousness); at the same time, there is a constant methodological improvement of manipulations. At the same time, atomized individuals find themselves in the world of consumerism and "replication and association in a network of pseudo-reality, or, in postmodern language," simulacrum ". In other words, modern totalitarianism has the property of "ideological self-distortion of its own essence."

The systemic crisis experienced by post-Soviet Russia, the apparent discrepancy between the explanatory concepts of liberal-globalism and the existing reality contributed to the awareness of the presence of the dominant ideology and aggressive strategy of the West, at least by a part of the scientific and philosophical community of post-Soviet Russia.

A powerful impetus was the spread of later works A.A. Zinovieva, in which very clearly and frankly explained the mechanisms of functioning, expansion and stability of Western civilization in modern and modern times. The thinker constantly emphasized that the political stability of Western societies over the past centuries is ensured not by the election of representative power and a multi-party system, but by the system of institutions "Superstates"... The superstate forms an overgrown apparatus of police, courts, prisons, and most importantly, special services, secret societies, elite clubs, transnational corporations, which in fact are not controlled by society in any way, in some cases are not at all legalized in law, but completely control the visible power, possessing unlimited financial resources, ideological cohesion, discipline, the widest choice of means and forms of repressive suppression and elimination of opponents of the global world order.

Among domestic researchers of theory and practice totalitarian economy can be called S.N. Baburin, V.M. Mezhueva, A.S. Panarina, L.M. Martsev etc. Modern totalitarianism, according to representatives economic discrimination theory, may well get along with the market economy, mimic in the conditions of "representative democracy", acquire the form of ochlocracy and bureaucracy. It is worth bringing judgment R.L. Livshitsa that the market dictatorship has all the signs of totalitarianism and uses the most modern technologies: juvenile justice, special propaganda, manipulation of consciousness. The characteristic features of a market dictatorship are as follows: market relations cover all spheres of human life, incl. private, turning the person himself into a commodity; market institutions "work" under the strict control of the state, creating only the appearance of freedom of economic activity; market principles operate only during a favorable market environment, but fully or partially cease to operate in a crisis (when severe restrictions from the state become permissible). At the same time, in the conditions of a discriminatory economy (separation from the production of material goods and knowledge in favor of the economy of services), all spiritual values ​​are artificially devalued, which also receive a lower public status. Instead of spiritual benefits, they are reduced to the level of simple services: services for education, research, health care, etc.

V.P. Pugachev in the concept of information and financial totalitarianism formulated by him, he distinguishes two combining groups of methods of influencing human behavior: 1) information based on the possibilities of total control over a person with the help of modern satellite, computer, PR-technologies; 2) economic used by the state-controlled financial and political oligarchy. More opportunities, according to the political scientist, undoubtedly belong to information methods as more effective, in comparison with which the primitiveness of the methods of classical totalitarian regimes based on direct external violence becomes obvious. Moreover, modern methods of social control are often borrowed from other sciences, for example, the cybernetic trigger method of management, which involves the management of the social system “... through control only over its key points, which in relation to modern society are primarily financial resources, electronic media, the most influential elites and organized groups ”. The author also refers to the most important characteristics of information and financial totalitarianism as the destruction of traditional axiological attitudes, the formation of a mass type of personality, manipulation of consciousness and behavior.

Existential conception of the nature of totalitarianism V.Yu. Darensky is built on the basis of the following definition: "Totalitarianism is a type of socio-economic, political and cultural structure of society, in which the authorities try to unify people's lives as much as possible in accordance with a certain ideological and ideological doctrine by maximizing influence on the formation of personality." The researcher does not attribute repression to the necessary attributes of totalitarianism, since its essence lies in the self-destruction of a person, the erection of the state into a pseudo-absolute, believing oneself to be able to control the foundations of human life. Repressions of totalitarianism are due to people's resistance to self-destruction, but in the absence of resistance, they are unnecessary. Therefore, modern totalitarianism is “the totalitarianism of a consumer society and total manipulation of consciousness” under the guise of the ideology of liberalism.

A.G. Dugin, defining modern Western society as a "third totalitarianism", writes the following: "Liberalism is totalitarian in a special way. Instead of direct physical reprisals against dissidents, he resorts to the tactics of "soft strangulation", a gradual shift to the outskirts of society of dissidents and opponents, to economic blackmail, and so on. ... the dominant ideology of the West (liberalism) actively fights against alternative political and ideological projects, but uses more subtle, softer, more refined methods to achieve its goals than the previously known forms of totalitarianism. Liberal totalitarianism is not brutal, but veiled, illusory, invisible. However, this makes him no less cruel. " Dugin notes that the very fact of promoting the individual as the highest value and measure of things is a projection of society, that is, a form of totalitarian influence, ideological induction. The individual is a social concept, the person himself learns that he is – a private person only from a society, and from one where liberal ideology dominates. Therefore, liberalism is a totalitarian ideology that insists, with the help of classical methods of totalitarian propaganda, that the individual is the supreme authority. Liberal society, opposing itself to the mass societies of socialism and fascism, in turn, remains mass and standardized. The more a person strives to be not ordinary in the context of liberal paradigms, the more like others he becomes.

At the same time, A.G. Dugin (like Z. Vidoevich) was able to sense the complex connection between the ideology of liberal totalitarianism and postmodern discourse. Let the postmodern philosophers criticize the claims of Western civilization for democracy, equality and tolerance, prove that all this – overlooked forms of control and repressive suppression of the Other. In essence, postmodernity opens up as a new course of the strategy of modernity, which has realized the ineffectiveness of the struggle against tradition through its direct rejection, as its result. Hence the notion of "the end of history" and similar concepts of optimistic liberals who identified postmodernity with the final victory of their ideals.

A.V. Shchipkov, within the framework of criticism of the classical theory of two totalitarianisms as opponents of liberal democracy, and assertions about the existence of only one totalitarian regime – liberal (the components of which are fascism and communism), destroying traditional Christian society, turns to the analysis of the moral and ethical foundations of liberalism and fascism. Claiming their complete identity, he directly reveals at least two common imperative: 1) total competition, that is, natural selection transferred from the animal world to human society; 2) a split world, divided into "higher" and "lower" (having no human rights), easily excluding entire peoples, races, cultures from the concept of human, rational, civilized (at different times it could be Irish, Negroes, Asians, Slavs in general, Russians, etc.), the ongoing construction of identity according to the “we – they” principle.

Comprehension of the totalitarian evolution of liberalism, which has now turned into an aggressive dogmatism that does not recognize any alternatives, leads to the conclusion that it has not yet established itself as an ideology, but has turned into a broad way to "liberate" the individual from collective identity: first from religious and estate-corporate, then from state, national-ethnic, family, now - from gender, and in the short term - from genetic. In this - spiritual and physical - dehumanizing of each individual and is the ultimate goal of the strategy of the collective superstate. The explanation of the motives for the radical reincarnation of liberalism is possible within the framework of the theory of anti-morality.

The spread and evolution of anti-moral attitudes as a whole was carried out within the framework of double doctrine (some postulates – for the "laymen", others – for "dedicated" and "chosen"), through speculation in the concepts of "humanism", "freedom", "reason", "democracy", "progress", etc. Along with focusing only on the negative sides and manifestations of tradition, its interpretation solely as a prejudice, and novelty as progress and truth, the main inversion was the replacement of the concepts of “good” and “freedom” in the hierarchy of values, followed by a break in their connection (which is quite correlates with the basic commandment of Satanism: "Nothing can be prohibited and everything is allowed"). The superstate, as a collective subject-carrier of anti-morality, makes a hierarchical selection of employees according to the degree of adherence to anti-values ​​and introduces "initiates" into the spheres of legal politics and management, mass media, etc.

What antimorality as meta-ideology passes off as rationality is only external logic, its form. According to the remark K. Castoriadis, “In the syllogisms of the modern world, the premises borrow their content from the imaginary. And the predominance of syllogism as such, the obsession with "rationality" separated from everything else, form the imaginary of the second order. The pseudo rationality of the modern world is one of the historical forms of the imaginary. It is arbitrary in its ultimate goals, since the latter are not based on reasonable grounds. " It is not for nothing that throughout the last century in literature and art the topic of mental disorder has been eagerly exploited, insanity is being elevated to a cult, since the sick consciousness perceives and creates a picture of not the true world, but a parallel reality. In this situation, it is correct to speak of a totalitarian schizophrenic logic.

The creation of the imaginary is achieved through pseudoscience ... Anti-moral today systematically resorts to a pseudo-reality constructed by pseudoscience in order to smooth out, mask cynicism and nihilism in some cases, in others - to present them as something natural, objective, the only possible one.

So, techno-utopian projects within the so-called. NBICS-convergence is called upon, first of all, to empirically substantiate the “naturalness” of antimoral and antihuman doctrines of trans- and posthumanism; the concept of gender construction is directly related to the value nihilism of postmodernism; the libertarian approach in legal theory and monetarism in economic theory serve the ideology of social Darwinism and anarcho-capitalism.

Thus, “mirroring” the signs of totalitarianism, which during the years of the who directly proves the pseudo- and antidemocratic nature of the entire socio-political system of the "free world": L. Feld, J. Chiesa, A.D. Bogaturov, V.L. Avagyan, V.V. Sorokin S.G. Kara-Murza), the following characteristic signs the upcoming liberal totalitarianism:

Literature

1. VAllerstine I. After liberalism. Moscow: Editornaya URSS, 2003.256 p.
2. Vakhitov R.R. Liberal totalitarianism: repressive mechanisms of modern Western society and their critical analysis in foreign philosophy of the twentieth century. URL: http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_20.htm (date accessed: 21.07.2017).
3. Vidoevich Z. Liberal totalitarianism // Sociological research. 2007. No. 12. S. 39-49.
4. Gadzhiev K.S. Totalitarianism as a phenomenon of the XX century // Problems of Philosophy. 1993. No. 2. S. 3-25.
5. Golovatenko A.Yu. Totalitarianism of the XX century. Moscow: Shkola-press, 1992.96 p.
6. Gramsci A. The theory of hegemony. URL: http://politiko.ua/blogpost67770 (date of access: 25.07.2017).
7. Darensky V.Yu. Totalitarianism as an existential phenomenon // Humanitarian vector. 2014. No. 3 (39). Pp. 122-129.
8. Debord G.

“To denote this new type of social pressure, Gramsci uses the term“ hegemony ”, which he borrowed from Russian Marxism, but filled with new content. The hegemony of the bourgeoisie is carried out with the help of a number of institutions - schools, trade unions, parties, associations, which gradually instill in the masses completely definite ideas that justify the domination of the bourgeois class and represent this domination by the "natural, unshakable order of things." Moreover, a special social group raised by the ruling elite - bourgeois intellectuals - acts as a conductor of such ideas, the impact of which is especially great due to the fact that it is largely composed of people from the people. So, the main means of hegemony is the ideology created by the bourgeois intelligentsia and being promoted to the masses by it, and it can be expressed in various forms - from direct political appeals to half-hints contained in seemingly "apolitical" works of literature or in school curricula approved by ministries. Regardless of this, all of them are aimed at forming a certain way of thinking that is beneficial to the hegemon. "

Antonio Gramsci - Italian philosopher, journalist and politician; founder and leader of the Italian Communist Party and theorist of Marxism.

“Representatives of the Frankfurt School, or Freudomarxists, were, perhaps, one of the first Western philosophers to seriously engage in the development of defency and the theory of totalitarianism. Already thinkers belonging to the older generation of Frankfurt - Adorno and Horkheimer put forward the thesis of the connection between scientific rationality and political totalitarianism, the development of which led them to the conclusion that fascism is a kind of dialectical fruit of the Enlightenment paradigm: the hypertrophy of rationality led to self-disclosure in this rationality of its irrational, mythological nature. On the basis of this thesis, the socio-philosophical theory of Frankfurt was built, describing the repressive mechanisms of modern society in all its varieties ( fascism, communism, neoliberalism). The younger generation of the school - Marcuse, Fromm, Habermas was just engaged in the study of this side of the life of modern society, and the most striking figure here was probably Marcuse - the recognized master of the minds of opposition-minded Western youth of the 60s, the ideological leader of student riots that received the name of the "revolution of three Ms" (Marx, Mao, Marcuse), the creator of the Great Refusal ideology, which had a huge impact on the Western counterculture - the movement of hippies, punks, beatniks, rockers, environmentalists, neoanarchists, etc. We can say that Marcuse brought to its logical conclusion the "critical theory of society" of the Franfurkist school, and that is precisely why he is interesting for the researcher of the repressive mechanisms of postmodern capitalism.

Herbert Marcuse is a German and American philosopher, sociologist and culturologist, a representative of the Frankfurt School.

Marcuse fully shares the position of Adorno and Horkheimer about the totalitarian nature of modern science and technology. Experimental science is already infected with the virus of fascism. In place of harmony with nature, which the people of pre-technological civilization aspired to, and which was realized in myth and religious ideological attitudes, the rationalistic paradigm of the Enlightenment offers the model "Absolute Master - Absolute Slave". According to her, man is called upon to completely conquer nature, to reduce it to a passive and voiceless material that serves to satisfy our diverse needs. In this case, the most cruel methods are used: for example, one of the main tools of this science is an experiment, which is nothing more than a torture of nature (Galileo said that an experiment is a "Spanish boot" that is put on nature in order to snatch she has her secrets).

Ultimately, the self-development of this logic leads to political totalitarianism. After all, man is also a part of nature, so from the thesis: "we must completely subjugate nature" directly follows the thesis: "we must learn to manage society and man." Progress gives birth to totalitarianism, classical mechanics and the steam engine give birth to Auschwitz.

Thus, Marcuse proceeds from the definition of totalitarianism deduced by the older Frankfurt people, according to which it is characterized not only by the presence of state pressure on a person - otherwise there would be no difference between totalitarianism and classical ancient despotism, but also a special world outlook implicated in total rationality. Totalitarianism is a product of our time, accustomed to sorting everything out on shelves, adjusting it to a common, rationalistic yardstick, making everything absolutely transparent and absolutely predictable. The ideal of a totalitarian project is a machine society where people play the role of cogs, of course, nothing like this could have occurred to a person of antiquity or the Middle Ages, when a completely different, organic understanding of space and society prevailed, for this a scientific revolution had to take place. So, in the foundations of totalitarianism lies the absolutization of rationality, and if irrationalistic phenomena are manifested in this society - torchlight processions, book burning, absurd accusations of espionage, then this is a payback for hypertrophy of rationality, dialectical degeneration of "logos" into "mythos".

From the point of view of Marcuse, the transition of a Western-type society to totalitarianism occurred with the outbreak of World War I - it was then that the formation of mechanisms of social control based on scientific rationality began (before that, the government did not set itself the goal of subjugating the minds and will of all citizens, moreover, in a methodical uniform way , and was satisfied with the necessary, episodic political and ideological violence). However, according to Marcuse, totalitarianism can be divided into two types - military-police, open, to which he attributed the Soviet and fascist regimes, and liberal, non-terrorist, soft, finally formed in Europe and especially in the United States after World War II. Marcuse does not consider them mutually exclusive, they can grow together and complement each other to varying degrees. strengthen each other.

If Soviet totalitarianism Marcuse studied in the work "Soviet Marxism", fascist - in some sections of the book "Reason and Revolution", then his work "One-Dimensional Man" was devoted to the study of neoliberal totalitarianism. This book begins with a phrase in which, as in focus, its main meaning is collected: "In a developed industrial civilization, a comfortable, moderate, democratic lack of freedom, evidence of technological progress, reigns." The most powerful mechanisms have been created to suppress skepticism and protest in the very embryo - television, radio, newspapers, shows, advertising, lottery. A loyal “happy Consciousness” reigns everywhere, which is satisfied with controlled comfort, lulled by false freedom and does not want to use even the critical institutions available to it. In this society, there is almost no persecution for beliefs, because there are almost no people who can think independently and have their own convictions. Everywhere the cult of unification reigns - they buy those goods that are advertised, repeat those thoughts that are recognized as "progressive", dress in those things that are declared fashionable. A whole system of artificial needs has been created, with the help of which a person is drawn into a frantic race in a circle that makes up the senseless essence of the society of postmodern capitalism. If you don’t buy a new receiver and new jeans, you will not be considered "advanced" enough. But in order to buy them, you need to make money. And they can be earned by working in a company, in a concern, in a factory and producing more and more receivers and jeans. Or in the newspaper, in a PR company, on TV and advertising these receivers and jeans. Fashion is changing, you need to keep up with everything, as a result, a person is absolutely satisfied with his life, absolutely loyal to his government and has only one desire that worries him - to consume, consume and consume again.

Such a person is characterized by Marcuse as "one-dimensional", indicating the absence of "volume", "complexity" in his spiritual configuration. It is easy to see that this is the pseudonym of the "man of the masses" José Ortega Y Gasset, a triumphant mediocrity, a self-righteous bourgeois who is incapable of creative activity, but at the same time he is sure that the whole world exists only for him, that the light in the lamps lights up himself on its own, according to the laws of nature, there is no labor behind it, the mental dramas and insights of thousands of scientists and engineers, the sweat of millions of workers. Marcuse notes with bitterness that such a majority in modern Western society and that in this sense the proletarian is no different from the bourgeois, the average intellectual is from the vacuum cleaner seller. Both the owner of the company and the black bellboy watch the same TV programs, hum the same popular tunes, they are representatives of the same culture, called pop or mass culture, although it would be more correct to label it as post-culture. She absorbed classical literature, painting, theater, digested everything and in the end it turned out to be messy, which resembles Pop Art paintings, where the images of the Gioconda are side by side with cigarette butts glued to the canvas. In this "one-dimensional culture" there is no place for Truth, Goodness, Beauty - for it, these are anachronisms, a relic of feudalism, it contains only a commodity that draws into its field and absorbs everything, political views from now on are a commodity, talent is a commodity, a beautiful face - commodity, genitals - commodity, kidneys - commodity, children - commodity ... The paradigm of the commodity unifies everything, monetary calculation averages everything, the difference between the law against drugs and a batch of heroin is measured here in dollars.

Marcuse calls the world of "one-dimensional people" "a society without opposition." Here, there really are no principal opponents of this system, and if someone calls himself that, then it is easy to come to an agreement with him. Each has its own price - for one the portfolio of a minister, for the other - a prestigious literary prize. The assortment of this society is large, it is not for nothing that it is called a "consumer society", however, in full agreement with the laws of dialectics, it is also the poorest, because it can offer only goods and nothing but goods ... The freedom that this society boasts is generally illusory , it is the freedom to choose between Pepsi - and Coca-Cola, the Democratic and the Republican Party, in short, between goods of approximately the same quality.

And where does real freedom, real oppositionists come from in this world, because the power elite here possesses the most powerful mechanisms of suppression, a hidden ideology “dissolved” in cinema, advertising, shows, strong precisely because the majority of people in this society are sincerely convinced that there is no ideology in it does not mean that they live in a "free world."

Marcuse, like other Frankfurt people - for example, Fromm, sought to comprehend the essence of the psychology of this "one-dimensional man" and came to the disappointing conclusion that it should be characterized as a fascisoid type of consciousness. Its main features are narrow-mindedness, complacency, hatred of the other, dissimilar, original. Any dissimilarity is immediately included in the ideological discourse, begins to work for it, becomes a commodity, is absorbed - as, for example, homosexuality or pacifism. The United States served as an example of such a state of "hidden fascism", where an aggressive, sanctimonious majority rules for Marcuse and other Frankfurt.

In his younger years, Marcuse lived with hope in a change in the state of affairs, in a revolutionary charge of "outcasts", "lumpen", thrown to the sidelines in the consumer society, in the cleansing power of surrealist, avant-garde art, designed to dispel the propaganda spell, in the effectiveness of the Great Rejection of all bourgeois values ... But then, after the failed student revolutions of the 60s, he increasingly began to see the future in black and gradually moved away from politics and plunged headlong into academic science. However, his analysis of the society of "liberal totalitarianism" has become a classic example of modern critical social theory, with which, perhaps, not everyone agrees, but which is still impossible to simply dismiss as it raises, indeed, "painful" questions and points to real problems ”.

To start treating our liberals, we need to understand what the "positive program" of liberalism consists in, that is, the liberal's self-justification in his own eyes. In an ideological sense, it is quite simple and (speaking in a scientific style) follows from a "progressive" positivist linear view of the historical process. If we agree that the world is developing "positively and linearly", then we will have to agree with the existence of the leaders of progress - "civilized peoples", and all other peoples automatically fall into the "developing", backward and even barbaric and savage. By the way, the terms "developed" and "developing" countries are generally recognized by the "world community", and this does not bother anyone, although, if you think about it, they smell like racism.

Liberals draw a political conclusion from the positivist "scientific" postulate, which they do not always talk about, but often let slip when the situation becomes hot, as in Ukraine, that "Western civilization", and in the person of its Bandera puppet, is always right. No matter what she does, no matter how she kills “pro-Russian separatists” in Ukraine, even children, because “Western civilization” is always right in relation to backward peoples and “barbarians”, in this case the Russians. Note that these definitions of the Russian people have become a commonplace among Bandera, but this does not hurt the Western rumor at all.

The notorious "political scientist" Latynina from "Echo" directly stated that Western civilization must confront the "barbarians" from the Middle East, even if they are refugees fleeing the horrors of war.

Why? It is very simple: because "civilization" is being strengthened at the expense of "barbarians" and is driving the cause of "world progress" forward. Therefore, any civilized atrocity is justified by the liberals by the fact that, in one way or another, it serves the cause of the "progress of mankind", which thus acts as a real bloody idol of liberalism. Accordingly, any success of the "barbarians" damages not only individual "civilized" countries, but also the cause of "world progress."

Therefore, the West justifies all "civilized" sons of bitches, all their crimes against "under-civilized" peoples and countries, that is, not yet controlled by the West, since they ultimately act in the interests of "Western civilization" and "world progress". Therefore, for the "world community" "civilized" blood and tears are immeasurably more valuable than any non-European and non-American. Therefore, our liberal is always ready to clean the boots of a European liberal, according to F.M. Dostoevsky, only for the sake of "the progress of mankind."

Although the linear positivist historical concept is nothing more than one of the earliest pro-European views on the historical process, and in political terms it is simply an ideological sabotage, it still dominates the “scientific world community”. An alternative civilizational historical concept, presented, in particular, by world-famous historians Arnold Toynbee and Lev Gumilev, is treated and defamed by the liberal public mainstream as unscientific, although it is this concept that allows harmonizing international relations.

If we digress from liberal progressive-positivist speculations, and attract civilizational and other views on history, we will have to admit that dictatorial regimes were, are and will be: they inevitably follow periods of chaos and disintegration of society, after riots, splits and revolutions. In the ancient world, dictatorships, democracies and oligarchies always coexisted, and Aristotle did not see any particular advantages in any of these forms of society: they are all good in their own way.

Today it is fashionable to call dictatorships "totalitarian", but the essence of the matter does not change from this - it is still the dictate of a certain ideology, and we can only talk about the degree of technological effectiveness of its implementation. In this sense, the dictate of the liberal "democratic" ideology in the world today is just as totalitarian.

By the way, Karl Marx, apparently understanding the historical reality of dictatorship, equipped his theory of building a communist "kingdom of freedom" with the concept of "dictatorship of the proletariat." Indeed, it was thanks to this dictatorship that Russian Marxists were able to overcome the chaos after the revolutionary coup of 1917 (socialist / communist revolution), retain power and preserve the integrity of Russia, at least in the Soviet form. Therefore, it is simply stupid to accuse Stalin and his Bolsheviks of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and of "totalitarianism".

On the other hand, the term "totalitarianism", that is, absolute total power, has a Western European origin, namely Hitler. It was Hitler who shouted to the whole world about a total war with Russia, he generally loved terrible and extreme epithets, in this case they meant a war with Soviet Russia for destruction.

Somewhere at the end of the twentieth century, the epithet "totalitarian" was adopted by liberal political scientists, and again with anti-Russian goals. To ideologically put Hitler and Stalin on the same level, they united them with the sonorous name "totalitarian dictators". This, apparently, reflects the European love for vivid insults to their political opponents: they always have “bloody executioners” and “criminal regimes” with them, while Europeans appear against such a background, naturally, in white pants.

In fact, there is a big ideological lie behind the totalitarian accusations. If we take this point of view, then the modern West has already surpassed both Hitler and Stalin in the totalitarianism of its propaganda, at least the exposure of the electronic surveillance of the US intelligence services by Snowden, the revelations of American "economic killers", the practice of secret CIA prisons and legalized ( !) torture of prisoners.

It should be borne in mind that Hitler is an ultranationalist dictatorship, a product of a "national revolution", and Stalin is a dictatorship of the proletariat, a product of an international socialist revolution, feel the difference. After all, it is such a difference that made them mortal enemies.

Note that in Ukraine in February 2014 there was exactly a "national revolution", according to its apologists, and today we personally observe dictatorial and total propaganda features of the victorious Bandera regime, which, having gained "dignity", called its political opponents "Colorades" , "Separatists", "donbauns" and "lugandons".

These humiliating and dehumanizing nicknames speak not only of the Bandera dictatorship, but of the Bandera-Nazi dictatorship. Which is not surprising: it has the same roots as the Nazi dictatorship in the "national revolution." Moreover, the absolutism of the Banderaites in the information and cultural sphere has reached the point of idiocy, such as drawing up international "white" and "black" lists according to the criterion of "Ukrainianness" (Banderaism).

Only external pressure from Europe forces the Bandera regime to observe at least some decency, and to disguise Hitler's crosses of their Shukhevychs, inhuman intentions towards their opponents. It is noteworthy that the Rada adopted a law on "decommunization", condemning totalitarianism in general, but the pro-fascist parties are not persecuted by Kiev at all, which only confirms its Nazism of the Hitlerite sense. By the way, Hitler would also have signed up to "decommunization", here Poroshenko achieved the goal set by Nazism.

... It follows from this that in the "totalitarian question" common sense and logic "do not rest", as observers sometimes say, they are deliberately ignored by both Europe and America. To prove this to the world, it is necessary to show the poverty of liberal ideology, its totalitarianism, and turn to face a normal, truly universal civilizational view of history, sending linear positivism to the dustbin of history.

P.S. Several photos to illustrate practical technologies.

