Now, Look Here (Publicistics) — Part Three

Reads: 647  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: We, The Silly People

Chapter 5 (v.1) - Hundred years later (to the centenary of October revolution)

Submitted: May 06, 2018

Reads: 19

A A A | A A A

Submitted: May 06, 2018



(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 exactlythis, 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 … communionism, 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











© Copyright 2019 Chris Myrski. All rights reserved.


Add Your Comments: