CONTENTS
Zeroth year
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Fifth year
SECOND YEAR
Contents of This Year
2.00. About the Left and the Right
2.01. About Neo-Communism
2.02. About Contemporary Totalitarianism
2.03. About Good Things Thrown Out
2.04. About New Kind of Families
2.05. About Mutual Consent in the Business
2.06. The Best Ever Party -- Manifesto
2.07. The Best Ever Party -- Program
2.08. The Best Ever Party -- Codex
2.09. About Our Inaptitude to Give
2.10. About Immorality of Capitalism
2.00. About the Left and the Right
Hi people, one year passed and I am again here, as promised. But, to tell you the truth, I don't know what will come out this year, I will suck out what I can from my fingers, so that if it occasionally happens to be good then say a good word about these industrious parts of my body (which have become also this winter ... frost-bitten, especially on my right hand, with which I catch the computer mouse, because in Bulgaria everything costs money and I am keeping at home pretty low temperature), and if it turns out to be not much interesting, then feel free to curse them (because they have deserved this, in this case). Yes, but otherwise I will use the same ways for giving words from other languages in '' brackets in the way how they are
read in my usual transliteration, and in "" ones in the way how they are written (if with Latin alphabet); also I will shorten all nations with 3, or sometimes even 2, chars in the most obvious way; and probably also some often used words, like: lang. for language, smt. for something, smb. for somebody, and maybe smt. more.
Ah, and the zeroth chapter of this open book, with no definitive subject (except the fuzzy idea that the humans are masters in finding of problems exactly there, where are no
real reasons for this), is always a difficult task. This year I decided to chose the left and right things, because this seems to me quite hazy, and allows easy swerving of nearly every topic. Because, you know: for one hand so, but for other hand otherwise, or the right is as if the right (-wing) but not always, because the left (-wing) also exists, or the left can lead us exactly to its opposite, to the right, if we continue to move further in
this direction, or also vice versa, or if they are equal then how to make distinction between them, or if they are not such then what is more important, or if the one thing is important then why is the other, and so on. Even the practically proven thesis that the opposite ends meet is not easily to be grasped without the go-between role of some God, because this happens somewhere outside of our direct sight (what, I think, is an idea used even by the scientists, where, say, the function
b/(x-a) comes to infinity in the point
x=a , but from one side it goes to +inf, while at the other side to -inf, and they differ quite a lot, but see, some divine being helps to connect them).
What is sure is that
both sides or hands are
necessary, at least in order to maintain some symmetry, yet I see here also smt.
dialectical, for to make us, every animal, so to say,
self-sufficient, otherwise we could not have been really individuals, we must have gone in constant pairs! (And you know that in the realm of elementary particles, as well also on subatomic level, exist 2 different kinds of charges, positive and negative, but they join themselves in pairs, there is no other way, otherwise simply remains a tendency to move to the other charge.) And when both these "hands" are necessary, then it is not right to ask ourselves which part is more important, only which is stronger, or faster, or whatever, but they always
complement one another, and all talks about equality between them are just silly, because this means ...
mutilation of the nature, not more and not less! (What is the main reason why I spit so strongly against the emancipation, because this is mutilation of human society, this must change sometime, and the things must return to the established by God or Nature equilibrium.)
As to the exact
hands of the animals I can not tell you why the right one has to be stronger, probably this is related with the ... rotation of Earth, i.e. is a question of
spin, or is so in our Universe, or then our God has cast lots (but this seems pretty improbable to me). What is sure is that this is once and for all established difference, and a right-handed person (in sense of with stronger right hand) never becomes left-handed, or vice versa. There are things that break the symmetry, like that the heart is on the left, but why the hand which is
wider placed from the latter must be the stronger one I can not say (yet I have some observations that left-handed persons are more persistent, and in result of this they quite often are as if
blessed by this deficiency). But even if you leave all these judgments aside and think that this is just in order to distinguish somehow the hands, it still makes sense for the hands to be different, in order to build a proper pair. (Where I want to add that as if only in Bulgaria we use different words for smt. right as antipode of left and as correct, justified, where the first is 'djasno' and the second is 'pravo /pravilno'; though also in German is said "recht" and "richtig", but the root here is the same.)
What, naturally, does not mean that the one hand can not do the work of the other one, no, they are more or less mutually exchangeable, what can lead us to the thought that this can happen also with the right- and left- wing parties, where the right ones can also think about the common people, like the left one can also ... lead to dictatorship, what has happened many times in the last pair of centuries! It is practically obvious (although hardly to be proven exactly) that the left-wing parties can come very near to some right-wing ones, or v.v., and cause in the country similar havoc, but there, still, are differences, they can be told one from the other. (This is why I have sometimes expressed a wish to see an
union of left- and right- wing parties, because this would have really been the strongest
acting party, which will be able to make many new reforms in the country, but I do not believe in this, I use it chiefly as figure of speech.) However, left- and right- wing parties are necessary if there is not capable centrist party, because to extremities is gone only when there does not exist well-paved moderate path.
So, and when I have said that it is not good to judge which side is better, it is good to repeat (because I have explained this several times before) that the right (-wing or not) or the strong is
not really right, he or it is just strong, but because in our world wins the stronger it is
accepted that the latter is right, simply because he can
impose his view at the things. Ah, it is more or less like they have said before (and probably say also now, I don't know this) in England that "the right side is the
wrong side, and the left side is the right side"! And, come to think about, I suppose that the choice of the left or the right is chiefly a matter of ...
intellect! Why I think so? Well, because for me, when the right-wing is not really right, and when the masses are
always much more than the leaders, then everybody, each ruling, has to think first of all about the common people, hence to be left-wing! (Or, then, I can add one more argument about my
thesis, which is somehow related with the ...
testicles, or rather with the very prick, hence this must be true for all men, namely: a man is left or right oriented according with the side to which he ... keeps his masculine part! I, for my part, keep it always on the left, hence I am left oriented -- as simple as that!)
Now, you may think that the last was not serious, what is so, and isn't so. The sure thing is as if only this, that it is a matter of taste (like whether you prefer girls with big breasts and /or bottom, or on the contrary). Otherwise, even if I am right (and some of you may think that this is far away from always so), then: what means intelligent people? Because such are about
5 percents of the population, at most 10 %, from what follows that the right ruling must, in the end, be the right-wing one. And this also seems plausible, because this is the
real ruling, the authoritarian one, and what concerns the masses then they can always confuse the things. Let me give you one example from Bul political situation (for I am Bul-an, after all). For about the last 20 years we have had chiefly right-wing ruling, of several basically right-wing parties, which can be several because they are right-wing, while the left-wing party is monolithic, this is the Socialist party (BSP), which is the successor of former communists. Yeah, but this BSP is
not at all really left-wing, it pretends to be centrist yet it is not even this, they are opportunists, who have messed everything exactly like the right-wing parties (one has no right to suppose that in the last EU country some party can have success when it is at ruling position). But the point is not only in this, that what is on the shield does not correspond with the contents, and every party
pretends to be things that it is not, there is also this moment that the unreasonable behaviour in choosing right-wing parties in many cases ...
helps, instead of to harm the ruling! Why and how this?
Ah, because the strongest right-wing party (in Bul-ia) is one GERB, of one general (frankly speaking he is
not real military, he was ... fire-fighter, but he is general all the same), who knows how to command (or at least his supporters believe in this), as result of what he stays at the helm of power for more than a decade, he was bitten 3 or so times, but in the end of this 2022-nd he has again won the majority of the votes (although this majority is just a ...
minority, about 1/4 from 40 % voting people, what gives only 10 %, yet the other parties have won even less). And why he has again won so many supporters. Well, because those who have succeeded him the last time have had the
stupidity to raise the pensions at least 1.5 times, where my pension, as the lowest of the lower (the so called half lowest one, with only 16 years length of service -- because I have studied quite long), was raised 2 times (practically at once from 175 to 365 Lv, where 1 Lv is 1/2 Euro, and later also a bit more). And as a result of this raising in an interval of about half an year the prices of basic food-stuffs have jumped nearly
twice (the sunflower oil 2.5 times, the sugar 2 times, the eggs at least with 50 %, and the other food with at least 1/4, and now the electricity and the central heating must rise with 30 % or so for the moment)! And mark also that these silly deeds were proposed before about 20 years by our fascists, but they have not been realized till now, yet under the pressure of long public protests, this was done by as if a bit left-wing service government. So that everything is confused simply because we are outsiders in the EU, which we are, if you ask me, because we are the biggest
barbarians (yet
unorganized, so to say
spontaneous ones) in the civilized part of the world.
Now I have reached my minimum of about 10 KB text (4 usual pages, or 2 double ones), so that let me think about ending the chapter. As you have seen the left and the right are necessary, exchangeable, confounding, etc., yet they exist and are part of our every-day activity. The reason says that there must be chosen only left-wing parties, yet the (silly) people prefer the right-wing ones. It can be said also that the right-wing is not exactly right but taken for such, where the left is, in my interpretation at least, the justified, hence they must co-exist always, what they also do usually. The truth is as a rule not at the poles, it is somewhere in the middle, but this middle point is very hard to be reached, for the simple reason that we, the people, do not like half-done things, we want either this or that, we are
total beings in our essence. And there is at least one more thing, it is that the humans are
not much more intelligent than the animals, taken
en masse; one average person is surely more intelligent than an average mammal, but big human groups act really silly, they are pretty emotional and prejudiced. Because of this the politics is considered as a kind of
art, where the main difficulty is reduced to suitable ...
cheating (because "Mundus vult decipi", or the people want to be deceived). For this reason a really reasonable ruling is practically
impossible, yet I regret not exactly about this, but about the fact that we do
not even
try to behave reasonable, we like actions and thrillers, not quiet life, and, generally looking, we have what we want! That's it. Follows the finishing verse, which I like to put here and there.
The left can right be, and the right be wrong,
in this way both sides play sometimes ping-pong.
The right is strong, and then the left is just,
this difference exist quite always must!
Yet they are
not the truth, it is among.
Dec. 2022, Sofia, Bulgaria (more diminishing, but still kicking), EU
2.01. About Neo-Communism
Now, I must tell you again that I may be left-wing man (because I keep
it always on the left, etc.) but I am
not a communist or socialist in the usual meaning -- I just can't be orthodox, I am thinking person --, and have never been communist, and will never be one. Yet notwithstanding this I defend the communist
idea, and will always do this, hence I am a communist in my
own way, and because of this I will speak now about the neo-communism, in the way how I understand it.
And how's this? Well, briefly said in such way, which the communists will
never accept, but I defend the thesis that the communism is
alpha and omega of everything in the society, that it is blessing, that it must always exist, and in even
more communist way than the very communists have said, yet as
free choice, and in the framework of the social formation, or in the moment under the conditions of existing right-wing capitalism! But, people, this is my oldest beloved topic, I have begun my publicistic activity with my "Communism as Religion", I have written at least 5 related with it papers in my enormously big collection of publicistics called "Now, look here!" (including materials about the moderate communism, Social ministry, free allowances for everybody, hundred years after the Russian socialist revolution, several papers about the bad contemporary capitalism, about the fascism, and so on), then you may take my whole book filled with Manifestos (in fact a devil dozen of them, 13), a quite big essay about the democracy in my book with 10 Cynical essays, other pieces on other places (including also this very book in the previous years), many verses on this theme, surely, and in the last about 6 years also a heap of papers under another pen-name. So that I
have what to say about this topic.
Also I state that, even if the real communism has been quite rough in some moments, in some countries, the really guilty thing was not the communism but the bad
society, which has caused the emergence of this social order, what for me must be obvious. And if one may remark that the fascists can also say this, then I will answer that they may say it, but they will
not be right, because there
are differences, after all, between the extreme left- and extreme right- wing ideas. And really, take only this moment that the communists said that guilty is the money, the
capitals, and if they will be expropriated from the wealthy capitalists and given in the hands of the state, then they can be governed better than before and in the interest of common masses, what has been
proved by the real communism (or socialism, this is a matter of names), where it has existed. I mean that, well, the real communism has shown itself
not as very capable in producing of really nice products, those of the capitalist countries were, unquestionably, of better quality, but this was due to the higher
exploitation under the right-wing capitalism, what must also be unquestionable (allow me to know this, having been lived 40 years under some socialism, and expecting to live now as much under some form of capitalism, there is enormous difference in the exploitation level, I am not at all sure that it pays the difficulties). So that, in order to make the long story short, I will remark only that the expropriation of big money has
not directly
harmed those people, while sending of Hebrews in concentration camps is smt. quite different, isn't it? The money is not human life, surely, it is not smt.
inborn, like the ethnicity! And do not also leave out of sight this moment, that the fascist states have
not stayed for long, while the socialist have done this, and the socialism is, still,
not really beaten, it is rejected for the moment as not very efficient in the era of common affluence, but not in principle.
So that the very emerging of communism as idea and realization is not a bad thing in itself, this was simply forced by the circumstances; no matter that I, if you want simply as more intelligent, do not support armed revolutions and similar disturbances, still I believe that the "guy" Lenin was generally right about this, that there are differences between revolution and
revolution, and the socialist one is justified from many sides, because it was not possible to continue otherwise. And, people, do not forget also the fact that the socialist revolution was backed by a real
theory, by smt.
scientific (the economy of capitalism by Marx), and even the biggest apologists of capitalism do not deny the accumulation of money in the hands of every citizen, which as much leads to enlivening of the society and opening of new working places etc., not less than this leads to unnecessary social disturbances and enhanced exploitation. Yes, naturally, you just look at the situation
today, when there are not more closed communist states to open to the common market, and as result of this we are as if for 10 or so years in the deepest economic crisis in the
history -- I have mentioned this, and /or will mention it again, but now
all currencies are
weak, for they give you 0 % for keeping of money in the banks, and even require some additional payment from you. Hence the accumulation of money is bad, when it happens in a rotten social order of right-wing capitalism, and this was remarked before one and a half centuries, the situation has not bettered itself, but has worsened!
Yet let me return to what I have said in the beginning, about alpha and omega of everything. This is surely so, because the communism, as
idea as I stressed, has emerged on the dawn of civilization, in the primitive societies, and it still exists in some form under many animals, not only mammals but even insects. Yes, we are
herd animals, we can't live alone! And if smt. has happened long ago this means that this is necessary, because you will surely not require from me now to explain you that there is nothing new under the Sun, will you? Everything on this world is
repetition, only that each time on a new winding of the spiral, in a better form. Some communes have existed in all previous social orders, under the slavery, the serfdom, and so on, and they exist also in many religions, there is spoken about the ... communion, and now you do
not tell me, please, that this is smt.
very different, because the
idea is the same, all humans, especially those confessing the same belief, belong to one big flock, naturally, and these are just different communes! Like also the big patriarchal families of the past, with more than 10 members, they are subdivisions of the tribes, they are also kinds of communes. Let me tell you that this similarity is seen pretty well in It word
paesano, what means from the same
paese, what is some
piece of area, and it can be of whatever amount, as neighbourhood, or village, or suburb, region, country, or you name it. We all are brethren, after all, members of some communes.
Continuing in this direction of thoughts we come to the current
families, which are, or rather
were, the smallest communes, and they disappear now, you all see this with your own eyes, hence smt.
must come in place of them, some new kind of families, some freely chosen pseudo families, what is one of my newest ideas (developed first under different pseudonym), because the Nature does not love empty places -- it is a
dame, after all, she wants smt. in every hole of her, ha-ha! So that new communes, even on several levels, are utterly necessary, we can't continue to live in such disunited way, we will alone reject this situation, surely, but what appears of itself is usually related with bigger disturbances, compared with what is rightly planned in advance. (Let me squeeze here the thought that the chief reason for the existing of force and compulsion is the fact -- at least for me this is a fact -- that without such organized compulsion will appear much worse
unorganized compulsion or simply chaos.) Because: what is a society, or the socio, as word, what is the main idea in it? Ah, I have explained this on several places, the socio is some kind of
sauce, we all live in some social sauce, we
boil in it, and on the surface appears some kind of cream, yet the
bouillon of the common masses remains and can't be ignored.
And why then new or neo, what is not like in the old communism? Well, the basic problem of every society is how to cope with the differences between the common interests, and those of every one individual, right? And the defenders of the left say that it is just to start from the common interests and only after them to think about the individuals, while those of the right state that the masses are a flock and the important are the leaders of this flock. This is obvious and already mentioned, but the best way, naturally, is to find sufficiently good solution for
both kinds of defenders, to find a compromise. Yes, but the new moment is that in
all, really, previous societies, the conditions for existence of people were
hard, there were serious problems to be solved, we could not have allowed us not to take severe measures and compulsion, and subjection of one of these parts to the other (of the leaders to the masses or otherwise). Surely, the life is tough (or was at least), but now, somewhere after Marx, but especially in this 21-st century of massive ...
throwing away of quite
good things just in order to find
work for the people to produce new things (i.e. not to search for people for a given work to be done, but for a work for the enormously big masses of people), the things have changed, now the conditions are far away from serious, in fact nowadays the main problem for the humanity is that we have ...
not serious problems!
Did you get it? So now we have much bigger abilities, we can simply feed and clothe and shelter and educate and take medical care and so on for
every single person in the society, I am convinced in this, so that we are at least morally
obliged to do this, yet in doing this not making the very life dull, that's the problem! But it is
not at all easy, I'll tell you, this doing of nothing really necessary for the individual is quite difficult,
more difficult than if he is forced to lead poor live in severe conditions! The other animals have not such problems, but the humans, with their unlimited desire to
try everything, with the use of their intellect, to go away from the real situation in the realm of fantasies and inventions, become dumbfounded how to cope with this new situation! Yeah, the right-wing ideas are to give the people all possibilities to satisfy their
material desires (with cars, clothes, homes, yachts, whatever, probably even with space-shuttles) -- because the business produces chiefly material goods --, while the left-wing ideas are (or must be) to provide for everybody the best conditions for maximally good ... self-expression, personal development, enhancing of the
soul! And expressing in what kind of direction, when not with more and better material things! Ah, in the direction of doing just
good deeds to the others, because every human wants to leave smt. behind himself, not homes and cars but
memory about him! There is a difference, right? And if it will be really difficult to find so many interesting ideas, scientific or in the arts or sports or whatever, then even to
decrease the human population, what is also obvious and necessary to be done thing. Yes, what we are doing nowadays is to run like ... squirrels in a wheel, under the world-wide spread right-wing capitalism, while this, what I want and understand under left-wing neo-communism, is to care about the
people, not about the things!
What is reduced chiefly to ensured and quiet life, to money allowances (when we still live in a world of money) for everybody in need -- not if he or she works, no, independently of the working or not, just to everybody, because this is alive person --, to leaving the people alone to
want to do smt. for the others, in order to become known and honoured, to try to develop everything what the dear God (or Nature, or chance) has put in us, this is
bigger communism than that of the orthodox communists, but the conditions now are different, we must not stick to dogmas but to act according with the circumstances! Yes, and there are many things about which is necessary to dig deeper but I may do this also in the next chapters. The only thing that I fear is that in this way, giving the people all opportunities to develop themselves, we may become more able to increase the progress of production of material goods, together with the increasing of the arts and the souls of people, what in my view will
not be good, we are already moving too fast ahead in this direction! But we may
hope for the best, after all, and this is obviously the right way, I am sure; probably the individuals will try to show off with
insignificant things, like the children do, not with something important for the wellbeing of all, this is natural to expect, and we have not yet come to this, in order to ponder more about this (when people will not be forced to produce more in order to live better, then why should they produce more, they can as well only ...
amuse themselves). That's it, and now again one parting verse.
The communism is
natural a thing,
and you can feel quite well and want to sing!
The point is to be suºre that, if theºre,
when `are somehoºw ill, is taken caºre;
you must not always fight, like in a ring.
2.02. About Contemporary Totalitarianism
If you recall yourselves I have mentioned somewhere before that the human beings are just
total animals, on the contrary to the other ones, chiefly due to our intellect, yet not only, we simply like to want always more than necessary, and to go to the extreme pole when have begun to move in some direction. (Say, if smb., as if more often some woman, is good, then she is much better than the average, yet if she is bad, then she is much worse than it is allowed, right?) This is related also with the difficulty to be moderate, but we just are not satisfied with whatever moderation, we want everything or nothing. So that only from here can be seen why we like (or, then, hate) so much the communism or the fascism, yet not some quiet moderate ruling. For this reason we have pretty often in the human history come to communist ruling, as well also to fascist one. (And, by the way, in Bul-ia we have had recently whole
3 fascist parties in the Parliament, not that they have gathered many supporters, no, about 10 % in sum, but still, open fascists; even once there was one such party with quite indecent -- at least -- name, smt. like "Mafioti, go away".). I have discussed this also in the former years, but here I mean
another kind of totalitarianism.
What kind then? Ah, of the ...
money! This is my quite new idea, from about a year or two, but it is really so, about the
usual right-wing capitalism as everywhere, and nobody (except me) has come to this conclusion. Yet I (probably because there were times when my pension amounted to a bit less than
3 ... bus tickets daily, for all expenses -- I surely have mentioned this) have just asked myself: how it was in the other social orders? Because the money exists for many millenniums. Yes, and after a little pondering I have come to the conclusion that it was, naturally,
not so. About the primitive societies I am not sure whether they have used money then, but even if somewhere smt. of the kind was used, then the direct physical power was more important. Then in the times of pharaohs there was very strong ancestral reason for the big money, and if you were a pharaoh the money has come with your position, or could have just been expropriated if necessary. Nearly the same under sultan's power, or if there was an emperor, and in the serfdom the money was important, but not only it (i.e. there could have been big money but if so you were bound to buy serfs and after this even if you lose the money and the serves your position is not like one of them); also in the old Roman empire were several kinds of power (and, say, you could not suppress the heredity and become an emperor with money only). These are obvious things, if one begins to ask questions.
Yeah, but under the capitalism, the real right-wing one, if you have the money you could have taken whatever position, even become President (by paying here and there what is necessary), and also without quite substantial money you can not receive a decent education, after all, the money is the queen (like we say in Bul-ia). Hence this was why the people in France have fought their great bourgeois revolution, in order that every citizen (even 'Sulju and Pulju' like we say) was able to
suppress the heredity and become whatever he (or she) wants, if he has the necessary money. So that I am right, but when so then
every capitalist society, every such state, is
totalitarian one, where the one and only way to come to power is the money, or even v.v., what means that money is
equivalent with power! (And let me give you one more example from my poor Bul-ia, by us between small scale capitalists the wealthier are ... the
sellers of fruits and vegetables, yes, they drive the best Jap-se cars, and can allow themselves to spend for a lunch more or less so much, as much an ordinary worker spends for 3 days -- allow me to know this, because I have a pair of times ... eaten the leftovers of their lunches after closing time, looking for some squashed fruits.) So that under the capitalism there are not other reasons for wellbeing, no education, no morality, no knowledge, no age, no beauty, and no nothing! Well, those people work hard, but they get much more than other hard workers, this surely is not right (and it was not so under the real totalitarianism of the communists).
This is why I am looking for whatever other ways to
suppress the omnipotence of money, because there must exist such ways, else the "game" of life is not interesting. (And I suppose that you know better than me that in the poker game in some variations exists the rule that royal flush is beaten by four of 7; or then that in the chess a pawn can become a queen.) After all, this is why people officially deny the totalitarianism, because there must exist some way out of difficult situations, must exist something that breaks the usual rules (like you know that the slaves could have become free citizens if bought and liberated). In short, I mean that if the communism was considered as bad society because of its totalitarianism (not because of its ideas, surely), then the very capitalism must also be taken for bad again because of its totalitarianism, yet this time of the money! And about this not I alone am who thinks so, no, there were
millions of people who have thought the same thing, and for this reason were fought the First and Second word wars (at least about the 2. this is undisputable)! More than this, like the communists, so also the fascists, have taken immediate measures to expropriate the big money, in order to break this single power of money. I may come again to this conclusion from other places, what can only underline its importance.
Ah, but there is another kind of totalitarianism, which is also widely spread nowadays, yet nobody says anything against it. What I mean is the totalitarianism of ... religions! Surely, because everywhere is spoken about
official religious belief or official religion, what means that it is not at all
safe to confess some other religion, or then be atheist; what is not official is as if
unofficial, is unwanted, even if not exactly forbidden. And you know that there were, practically in all times, fought wars on religious grounds; if we have accepted the position that everybody can believe in whatever he wants (say, every man likes to believe that his ... member is the biggest, right?) then there would have been no such wars, surely, but the believers want
no proofs, they just believe in the
unbelievable! Where I, for my part, being convinced atheist, neither deny whatever god or religion, nor accept some of them! Yeah, but I am not an usual atheist, I am ... clever one, I personally believe, and have mentioned this on several places, that the existence of whatever god can be neither proved nor disproved, hence from here follows that the atheists are
also believers!
Surely, but for me, not for the common atheists, like the common communists, no, they are convinced in their not believing in whatever god and this is again prejudice, and because of this in all former communist countries the real believers were not looked with good eye, they were at least scorned. Where I think that the atheists are, in fact, even
bigger believers than the real ones, because
if some God exists, He might have founded some way to convince the believers that He exists (say, He might have made some usual
stone, bit which will jump from time to time, or even Morse smt., e.g. "I am your God", and this exactly in 0:00 Greenwich mean time, smt. like this; when He is a god He must find the right way), but if there is no such Being, then how (the Hell) can this
nonexistent Thing prove that it does not exist? So that the religions are also totalitarian; some of them may accept the believing in some other God, but nevertheless stating always that their one is the real God and the others are just mistaken. While they surely could have said that nobody can tell for sure who is right and who is wrong, and that the God is one, but we know Him under different names, and then even to allow building of
common temples, with different altars dedicated to different Gods (say, triangular churches with altars of Christ, Allah, and Brahma)!
Although I personally, as former mathematician, prefer to speak about common ...
intersection of all religions, what must, theoretically, be pure morality! Because the moral hidden in every religion (if it at least tries not to be very totalitarian) is the only good trait in it! What must be applied also to the atheism, of course. I mean that all religions, in the end, try to
delude the people, yet in the name of some good for all of them morality! So that we are going now to the
morality, and because of this I will tell you a pair of sentences about the very word "moral". But here everything is easy, if you ask me, because I can derive the moral from Lat
mores (from the heard sentence: "
Oh tempora, oh mores!"), where the latter means not exactly morality but habits (it is in pl.), yet this is in the same sense. And what is this sense? Ah, of a system of
rules for co-existence, of course. Hence the morality is smt.
more (some kind of
mare-sea), some more things which every citizen must know in order to ensure peaceful co-existence.
OK, but the morality, as a kind of quintessence of each religion, is also totalitarian, surely, and we are again going to the extreme pole in every direction. Say, all religions deny (I suppose still) the abortion, while this is as if manna from the heaven in contemporary over-populated world, yet the people have begun to do this in many countries, while in some others this is still not allowed. Or take then the dry low, against alcoholic beverages, which has existed for about 14 years in one USA, in utmost total form (not even a beer was allowed), yet it exists in some form in all countries, or at least there are pretty high excises. Also with the cigarettes, with the cars, or whatever; when we have begun to move in one direction we continue to do this until some catastrophe happens. I would add here also the air-flights, we have begun so much to like this that use planes even for about 500 km and less, what is not at all necessary, we have forgotten to
travel for a long time, where the very travel is a kind of relaxation, and I attribute to the air travels (or transport, generally) the global so called warming, as well also this latest Corona-virus -- in short: we have
opened our world too much, this is not
healthy!
Or take the narcotics, where the point (in my vies, that's it) is to take measures to avoid them in
young age, not exactly always, yet the young people want to use them exactly then, when they are most dangerous for them. Well, maybe I am repeating myself, but I explain the things easily, namely: the narcotics force some
excluding from the real world in the realm of fantasy, some introspections, what means that they allow to the persons to have some hallucinations, but will they be good or bad depends on the amount of things that are stored in the memory of the person, as well also on the ability to cause or not adaptation of the organism to them, what leads to bigger totality. That's it. From here the conclusions are practically obvious: if one is young than he (or she) has not much to see in himself except some hypertrophied genitals, and the organism can easily adapt to this bad influence, where if one is old enough, he has what to see looking in himself, he recalls old persons and situations, and this is not so harmful because the organism does not change so easy in old years.
And so on. As I said, we do
not like to be
moderate, we have forgotten old Greek slogan to be moderate in all things, and we suffer from this. Before to conclude this chapter, also with a small verse, I want to quote you one, probably heard thought (because I am not so enormously clever, right?) that the money is a kind of ...
substitute for moral values! Yeah, but it is
bad substitute, as it happens in most of the cases, we only
hope for it to be substitute, in order to justify it with something. Or then it turns to its antipode, it denies itself, yes, because everything denies itself if jumps out of some moderate limits, but this is dialectical law, and those who want to exonerate the wealth are usually not at all dialectics (they are mostly just wealthy impostors). The real model of judgment (acc. to me) is that
ancestrally wealthy persons are simply ... sick of their money and in consequence of this they want smt. different, with what to show off, because -- let me repeat this -- people want generally to be known and
honoured by the others, but the money is simply the easiest thing with which they can become known! So that there is no excuse for the big money, it is always bad, it is from the devil! The only thing that one can do with big money, if he has just got it somehow, is to manage it in such way, that will bring more good to the others, but this is his moral duty. And here is the verse.
T_`o be total has a bad effect,
O_ften meet I this with disrespect.
T_he alternatives, they make the choice,
A_nd the single way 's-not worth the noise.
L_et us try to fight with this defect!
2.03. About Good Things Thrown Out
I have written smt. about this bad habit of ours to throw quite good things in the garbage before about 10 years, and I continue to do this, because we continue to throw more and more things. (You see that I spit at some things, which I find to be bad, yet on the other hand, being pretty ... clever, I do not get really angry because of this, for I get some topics about which to write smt., to be sure.) So why is this throwing out so bad? Well, probably first of all because I have never been from the wealthy ones, I am ancestral intellectual, and these people do not lead very affluent life, this is not good for the thinking, the affluence
spoils the person, this must be known since ancient times. Also because we throw things which do not decompose easily, no, they litter the nature with unnecessary industrial trashes. We have still not found such bacteria that eat the plastics, or the metals, to say nothing about constructive wastes, kitchen appliances, cars, et cetera. But this is well known. What is probably new for my readers is my view at the thrown things as at
living objects, and this is a kind of ... killing, so to say.
Now, a thrown out sofa, for example (what I intend to shorten as f.ex.), is not living object, but
we are living, and we may have our memories about these things, they continue to live in our brains! Id est, we become used to the things, and throwing them away disturbs us somehow, makes us
insensible (what I believe is true) also for other things. And let me tell you my simple comparison, that if the average human life is 75 years, then some 15 years is 1/5 of this, and if a personal car can be used 15 years (what is sure, even as minimum, sometimes more than this), then to change it after 3-4 years is equivalent to giving birth to children, bringing them up till the beginning of their teens, and then giving them for ... adoption, or just shutting the door of their home for them! And there are many people who do exactly this, change their cars nearly like ... underwear. Also the items of furniture, kitchen appliances, and so on, what just teaches us badly, we must not behave in this way, and we have not behaved so till before less than a century, but now this affluence, it requires victims, and our
souls become the first victims, I'll tell you!
Yet even if we throw edible things, that can be decomposed, still, throwing them afar from their ordinary place (in the nature) is smt. different, and there are many persons who could eat them, surely (such people like me, even if not so highly educated but nevertheless
people), and when so this is just
inhuman, I'll tell you. Surely, but the capitalism requires producing of new products, finding of work for the workers, enhancing of turnover, intensifying of the production, and so on. Hence we are again victims, this time all human beings, and of the usual capitalism (for which bettering were fought at least the First and Second world wars, let me remind you this one more time). And mark also, that there are
not unsolvable problems here, everything can be
planned, and produced what is necessary (how it was for haft a century in the totalitarian countries), yet it ... does not pay the efforts; the producing, the incessant and unnecessary producing is much easier than some decent planning, and also the latter has to be done on
global scale, where the private businesses do their planning on their local level, that's it.
Yeah, but I see this in an
apocalyptic way, that this leads to nothing good, it spoils our souls, and is symptomatic for some kind of
decay! Surely, the capitalism is decaying, and this for at least one whole century, nearly with its emergence, because there were pluses in the existence of some aristocracy, this can't be denied! And when there were difficulties this, if in some moderate scale, was
good, people tried to do smt., they wanted eagerly to live better, and sometimes this was possible, some persons have reached higher posts, they have bettered themselves, when now it is not so. I mean that, surely, one can have not just one car, but two, one for working days, and one for the holidays; a pair of homes around the world, or then to want to have an own ... island, or space-shuttle, or the like, yet this is only
quantity, people, this is not real enhancing of life, this is rather
enslaving to the things, surely, this is bad, all, and I mean really
all, religions are against this, only the contemporary capitalism shows this as the top of desires. You take just the constant slogan in the shops, that they have produced smt. new, when it is known for millenniums that there is
nothing new under the Sun (or, then, the Moon).
Of course my are philosophical thoughts, while the common people want to be deluded with smt., and new quantity for them is quite good substitute of new quality, but I am not lying to you, this is so. Then it is also clear that everything rises and falls, there is nothing constant on this world, so that why should people not have, say, 2 homes, when they can allow themselves this? Yet I can answer you like a preacher: because the
soul matters somehow, and even in
this world, not in some invented other one! The humans need what they need, but when smt. is exaggerated, then this is not good, it shows its bad effect because everything is related and if we break the equilibrium this will hit us somehow. And the equilibrium requires that there was some opposition, that the things could not be done like with a magic wand. (And I personally, being an old boy, can tell you that I have always preferred a girl with as narrow as possible -- if you see what I mean --, though I have not come to the view of ... homosexuals, who prefer it even tighter than this.) But this is well known between the psychologists, who say that one must meet with
surmountable difficulties in order to get pleasure in his life.
What we are doing more or less the last half a century (on the West, and about twice as less on the East, in the former ex-comms) is to move
by inertia, to do this, what we can, instead of this, what we must, what is not the right behaviour. Not that this is a new element, the humans have always done this in the history, because this is better than nothing (think they), but it depends on the scale and the amount of this doing nothing (necessary). Yet now we have as if come to a
cult to robotized products, or at least it seems to be so, listening to the adds, what is not good, because they are just
substitutes! Surely these GM (genetically modified) foods are exactly this, substitutes, but we are still not glad, we continue in the same direction until will begin to live on our Earth like in a space station and, f.ex., to drink recycled ... piss, and eat if not exactly recycled feaces then unrecognizably restructured plants and minerals. I can accept this if for the time being, in order to feed the poor masses, when in condition of wars, or the like, but it is not so, no, we are living in the era of common affluence and feed and cloth etc. us with faked substitutes of everything. And do you get it why is this? Ah, very simple, because we are living in conditions of market economy, and this means that are produced things that are profitable for the
capitalists, not that are good for the masses! We have some choice, but we are too weak in order to behave rationally, we behave just silly, and think that it is better to eat even feaces, but to drive a brand new car, which is not at all necessary for us in big cities, but is very useful for raising of our self-esteem. And no matter how much we have wanted to buy this car we are ready to throw it to the junk after 5 or so years and to think about buying of some new one, which is -- mark this -- in most cases ...
worse than the last one!
But how's this? Why should the new, automated things be worse, when the robotized products are of better quality than those made by hand? Ah, because it depends on the goals, and when one does not give his soul in order to make smt. nice, but follows some instructions for
cheaper cost of everything (because of the market and the silly buyers), it happens so, that the new things are
over-automated, they are made too sophisticated, what in this case means that they have the brains of
monkeys, who do
not think at all, but follow strict rules! There is no other way, and I will give you some examples. Say, the new products are
not reparable, they are in one monolithic piece, and if begin to show defects, they must simply be thrown to the garbage (and in most cases
not to the usual one, because they contain harmful to the nature ingredients); or else their repair will cost much more than the buying of new and more modern thing.
Or also that they have so sophisticated mode of work, which sticks to some usual conditions, and if smt. is changed then they will not work properly, they even can't be commanded by hand at all. (Say, I have lately such situation in the entrance of my cooperative building, that one silly entrepreneurial manageress of the house has changed the usual lighting on the stairs with sensor driven one, separately on each floor, which incessantly clicks on and off, at least 5 times in one going out through the floors, is switched in the broad daylight, begins to narrow its span of switching on, so that about 30 % of the stairs between the floors remain in darkness, and nobody cares to try at least to regulate the automata, people think that it is better in this way, when there is not at all way to switch on or off the lighting, yet we are modern.) Or then the work by hand, with real person before you costs some money more, compared with automated products (like money automata, where you can not return some badly looking to you banknote, or automata for whatever). In short, this, what the unforgettable Charlie Chaplin has told to the people before about one century with his film "Modern times", this picture of the common man being caught between the wheels of some machinery, continues to be even more actual.
And I recalled now one more reason for this incessant producing of newer versions of practically everything, this is the expectancy of more profits, the desire to run ahead, not to stay on the same place. Yeah, but quite often there
can't be made better versions -- because if they can easily be made then this means that the old ones were simply not good, yet who is to come to such thoughts? (Let me recall you that in the Constitution of USA are made only about 28 or so amendments, and nobody weeps about this but the Am-ns are even proud with this.) One example for me (as former computer programmer) is the new software, say of Microsoft, where somewhere after the turn of the century there is practically
nothing better, yet they continue to issue new versions each year. Yeah, they simply install one program above the other, change some cosmetic details, and quite often even worsen the things. And this is common practice in every branch, just to make the consumer confused what to choose and to stick to the newest things. As I said, every such act is confirmation of former faults, but nobody cares!
So that, however one looks at the matters, a highly automated production in situation of unmoral society (like our right-wing capitalism) can lead to nothing good, in the long run. Yes, there is one practically obvious reason why people throw out so massively new things today (kitchen appliances, furniture, cars, and you name it -- as if most often, at least in my Bul-ia, these are ... toilet bowls), and it is that these things are simply
not really nice, they alone have no souls, they are not like the older made by hand things (chairs, tables, whatever). We buy them and we throw them quite easy with the smallest flaw (e.g., missing button, or zipper, or the like -- I have found several times such clothes). Well, it is true that in this way, with finding entirely unnecessary things to produce, we find work for the people, but it would have been much better if instead of this heaping of garbage, we have tried to make the masses to make whatever they can
alone, this would have been much more interesting and healthy (I mean, cooking, making of clothes, exercising some sports, riding on horses -- if we want expensive occupations --, etc.). The only good thing in this heap of bad things is that nowadays, in this affluent society, we as if are less inclined to fight wars, what is very important argument, surely, but the point is that the one is not
directly related with the other; I mean, that on the Earth could have lived about a pair of
hundred millions, amidst nature, trying to do everything possible alone, and under some central for the world ruling of competent rulers, we could have hurried for nowhere, lived in order to create something alone, deny the money (because it does not exist between the animals), and so on, yet we are just humans, after all.
So, and this time in my parting verse I am using one Ger-like word yet with Eng ending, but I hope that you are clever enough to get its meaning.
`It will come time, peopºle, we'll begin to find
in the garbage ...
babies, live and kicking!
This is for the moment only in my mind,
but it's easy, I mean this nice f
icking.
So that, after fun, comes throwing of a kind!
2.04. About New Kind of Families
Here I will begin from a bit afar, because the very idea is simple (like most of my ideas) yet it is well motivated, we must come to smt. of the kind sooner or later. So what I mean is that on the axis from the single human being to the whole humanity are (or at least
were till recently) several intermediate levels. The single individual is a kind of atom, he is undividable, then comes the family, then the big family or rather the clan or tribe, then the population of various areas, like villages, cities, districts, nations, the people living on one continent, and then the humanity as a whole; yet there can be divisions on the basis of languages (which do not exactly coincide with the nations), then the races, then some castes or professional groups or also with different property status, wealthy and poor, rulers and common people, scientists, militaries, of every profession, and other varieties. These groups intersect and make the life interesting, because we always try to jump out of one's own group in a higher placed one; also, generally speaking, these groups are different categories of people, which existence is the most valuable trait of Creation, they are necessary, surely, and the diversity is important characteristics on sub-atomic level, too.
Yeah, but somewhere after the time of Marx (or Eiffel tower, steam engine, conveyor of Ford, etc.) we incessantly make the whole word to one single country, and also without whatever classes in it -- the money is a queen --, and in addition speaking this crazy (if you'll excuse my "French") language called
Great-Britannian (because we all take it for great, right?), and without whatever polite form (you call your pal "you' and the President also "you" and the God almighty, too), and other moments (like the disappearance of classical families, equal rights for women, and on and on). Hence, if you ask one born philosopher (like myself) this is
not good, every diminishing of variety in the nature is bad (if you have not heard this, then hear it from me). And if the conclusion is made, then some measures must be taken, and exactly such measures are what I am proposing in this chapter (although I have expressed this idea earlier). What I propose -- and mark the ... brilliant obvious
easiness of my idea -- is when something is lacking just to build it, on purpose! Id est, we are now to begin to build some
freely chosen families of a kind, or pseudo-families, not in biological sense, but, still, families, as kind also of
communes, and even more to this, to create some ...
hierarchy of such families, which I will call here (on other places they are called otherwise, this is for camouflage) ...
Chofa(s) (what you can pronounce as 'chofas'. or chufas', or chufaes -- it's up to you)!
OK, and how I have come to this (brilliant, to be sure, although also a bit utopian) idea? (I begin to blow here and there some bubbles, but this is because I have
not much what to tell you in this chapter -- like also in the next ones, yes, but everything in its time --, yet I suppose that you will be only glad to cast a look in the "kitchen", or, then, in the head of this
Gre Myr, what is shortening, in a Chi manner, so to say, from "great Myrsky".) So I have cast a look at the children (because in every family
are children, this is why the former exist), and also at the old people; and have remarked that the children pretty often do not like much their biological parents, and also the old people, especially nowadays, have what to leave, as money or property and would have wanted to pass these things to more suitable recipients. Did you get it? Or I have, probably, to add more explanations?
OK, so the children, not that really hate their parents, but they are not much pleased with directly their parents, they like more their ... grand-parents, surely, what is psychologically motivated, because they unconsciously
deny the parents, want to become better than them, for the reason that they are always before their eyes, as well also, probably, because the old people become more and more like ... children, so that the latter feel them as pals, in a way. Good, and the old people, after 50 or so, begin to think about the other world, i.e., about the
memory which they will leave behind them, and they also do not like much directly their children, because they have wanted to make them
different, like themselves, to implant in them the same desires that they have had during their life. And when so this, what I propose, is as if manna from heaven, the children will be able to choose new and different parents, according to their hidden desires, like also the parents will have in their old years new children and to their tastes! At least theoretically everything seems flawless, does it not? I mean that this is simply
another possibility, I don't say that all will like this and behave in such, little funny, manner, no, but I am just allowing the people to do this!
And what means that I am allowing smt. to the people, and how exactly this will happen? Well, these Chofas must be a kind of
non-profit organizations, with some standard points in the agreement taken by default, this must be done by some lawyer, and everybody must pay smt. in them if he (she) has income, or else must live of the back of the others, of the very Chofa (like the young children while they are studying, as well also very old people, who may not be able to pay full tax but will live there). It is not supposed that one will constantly change his Chofa, but in case of necessity there must be a way for calculations. What I propose is to maintain all calculations based on
MMS (minimal salaries) and even when building these organizations all money must be converted to MMS based payments, where one has to pay normally
10 % of his income, yet may pay more than this if he wants, or even be a member of
pair of Chofas. These numbers will be actualized each year, inserted in some books, and the amount of theses MMS will be used in order to give some quantitative estimation of the voice, by various votings (like this is done with the shares). In all cases, the idea is that when one dies, his shares remain in the Chofa and are divided between the live members (acc. to each MMS amount, or then equally between all members -- how it stays in the agreement for entering the Chofa). This must be quite similar to the usual inheritance, but more precise. Yet who lives on the premises of the Chofa has some advantages, because this will be one
household, one commune, as I said, where the living will be significantly cheaper. Let me discuss this a little more profound.
So there will be common property in them, like home for living, a pair of cars, household furniture, country house, or boat or yacht, whatever (say, rooms for boys and for girls, for the elder, kitchen, workshops or what is needed, but
nothing there will be personal, even a coffee maker (well,
not literally, the ... underwear may be personal, ha-ha) -- because: why should it be? This will make the life in such place significantly
cheaper, from 2 to 3 times, and there will be thrown out much less things, because they can become of some use later, for the next generation. The very life in such Chofas will be meaningful, to make smt. with him- or her- self, to become better than the foster parents, not exactly for them but for the others around, this will, must, give higher pleasure (because we are social animals). And the idea is for the members of these new families to be in number somewhere between
5 to 10 persons, yet there can be also bigger such organizations, but what concerns the living directly there persons the normal number must not exceed about a dozen, in order to be easy to maintain common
household, to cook for all of them and to eat around one table, like it befits in a family. Well, I have said that we are trying to revive the old patriarchal families under new conditions, where neither is necessary to have more than a child per a person (like I have said that it is better to count the children as "property" of every parent), nor this one child will occupy fully a mother or even a father, but for really old people, who will look at the children like at their grand-children, this will be exactly the necessary.
So that the new children will be simply taken after a written consent, but pay nothing, yet when they will begin to earn smt. they will begin also to pay, as I said, about 10 % of their income, plus the real expenses for the keeping, bit they will be much
less then if living alone. And now a pair of words about the possibility to pay additional taxes. Well, look here, the main problem nowadays is not that people receive not enough money, but that they are involved in
unnecessary competition to literally
waste more than needed, in order not to remain behind the others; in other words, people are simply
not quiet about their future, and because of this they save money, the banks are filled to bursting with money, but people don't want to spend everything what they get, they are
afraid! Yes, but if we can add some better
security, some additional insurance (like you will see also a bit later), then they will be able to pay even till 30 % of their wages and live good enough. How is this? Ah, I have said on several places that I personally live for many years on about 1/3 of MMS, and succeed even to
spare smt. (from 1/3 to 1/2 of my income), so that if one receives an average salary of about 2 and 1/3 MMS (I can't tell you exactly why this is so, but it is so), even if he pays up to 50 % of his income, he will have, still, not less than 1 whole MMS, what must be quite enough.
And now about the hierarchy of Chofas and better security. Well, I don't see why one should not look at the membership in some Chofa as at additional security? Like with his labour book for receiving of pension, so also here with his Chofa's book for having of another home or shelter, smt. like boarding house (
pansion)! Surely. One could have lived (say, from age of 13 to 23) in some Chofa, then he has moved somewhere else, probably in another town, but continued to pay smt. to his old Chofa, then at about 40 he ceases to pay to such concrete institution but pays (5 or 10 %) to some local high level Chofa as additional insurance for old years, then at 55 he builds (with other persons) some new Chofa, or returns to his old one, and when he begins to receive pension he moves even to some Chofa as nursing home, and after his demise everything what he has had in his Chofa (or -s) remains automatically for the next young members of the latter (and what is directly given to his biological children remain for them). Such things can happen, and people will live purposeful life and there will be another kind of property, of these Chofas. This will be just another possibility, nothing compulsive, but the important thing is to convince the people in the deep sense of this, so that they will begin to do it, i.e. to turn this to usual
habit! (Like, f.ex., the euthanasia, which has existed in ancient Greece, but we can't come to official agreement about this in our current days.)
Ah, but there is one more interesting moment, that if in this way one old person can have several, up to about 5 children, or rather grand-children, who will somehow care for him better than one or two biological ones, then this means in this case that each child will be able to have also up to about
5 parents, biological or not! That's the point, and this must, I think surely, tie better the society, even better than with the old families! Because the ties between people are emotional, in the feelings, what means that one gives and another receives, but usually one receives in his time, and gives in some other time, and the more such ties we build the better united will be the society!
OK, and the last touch is that this idea of mine is not really so new, it is old, and was and can even now be substituted with a mere ...
adoption! Surely, only without such precise calculations, and leaving more work for the lawyers, yet this is, still, possible. The point is, again, to make efforts to convince the people, not to think that this is some excluding of their real heirs, some deprivation of them, but is quite
natural flowing of the events. In what case let me remind you that there are no heirs between the animals, while we, the humans, have such, and are bound to think about bettering of the relations with the hairs. Yes, and here follows the parting verse again.
One's the right to find a ... family,
'cording to his wishes, and to be
educated in some given field,
and then, later, what with owºn zeal
has achieved, to younger brethren t'leave.
2.05. About Mutual Consent in the Business
This chapter (like also the next ones) is forced to life because of the bad conditions in my own Bulgaria-Barbaria, but however unique we are, such situations happen, and they teach us smt., and I also wonder about what to write, so that it is necessary. I mean that I am writing
essays, after all, and in this case smt. new is usually not invented, yet I have practically always new elements, I am
untraditional author -- and this is why I am not widely known (because known become such persons, who provide for the audience things that the latter
wants to hear; these things may be to the tastes of the people or against them, but the latter have definite position on these topics, they do not become dumbfounded, like it often happens with my ideas, I suppose). In short, even if I will not say in this chapter smt. really new, I will try to say it convincingly, ha-ha.
OK, let me begin with the obvious statement that the business is a kind of
war, only with practically no victims, and this is why I accept it on the whole (I am only against the shameful ads, but they exist because of the silly
masses, I have said this). And when this is a war it is very important -- in fact this is the
most important thing between the
participants in some business -- to maintain good and friendly relations between those people, to stay as one soul, not like eagle, crayfish, and pike, what is a proverbial saying by us. And in military units, like police or army or navy, you know well, that people like to defend their brethren, this is why we all like these people, because they behave properly. (Even, like I have guessed this before many years, the Eng word mate, used widely in the navy, means a friend just because they often ...
mate there on the ships; like also in the chess, what is a game of "copulation" in transferred meaning, and you have given a chess-mate exactly when the enemy king is captured and you can make with him whatever you want -- let me not go in details, right?) So that, if you are not able to introduce some kind of military-like relations in the business, your business unit will remain weak and be beaten by the others.
And this likening of the business with war is not at all free invention, it is justified for many reasons. For one thing the businesses earlier have really had some small armies in their dispositions, the trade ships have been equipped with guns and escorted by military ships, and there were fought wars for reasons of trade. Then for another thing, at least after the First and Second world wars, the business has become an alternative, or
continuation of the war, only that on another front, and such totally and unconditionally defeated countries like Germany and Japan have practically for zero time become ruling powers on the business front, literally! Also the communists, let me tell you this, too (because you may not be informed about it), have considered the productivity front for very important one. Yes, especially in the times of Russian leader Brezhnev, on each Party Congress were given figures about the production of steel, milk, sugar, petrol, whatever, per capita, because was stated that we, the Communist Bloc, will soon exceed the West in everything. So, but with the time it became clear that this will happen not so easy, and we as if have ceased to boast with this, and later have begun to joke that the West, surely, goes to its doom of ruination and death of world capitalism, yet we will ...
surpass it! And because this as if really happened, let me add smt. more to the said.
So the ex-comms have not surpassed Western right-wing capitalism in respect of mass products for population, but this was due to ...
weaker exploitation level in these countries, and it was
not really intended to beat the West exactly in production of consumer goods, and we
have succeeded pretty well to beat the West in heavy industry and in some other perspective fields. I will say by a sentence for all these 3 issues. So about the weaker exploitation, then this is the
obviousest thing about the former communism or socialism, that the level of compulsion to work for the state (probably partly because of botched period of Stalinism) was not stronger enough, there existed equalizing of salaries, there were not enough moral stimuli, it was up to greater extent
cared for the common masses, etc., but I have worked under such conditions, I know this for sure, believe me! Then about the
faking of this goal, the production of consumer goods, well, this was what the politicians
said, but every one, who stays a little bit above the moronic level of intellect, knows that one must not take the words of the politicians in their face value, they are most of the times faked, showing things that are only
desirable for already accomplished facts; in this respect the left- and the right- wing politicians are just the same
maked-up persons (in Bul-ia we say 'maskari'). And as to this, that the East has succeeded to beat the West in some more important fields, like heavy industry, cosmonautic, military equipment, quiet way of life, and others, must be also obvious, at least taking into account this drastic change of the policy of stick with that of the carrot (I have dug here already on other places).
But let me return to the mutual consent in the business. I will state here one funny assertion, which I will back at once with convincing contemplations. The idea is that we are able, and have always been able (and will, probably, for long time ahead be able to do chiefly this) to unite us about smt. and to work in unison together, only on the basis of ...
sexual relations! Id est that we can listen and behave if we have been before in some sexual relations, or if we are results of such relations, if are children, belong to some family; put it otherwise, we can build easy only family-like communes, but not just friendly communes based on common interests. The common interests, as far as they can exist (say, some people like Mic Jagger, or some football team, or eat ice-cream, etc.) can lead only to
competition of a kind, but not make us work together; this is good for passing of the time, but not in the sphere of business productivity. I can put this also in other way (and have done this before about 30 years), that there are only
two ways to make one behave (when he is not much inclined to do this by himself), and they are: either by
compulsion (with some force), or then by
delusion! This is true also for all animated beings, yet the delusion by the animals can be only with some food, while the humans can be deluded with any
ideas, the more crazy and
unbelievable they are, the better.
Ah, in this way I am coming in trodden ruts, yet I will not indulge in this here, because the point (for this chapter) is that, force or delusion, but for some nations and moments this works, and for many others (especially in such outsiders like Bul-ia), this does not work, and they are beaten by the stronger and better organized, better united, nations; here is good to quote one Bul proverb, namely: where it has leaked, it leaks again! Yes, but the capitalism is like the ... life, and under it wins the
stronger one, so that what are we to do, how to organize the unorganized groups of people? And chiefly via delusion, because the compulsion is not very powerful in the contemporary affluent world. Well, it is not so easy, the things are mutually interwoven, so that most people (even in Bul-ia) work by the compulsion not to remain unemployed; but this unemployment is bad only because of the
delusion that one is just bound to consume and consume, in order not to be left behind, yet when one comes to the conclusion (or is forced to see this, like myself) that the important thing is to have an
interesting life, and for this purpose the consumption, I mean
above some minimal but sufficient level, is not so necessary, then one becomes free and even happy (in his misery, yeah). So that most of us are just running like a squirrel in a wheel, but no matter how hard they work they remain unsatisfied. And this finding work for the people, which is generally not at all needed, is a bad thing, to be sure, this is the so called
circolo vizioso (vicious circle, what for me is better explained as
positive feedback, that increases the impulse or distortion), which only makes the life more ... vain, of course! I
don't generally object against the delusion of the masses, when they are so fond of this, but I would have wished this delusion to be in a
desired direction.
And which is for me the desired direction then? Ah, clearly, in the direction of better
uniting of the masses, what have wanted the first (and, I would say, the last) religions, to building of some desired communes, and not obligatory related with the sex. This is possible, because we all see that this happens, the Jap-es at least show us this. And I will try to explain this further in the next 3 chapters about one invented by me party, which will be simply the
best party of all, with its Manifesto, Program, and Codex, but here I will give an alternative approach to this, will tell you about some new kind of business firms, where the interest of participants for the existence and prospering of the company will be, must be, stronger. This is a quite raw idea, and it is as if variation and extension of former communist companies, yet under condition of many competing companies this is not so easy, this is not copying, but
evolving of the older idea. And it is coupled also with additional
insurance, because without better guarantee for quiet life we will not be able to increase the uniting of participants, only the money is not sufficient stimulus, the amounts of money are already not wanted (by the banks)!
So what I mean is building of such companies where the people will receive not all money that they deserve for their work, but also some
shares -- yes, I don't propose unheard of things --, which they will be able to pass to their heirs, or donate (according to some market exchange rates), or change for other such shares, using some
hierarchy of such insurance organizations. As I said, this is raw, but in order to have one common measure I propose (and insist on this) to express everything in ..., ah, in my beloved
MMS (or minimal salaries)! I am sure that, if we approve of this, some way for realizing of it will be found. And these shares will give some rights to use smt., some discounts (say, in food, premises, transport means, etc.), this will be additional, or alternative, labour service, smt. additional what you can use while still working, not only after going to pension, these are different things. And having such new caring organization behind his back one will feel much more
free to do this what one wants, not what is forced to do. Id est, one will be free to work for
the others, surely, because the greatest pleasure on this world (and, if you ask whatever religion, also on the other one) is to work for the others, in order to become
known to them!
Ah, a kind of communist propaganda, you may bet, but the point is that this, intuitively, is true! And in this way we will be
taught to be friendly to the others, to think about them, not solely about ourselves (if, say, a cup of coffee for members of some such commune will cost with a 1/4 less, or will somehow depend on the length of your participation in the commune, or also your lunch, or staying in some resorts, and so on), and these are also ancient measures, they exist and have existed for hundreds of years in some circles, yet our utmost right-wing capitalism denies them now, hence we have to revive them anew.
Because: why should some Jap-es be able to work for their own company and we, the Bul-ns, f.ex., not be able to do this? And we are really just
not able to do this, neither under the totalitarianism, nor now under the right-wing capitalism (when the money is the queen). Earlier we were, more or less, at the end of all ex-comms (except the Albanians and the Cubans, and probably also the Ukr-ns and the Rum-ns), and now, being in EU, we are at the end there; yet now, when we are able to show to what we are capable, we are even
worse than before, because in the old times we were looked at by the Rus-ns with the best eye (what can be proved at least with the fact that only in Bul-ia were
no Rus military troops), while now we are looked good just by
no one country! And I suppose that this is chiefly because some work hard and live poor, while some others work symbolically (or be it even hard) but live, as is said, singing. The difference comes from the different ownership, obviously, not because of lower abilities of those with less money. So that some additional security, coupled with some discounts for many things (if in some places or homes, etc.) will boost the things; at least we have not yet tried this, in order to reject it.
So let me sum up. In order to make people work for the others they must be convinced that they will
win from this, and then, because they
alone want exactly this (to do good things to the others), they will work consciously, like the company is their own; in some countries, under some conditions, this works, and people work for the pleasure to work (like the communists have said, although these are not communist countries now). Because of this my conviction I am trying in all possible ways to secure some decent living minimum, and to invent new and new kinds of communes, because every society,
every country is, in fact, a kind of
commune! If we succeed to make better productive communes, we will be able to work better and live happier; not necessarily in bigger affluence, but happier and friendlier, and this is what counts. And this time, too, I have provided parting verse for you, that follows.
In order to exist a business firm
must stay as singºle soºul and be firm.
Hence if your colleagues you begin to cheat
the other companies will soon your beat.
I think this must just all of us concern!
2.06. The Best Ever Party -- Manifesto
Here, and in the next 2 chapters, I will explain to you one relatively new idea of mine, from before less than 5 years, which appeared first under another pen-name, but it was prepared here, under this my identity, for about 10 years, step by step, so that I am perfectly entitled to explain it also in this book. Yet, you see, this is a conglomerate book, and I am writing it in the end of my life, so that I am not sure how long I will be able to produce new articles (here rather essays), and have hurried already from the 0-th year to tell the most important things in the beginning, and later only to extend the topics. What with two words means that I will
repeat myself, with the previous and next chapters, as well also years, what methodically might not be the best approach, yet it is so natural and is used quite often in our life, so that you have to close your eyes before this tiny drawback.
As to the name of the party I call it only here Best Ever Party (BE Party) but on other places it has different names (for disguise, of course), and it is a kind of ...
revision of communism, yes, such one that will be
not to the tastes of whoever real communist), but such am I. And there will be 3 chapters, about: the Manifesto, the Program, and the Codex, where, as just said, some things will repeat themselves. So the name could have equally well be, say: Ultimate Party, or Gravedigger Party (because it will bury all other parties, they will not be necessary after it, as inferior to it), or Goody Party, or Bestee Party (as the best one), or the Center for Ever Party, or Left and Right in 1 Go (LF1G) Party (because it is
not political party in the usual meaning, it is simply a necessary movement), or Anti All Party (AAP, as opposed to all usual parties), or other variants, what is not so bad because it will exist in conditions of pluralism (hence there can be even several such parties, with different leaders, and insignificant differences in some details).
The basic stone here is the idea that, in Marx-like manner: the history of all societies is a history of changing of one
exploitation form with another one, from what follows -- entirely
unlike the communists -- that the
exploitation is unavoidable and necessary! Why I am so sure in this? Well, probably because I am ... not a sucker but an old and clever guy, and believe in the Eastern thesis, that if smt. has happened then it was necessary for it to happen! Id est, when there has always till this moment (and I can quite convincingly add, that also under the communist socialism or v.v.) existed exploitation of some people from another ones (or even from the same ones), then this was somehow motivated. And it is really so, and by this I understand under exploitation exactly this, what people usually understand by it, taking out of
everything, of Fr
ploi, what is from the Lat, and there is the plural (i.e. smt. in abundance, folded in multiple layers, etc.), not just working hard. Yes, and the difference between the
good exploitation and the bad one is not in the lacking of exploitation, but in this whether the exploited subject
wants this or not, where when he wants this, then it is the good one.
Surely, people, because everything in our life is a kind of exploitation, and it is usually
mutual, the one part takes one thing (and gives smt. else) and the other part takes smt. different and gives also smt. quite different. So is between all humans, in the families, in the very sex, if you like, between the parents and the children, between some boss and the workers (they surely want to take from him as much as they can, in this case money), between people and domestic animals, and on and on. Who takes smt. carries the responsibility to give smt., this is why bosses or masters have existed during the whole human history. I mean that, let us take the real slavery: if the necessity of slaves was not obvious (for that time, but also millenniums of years later -- to remind you about the war in the USA, where
slaves have fought to defend the slavery, surely), then it would have not had existed, but the life itself required stronger groups of people, and with democratic slogans such ones was not possible to build, at least not in the former periods of history.
Why this is so is obvious -- because everyone cares for himself, and without some compulsion (or, else, delusion, as I have said) he will just not give everything on what he is capable, but when is forced by somebody it is another matter, then there at least exists excuse for his behavior. Sometimes is spoken also about symbiosis, but it is to the same idea. The only other way is the ...
self-exploitation, which is the
best and superior form of exploitation, yet not many people nowadays are, like it is said, workaholics, they can become such under special conditions, where the chief moments are the insured and quiet life, the pride or self-esteem, and similar things, but this is not for the common citizens or consumers, this requires high spirit and morality. Hence we remain with the exploitation, but require that the person must agree with this
without compulsion, i.e. to have some other alternative (not like -- just to give you an example -- they joked in totalitarian Russia, that the kolkhoz is voluntary act, if you do not want by yourself, we will
make you to want!). And the nutshell of this free or voluntary exploitation is to be insured with everything necessary at some minimal level
without working at all! What leads us to the minimal allowances, about which I have spoken before, and will speak further.
This receiving smt. free is really revolutionary moment, to which no one of the former communists have come (or were able to come), but now the times are different. And in what chiefly? Ah, in this, that now we have to fight with the ...
affluence, instead of with the poverty, what is exactly according to the title of this book! And now is the right moment to think about radical changes in the social order, because even a pair of decades earlier this was still not possible, we were not able to perceive that this will turn to be our important problem; and to wait much further, I think, is undesirable, because the masses begin to
lose their
purpose in life. The synchronization of changes with the concrete situation is very important, because if we change smt. ahead of its time (say, to lift the slavery, or the serfdom) this will be not convincing, when smt. has existed for a long time then it was necessary, and nobody gives way before the necessary moment, this is at least silly (e.g. to have allowed sexual relations without marriages in the Middle ages); but if we miss the moment then the social disturbances will increase significantly, so that it is a question of common sense to do the necessary changes in time. Because of this my BE Party must be welcomed now.
Then comes the question with the money, where I stay under the communist, but also of whatever religion (mark this) statement, that the money is from the devil, it is bad and vicious; yet, on the other hand, it is necessary as
measure for everything. Yes, the point is in this
one-dimensional scale of the money, it is not good, but it is
useful, so that it has to be preserved, yet its power has to be diminished, it must
not intervene with human
dignity, naturally! And, I beg your pardon that am repeating myself, but I just must again say to what kind of paradoxes we can come in some barbarian countries like my Bul-ia, where I have received for several
years pension in the amount of
3 bus tickets daily for all expenses! Ah, we have surely to learn how to make distinction between different
functions of the money, namely as means for existence, and as capital for exercising of business activity, and I would add also as means for personal
security! And this latter is especially actual now, when the banks give 0 interest rates for several years, because the capitalism is in its deepest economic crises of all times.
I have mentioned this already, that in this respect we must work in 2 directions, where the one is to raise and secure one constantly changeable lower limit of about
1/3 to 1/2 of MMS (yet in no case less than 1/4 of it), and the other direction is in building of several kinds of new and
better communes (because if the old ones were proved to be bad this does not mean that to have communes is always bad)! And we have generally to move to allowing everywhere where this is possible of self-exploitation, to
slowing of material progress (because this does not lead to more happiness for the people), and to begin to care about the
spirit, not the mere body (because it is high time for this).
So, you see, the minimal allowances are necessary nowadays, when the bigger part of population lives in big cities, if you want only because we do not live amidst the Mother Nature (or Earth), we can't just stretch a hand and pick a fruit to still the hunger, neither can sleep under open sky -- those who (try to) do this are considered as beggars, this is not proper behaviour (where the proper one is to work hard in order to increase the capitals of the
richer). This, surely, is not right. And the very money, now more than ever, proves to be also good for
nothing, under conditions of big inflation and no interest rates in the banks, yes, to maintain a bank account (with a bank-card) you must now
lose as much money for taxes to the bank, how much you could have won keeping there about
10,000 money units, and this if they have paid you even some symbolic interest of 1 percent (yet they pay you nothing). And, as I mentioned (or hinted at this), the current situation is tied with
positive feedback, so that you must just try to win more and more money, which you can use to buy less and less things! So that this must stop, and the only salvation is with the help of some communes, where one will lose but another one will win, where will be big heap of accumulated resources, not a flat or a car here and there (which in addition always require some feeding or spending of more money), and where will be lived more economically because better secured. The communists were
absolutely right, in principle, they have only met with many difficulties during this changing of common behavior of the masses, which, little by little, becomes more and more necessary and unavoidable.
In order to make
socialism in the frame of right-wing
capitalism are necessary some efforts and special measures, surely, this will not be so easy like under ruling communism, but this is what we need now, and since many years, a whole century back (and in his time the now spit at, but nevertheless enormously clever Rus ... Hebrew, the 'tovarishch' Lenin, has seen this when he introduced his NEP, New Economic Policy), as well also for some centuries ahead. So that, in a way, with this Best Ever Party, I am proposing some
New Social Policy, that's it! For this purpose we need some new
Social Ministry, which must be a
constant part of every Government (no matter left- or right- wing, or centrist), and we need also some special,
social prices for many wares, because it is easy to take some tax when the state needs to increase its income, but it is much more difficult to lessen the price for the producer (when there have been several hands after him and the buyer). So that there exist problems, surely, but they are not unbeatable (where we try quite often to do the impossible, like, hmm, all men try, and like it much, to enter in this place, from where they have ... exited as babies -- ha-ha).
Well, I will discuss all these things in the Program, this is only to manifest the ideas of this unique BE Party, which becomes necessity for several decades. Let me again repeat, that the capitalism is
bad, it has not changed itself, changed have become the living conditions, the productive forces, and we eat now practically only GM foods, and clothe us with synthetics, and so on (we also drive artificial "horses", by several dozens at once), yet the foul fundament of this social order is just the same; with new technological miracles it will not be bettered but only worsened (like, f.ex., we now throw out much more things yet they are also much worse on the whole, they have nothing to do with the luxury in which the noble and wealthy people have lived in, say, the
cinquecento, what is the 16-th century as proper It Renaissance)! You may follow me or not, it is up to you, of course, but, how I have said many times, there are moments when if you do not want to do the right things (according to me, surely, yet I can't look through the eyes of the dear God, can I?), then these things (that have to be done but we do not want to do them) will ... again
be done, but at much higher social price!
OK, and in the 3-rd part of this party, in the Codex I will discuss chiefly moral questions, about the moral image of politicians, that they must try to resemble the traditional ... priests, work not for money or even fame, but for the people and the bright future. This party is so different in all aspects from the traditional ones, that it surely must differ also in the morality of these new "priests". In this part I will discuss also the question with the (big) property, the bettering of the ruling, and other things. Because, as I have said, the people must work for the
pleasure of it, must be natural like all other animals, and between the animals there are not money and no capitalism; there rules a kind of ... communism, where everybody takes as much as it can get, and behaves compulsively properly, obeying the stronger. And the said must suffice for this 1-st part.
2.07. The Best Ever Party -- Program
This is the 2-nd material, of a sequence of 3, for the new and inimitable Best Ever (or BE) Party, so that it is not good to jump over the previous one, although I will give a little introduction to this party. I can begin in Marx-like manner with the statement that the history of all societies is a history of
distribution of financial resources between the members of society, which were collected before this from the same people (yet by different rules). The resources (chiefly as money) are taken as result of
unavoidable exploitation, and the state, as the biggest owner or exploiter, redistributes these resources according to some (supposed) rules for justness, such that are bound to ensure the existence of the society or the state; this, what is supposed, is that the rulers, and especially the state as high level ruler, are acting as
good masters, and must together with the taking also
give what is necessary to those in need. In this way the exploited must be
thankful on the whole for the exploitation to which they are subjected! Because the exploitation is unavoidable and necessary, it is the fundament of each society, yet it must be made as just as possible, according to the current moment. The conditions, however, of usual right-wing capitalism are
not at all just, so that corrections must be made, what exactly is the goal of this Party.
I have already spoken in the previous material (and in some others) about the necessity of exploitation, so that here I will speak basically about the correct measures which have to make the masses glad and happy, inasmuch as this is possible. The directions in which we have to move are, for one thing, in ensuring of some minimal allowances, roughly said from
1/3 to 1/2 of MMS (minimal salary), and in additional cares for everybody, based on
monitoring of property status of each person, and subsequent ensuring or personally
adapted prices for some
social products! But, mark, that these measures must be performed
unconditionally of the working or not of the person for the society, these are cares simply because these people have been born! This must be done at least for 3 reasons, namely: today we are wealthy enough (when are throwing out quite good products in the garbage) so that we just
can do this (unquestionably), then this is our
moral obligation, hence we simply
must do this, and the 3-rd thing is that this will in the end ...
increase the exploitation (at least supposedly), because when people are feeling secure they will
want to give everything what they can out of themselves! These points will be cleared better later.
Yet let me stress also on this detail, that giving money to the people does
not mean that we approve of the money as the most powerful lever, no, this party denies the money as stimulus for living existence, and retains them only as suitable measure; but together with this we are hoping to come to the expected
negation of the money simply by the fact of its having, to what all wealthy persons usually come (at least in the 3-rd generation)! In short, we want to make the
dignity of every person
not dependent on his (or her, naturally) property status! This is necessary because, if I can generalize a little the situation, in all world countries exist at least 10 % people, who are living below any measures for poverty, and in many countries (at least in the proverbial Bul-ia) they reach till 30 % and more. And it is not to say: "And what of it?", because these people are simply
excluded from the population, they just give nothing to the others and also do
not buy! But if they will receive smt. from the state they will spend the money, and the latter will move to the hands of the wealthier! (I am not inventing here, and can give you one very recent example from Bul-ia. In the end of 2021-th, as a result of many mass protests about the laughably low pensions, they were increased significantly
at once. The increase must have been with about 50 % or more on the average, but my own pension was increased even
2 times, from 175 to 365 Lv, in an interval of about 3 months. As a result of this we have come in the beginning of 2022-nd to entirely unmotivated inflation of at least 50 % for the
basic food products -- not such total inflation, but still a significant one --, where the sugar jumped 2 times, the sunflower oil even 2.5 times, and this
without still expected increase of communal expenses, like electricity, central heating, probably transport, and so on. I give this as example, both, for entirely
incompetent acting at once, exactly how the fascists have proposed this before 20 or so years, and also as obvious proof that money given to the poor come in the end by the wealthy, intensify the production.)
Good, let me come (again) to the social allowances, why exactly of that order, and how to give them? Now, see, there are not much choices, because they can surely not come to 1 MMS for no work, they can't come even to 2/3 MMS because of that order are the usual student stipends (I have seen this, and even received such one for 1 year somewhere on the West), and they can also not fall below 1/4 MMS, because this will be much below any poverty threshold. And, besides, as I have already said this somewhere, I have received about 1/3 MMS for several years, and have lived quite comfortably, being able even to
save smt., and this living alone and paying all communal expenses, hence this is possible, if one has higher goals. So that 1/3 must be the lower limit (I am, still, much more intelligent, much better educated than the masses, so that I am
used to live in poverty, but the others are not), and 1/2 has to be the upper limit, when not working at all against this. But mark also that the average salary is usually 2 and about 1/3 MMS, what means
7 times more than this minimal allowance in the worst, and supposedly initial, case of 1/3 MMS, and about 4 to 5 times more then the topmost ever level.
Yes, but you ponder alone: what
normal person will be glad to have 5-6
times less than he /she can get, ah? And this practically in the worst case, because these are average figures, but every person, naturally, hopes to get some possible maximum, hence these allowances will be considered by the people as
10 times less, surely. Yet it is possible to lead quite decent life and this is what matters! And it is also nearly obvious that these sums
can be found even in an outsider country like Bul-ia, because surely about 2/3 of them are already paid, these are the stipends, pensions, sick leaves, etc., so that I doubt whether there will be needed special measures for ensuring of the money (and such measures can be found, because it will be seen exactly to whom personally and how much is given; let me turn your attention to the fact that this is
not like to provide subsidies for some goods, say, for the bread and the milk, where all people will use it, no, these are money given personally to those in need).
And now to the process of giving, or to the "how" (what I have explained already in my 0-th year). This must obviously go through some bank, even state owned because this is initiative of the state, and
all salaries, I repeat all, must be paid to this bank in some unique accounts using the PIN code (or social security number, or how it is in the given country). Only that the allowances are to be paid in the beginning of each month for the coming one (say, from 5-th to 10-th day of the month), and the salaries will come normally about the end of the month for the previous one, and when some money enter in these accounts the given allowances will be subtracted at once. Yes, but
if they can be subtracted, otherwise the person lives simply on the cares of the state, that's it. What will be quite good for
everybody, because the state will have the best possible look at everybody's income, this will be a panacea for the Revenue agency, and everybody will be always secured (this will be like working on
battery, when the electricity is switched out), and the state will be able to search and require all postponed payments (salaries, pensions, etc.) and also to satisfy all kinds of programs for social care in the country. Better than this simply can not be thought out, methinks.
Now to the Social Ministry. There is usually some similar ministry in every country (say, in Bul-ia we have such of Labour and Social Cares), but this one is unique; its work can for the beginning be performed by the existing ministry, yet it is better to make new one. Why? Ah, because this Ministry must be also
scientific instance, it must not work by existing programs, but rather
propose such programs, make all necessary
statistics, and ponder about maintaining of
social products for socially weaker persons. In a way, this Ministry must consider similar problems like those, with which the former communist countries were bound to deal, when they have established the
prices of all products, but in much more dynamic and not centrally regulated environment, proposing not artificial prices, but ways and percents with which they have to be made cheaper, and how to make ends meet financially! Because, as I said before, it is easy to impose a tax on some product, even an excise one, but it is much more difficult to restore partially the expenses of poor citizens, this will require shifting of money between many instances; yet it is -- I am sure about this --
possible to do whatever equilibristics with the money, all expenses can be prognosticated and the necessary money secured, this is what a really caring state must do!
Hence by this Ministry must be done and maintained one big database of the whole population, with
categorization of each and every citizen (based on the previous, or a pair of previous years), with all necessary information about the field of work, the position, family data, education, healthy status, and so on, which has to be used for all kinds of statistics and by any instances (anonymized, naturally). The categorization has to be smt. of the kind: miserable -- below 1/3 MMS (such must not exist in the end), poor -- from 1/3 to 0.6 MMS (or 1/2), restricted -- up and till 1 MMS, low middle -- from 1 to 2 MMS, high middle -- from 2 to 3 MMS, wealthy -- 3 to 5 MMS, rich -- above 5 MMS.