Zombie Parade, Living Dead. Young people, having watched the relevant films and television products, having read books about vampires, zombies and orcs, protesting "harmless and funny" game applications, are massively preparing for the "grave". It's funny, of course, it's so funny - to copy the heroes of the imposed favorite films and books.

And this is not Ukraine, Karl, this is St. Petersburg, the cultural capital of Russia.

Paternalism, in the sense of describing the form of government, has the following features:

1. The subordinate is in resource dependence on the paternalist, possibly voluntary. Since many of the risks associated with the extraction of resources are assumed by the paternalist, it can be beneficial for the subordinate.
2. The paternalist is usually an individual, while his subordinates are seen as a collective. The emergence of hierarchical structures is also possible, in which the paternalist delegates part of his powers.
3. The ideological aspect of paternalism is associated with the justification of submission, emphasizing the caring role of the paternalist. It is emphasized that subordinates do not have sufficient independence to assess the possible consequences of their actions and decisions. Thus, they can cause irreversible harm to themselves, and they need to be monitored for their own good. At the same time, part of the responsibility for this is removed from the subordinates.
4. Paternalism is usually a widespread relationship that encompasses all aspects of the life of subordinates and affects the personality as a whole, not limited to certain types of individual activities.

The ideology of paternalism is seen as contradicting social Darwinism and liberalism.

Liberalism

Liberals zm (from Lat. liberalis - free) is a philosophical and socio-political trend that proclaims the inviolability of human rights and freedoms in the face of the state and advocates minimizing state interference in the life of citizens.In the 20th century, liberalism became generally accepted in developed countries.

Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of every person as the highest value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order. At the same time, the possibilities of the state and the church to influence the life of society are limited by the constitution. The most important freedoms in liberalism are the freedom to speak out in public, the freedom to choose religion, and the freedom to choose representatives for oneself in fair and free elections. In economic terms, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. In legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the rule of law over the will of the rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence.

Liberalism began in many ways as a reaction to the atrocities of absolute monarchs and the Catholic Church. Liberalism rejected many of the tenets that were the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to rule and the role of religion as the sole source of truth. Instead, liberalism proposed the following:
ensuring data from nature of natural rights (including the right to life, to personal freedom, to property);
ensuring civil rights;
establishing the equality of all citizens before the law;
the establishment of a free market economy;
ensuring government responsibility and transparency of government.

At the same time, the function of state power is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Modern liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic governance of the state, subject to strict observance of the rights of minorities and individual citizens.

Some modern liberal currents are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets to ensure equal opportunities for success, universal education and narrowing the income gap. Proponents of these views believe that the political system should contain elements of the welfare state, including state unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free health care. All this does not contradict the ideas of liberalism.

According to liberalism, state power exists only for the benefit of citizens, and political leadership of a country can only be exercised on the basis of public consensus. Currently, the political system most consistent with liberal principles is liberal democracy.

Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism (from Latin totalis - all, whole, complete; Latin totalitas - wholeness, completeness) is a political regime that seeks complete (total) control of the state over all aspects of society.

From the point of view of political science, totalitarianism is a form of the relationship between society and power, in which political power takes complete (total) control of society, forming a single whole with it, completely controlling all aspects of human life. Any form of opposition is brutally and mercilessly suppressed or suppressed by the state. Another important feature of totalitarianism is the creation of the illusion of complete approval by the people of the actions of this government.

Historically, the concept of "totalitarian state" (Italian stato totalitario) appeared in the early 1920s to characterize the regime of Benito Mussolini. The totalitarian state was characterized by the powers of power not limited by law, the elimination of constitutional rights and freedoms, repression against dissidents, and the militarization of public life. The jurists of Italian fascism and German Nazism used the term positively, while their critics used the term negatively. In the West, during the Cold War years, rhetoric was adopted that tried to use any common features of Stalinism and fascism to unite them under one banner of totalitarianism. This model was widely used in anti-communist propaganda.