Then the taxes must be made to depend on the
households, what (as far as I know) is done nowhere, yet this is important when now families do not exist, and, f.ex., if one cares for 2 children (or old parents, etc.) he /she must pay at least income tax based on these calculations. This will reduce many taxes, but otherwise it is not correct. (Together with this must be done dividing of the children between the parents, in order that every child has only
one parent de jure, what will simplify various calculations.) Separate households will give quite different property categories for the persons (who can, as an exception, live even in one big home), so that this must lead to building of bigger households, what will be preferable, we must not live so strongly disunited; and if there are some kinds of communes, then this will be also preferable for the economical life of the inhabitants. In all cases these household groups will be important for establishing of the proper social prices, the things will be related, nobody must be left to endure unjust behavior on the part of the state (unless he alone wants this).
And introducing of
social products (SP) is simply a necessity for every state in our days, at least because when one buys practically everywhere with bank cards, and when he has a card for these allowances, probably other cards will not be needed. If one buys some SP he pays according to his category, or receives later (at the end of the month) some reimbursement, but everything will be able to control, and if, e.g., some kind of bread is such product, then this is for up to 10 kg monthly. Or there could be proceeded otherwise -- this is also work of the Social Ministry -- every SP product is bought on
half of the price, and in the end of the month some people will have to pay more, where some will not have to do this; and nobody will be able to cheat, because the money will be subtracted from his allowance account in the next month. But the social prices will be in force for people with income at most below 2 MMS, yet chiefly only below
1 MMS. Yet, people, there are a heap of social products, like: some bread, milk, butter, sugar, etc. food stuffs, communal expenses like electricity, heating, water, Internet and communications, then tickets or cards for city transport, payments to medicians, all kind of (expensive) medicaments, taxes for educations, in nursery homes, or homes for old people, and surely smt. else. When such possibility is once established it can be used for all kinds of products, for sending gifts to some categories, for advertising, and what else not, so that this is just a necessity in the current days. After all, this will turn to massive flowing of money from one account to others, but this is why these accounts exist, isn't it so?
Ah, there are surely other thing from the social policy of this Best Ever Party, like: finding of homes for not much affluent categories of people, medical care, education, building of cheaper eateries, communications, and many other things. For every (important, of course) SP product must exist some reasonable limits where such prices can exist, but this must, naturally not interfere with the business and the competing in the society, everything must have its justification. When we have not a totalitarian country we must have simply
special instances for fulfilling of all these activities, otherwise democracy will mean jungle laws and total cheating in the society (how it, more or less, is in my Bul-ia)! And we can't allow ourselves to come to extremities, because the communists and the fascists are just waiting their time (where even in Bul-ia we have
several fascist parties in the Parliament, and such things must not happen, the fascism is much worse than the communism, this was proven in a world-wide scale). So that's it for the moment, and it remains the last part of this BE Party, the Codex, to be discussed in the next chapter.
2.08. The Best Ever Party -- Codex
Ah, I have again to warn you that there are 3 materials about this unique BE Party, and this one is the last, which will deal chiefly with
moral questions in the society as a whole and for our members. I can begin this time with the statement that the history of all societies -- in Marx-like manner -- is a history of
selection of suitable rulers, who can manage the masses in interest, both, of the rulers and of the masses, to provide to the latter the best kind of
exploitation in the interest of the society. Because the exploitation is
necessary and unavoidable, and every citizen has the
right to be exploited, if he (or she, surely) wants this, but also the right
not to be exploited, if he does not want this! Surely, for if one must do smt. in exchange of his freedom to live how he wants, then this will not be free enough society, and in our times (at least I state this) everybody can be fed and clothed and educated, etc., so that he must be allowed to do what he wants, hopping that he will in the end, probabilistically in most of the cases, work exactly for the society, will want either to be exploited, or to exploit himself alone. There is nothing silly or unjustified or utopian in this, because this is how the things have stayed (and still stay somewhere) with the aristocracy or just with well insured persons (like, say, scientific workers, sportsmen, very young or pretty old persons, disabled, and so on). In this way we want to give to everybody the right to live like ... fallen in poverty
aristocrat, or young student, someone who can live decently and do nothing (in the moment) for the society, wins no money; even if some people will want just to ... copulate all day long, they have to be left to do this for the time being, because they will surely become sick of this with the years, or will want to live in bigger luxury!
Yet in our moral platform fall also the questions with the big, or I will say,
exploitative, property, the moral image of our party members, the standard of life for them, as well also the ways for bettering of the ruling in the state, and about some moral stimuli for the masses, because the power of money must be lessened in any possible way. Let me begin with the moral image of BE Party members, where I have already hinted that they must lead a life of kind of priests, what in two words means
poor but decent, and not aiming at personal enrichment. How this can be ensured? Well, by the payment and the way of living, naturally, where my proposition is for the ordinary BE workers to receive 2 MMS (with probably 1.5 MMS initially as helpers), to those of regional level to be paid 3 MMS, and 4 MMS for some (about hundred) rulers at national level (maybe up to 5 MMS in a pair of cases). Yes, what will be pretty
decent life, providing that they will have many additional perks, like: cheaper canteens for breakfasts, refreshments and lunches, company owned cars, can live on the premises of the Party (if they want, of course), can have cheaper stay in holiday homes, free medical care, free education (also for their family members), and similar things.
The point is, however, that their income must be
monitored, even for 5 to 10 years
after leaving the post, and everything what is above the established ceiling (at most 5 MMS) must be taken and donated to the Party; and when there existed special bank for the allowances everything will be controlled easily. As to exercising of some business activity, well, if they have had some business then they can retain it (otherwise this will be restriction for the membership in the Party), but must pay themselves practically nothing more. These are natural requirements, because if they alone do not give proper example to the others, then who else will? Yet they must be well off with these additional perks, because less than 2 MMS means low middle class, and they must surely not become paupers.
Now about the exploitative property. It must be allowed to exist (when once 'tovarishch' Lenin has allowed it to exist, who am I to forbid it, right?), but the important moment is the ...
inheritance! Surely, at least because there is no such thing like inheritance by the animals. It was introduced in the human society in order to agglomerate the wealth, to allow building of big ancestral companies or farms, yes, but this was in ancient times, before millenniums, when there have existed wealthy genders and now we have not even small families (yeah, in Bul-ia a bit more than half of the children are brought up by their mothers only, not in families, this is official statistics, 55 % of the children are, or were before about a decade, extramarital, I am not inventing), so that, ha-ha, if we want free
copulation and breeding, we have to forget about the inheritance, at least of big chunks of property or money, this is not in the spirit of the day, and it is also not much democratic, too. And, you see, if there will be no big property inherited, then there will be no princes, and also no paupers, when there will be paid allowances to everybody, that's it. And now in a bit more details.
As I have said, the money are both, means for existence, for satisfying of people's everyday needs, and also a lever for exercising of exploitation, for forcing other humans to do some work against payment. Then when we agree that the bad thing is only the inheritance of money, when this is not tied with some personal abilities, then it must be clear that we must set some quite high but practically
unsurpassable ceiling. I prefer to call this ceiling
Exploitative Minimum (EM), and set it, for round account, to
1,000 MMS -- as simple as that! But this is really big money, it is about 80 whole years (by 12 months) by 1 MMS, what is quite decent income for everybody, and this in addition to his own money; even if we put aside each month by 2 MMS, this will make (rounded) 25 MMS yearly, or whole 40 years, this is huge property, not denying. So that enough is enough, counted personally for every recipient of the heritage.
And how to make this limit unsurpassable, yet also very smooth? Well, I propose to use the
exponential curve, and pass it through the point (1.0 ; 1.0) EM and (10.0 ; 2.0) EM, what means that by inheritance for one person of 1 MMS (and, naturally, lower) he will receive it entirely, but by inherited 10 EM for him, he will receive only 2 EM, and 2 points must be enough because in logarithmic scale (the
log is the reversed function of the
exp, but let me miss the mathematical details) the exp will be pictured as
straight line. So that the BE people are exceedingly liberal, and you do not forget, please, that it goes not about expropriation but about inheritance tax, that will be simply drastic in this case if the money is really big, but every financial tycoon can distribute his money to a heap of people, so that to eliminate this tax if he wants.
There is one more moment here, that this forced splitting of very big money is even
desirable, because if we speak about human generations (of about 25 years), then usually the 1-st generation builds the firm and there the capitals are not really big, the 2-nd one enlarges, and stabilizes the organization, but the 3-rd is in most cases bound to divide it, in order to make it more profitable and autonomous! So this is the way to preserve even enormously big enterprises but to eliminate unjust differences in the ownership of big money; and what is taken by this drastic inheritance tax must go to the state, probably also to the region, and to be given via ... lotteries to the people (by some occasions), what will be good for everybody. Also, people, do not forget that really big companies are managed by Executive Boards, not directly by the owners, so that this must not interfere with the ruling of the big companies, this will be simply justified.
And now to the ruling, which continues to be bad, or to be
cheating of the masses from the part of the rulers (and even v.v. is some cases). Reasonable ruling can exist, naturally for me, only by some centralized ruling, and this is why from time to time a state of emergency must be introduced, but -- in order to make the long story short -- in the current days we need
not so much strong ruling, but more
shows for the people (you know, the Lat phrase about the bread and the circuses). Yes, but not to do, as if on purpose, the
worst possible things, because: a centralized ruling would have found more able and professional rulers, a nearly anarchistic and contradictive ruling would have found more representative (for the moment) rulers, and every religious ruling would have chosen more moral or wise ruling. Otherwise put (in order to avoid long philosophizing), this means that in the traditional right-wing democracies we
lack generally the following 3 things:
competent rulers,
representative Parliament, and presence of
wise and /or
moral persons in the Government!
Yeah, we lack exactly what we should never lack, if I am right, naturally. But the choice from below can
never (I stress on this) chose competent rulers (because the masses are not competent, they are even silly, fast always)! Then there is
no representative sample in whatever of our current Parliaments, because this means to have relatively as much percents there as in the whole population from
all possible (or at least the major) groups of people (according to, say: education, gender, property status, nationality, age, major tastes, and on and on), where the obvious way for achieving of this is some
arbitrary choice! And there are, naturally, also
not wise men (or women) there,
neither moral ones, there are chosen representatives of parties, not of religious beliefs, or between well known persons with original way of thinking, who can be taken as models or
idols for the masses! And, well, exactly this what is lacking must be present as parts of the Government, as different Houses of the Parliament, and this makes 3 such ones, a
trinity of powers!
Hence, the one House must be that of the
Rulers (HR), where must be chosen competent persons, and surely
not from below, not even from the parties (they may make propositions, yet must not choose), but from some competent commissions; they must be economists, or PR persons, engineers, et cetera. I will not propose here how this has to be done, but there are ways, this is done in every competition, where are chosen people to enter in some
jury. Then the next House is that of the
People (HP), where are to be chosen
arbitrary representatives of the people, say by 2 persons from every year of birth from 20 including to 70 excluding (but even this is not
really arbitrary, because there are different numbers of persons in every birth year), what will make exactly 100 persons, or by ordinary arbitrary choice, or arbitrary but with some parameters (like: age, education, ethnicity, etc.). And the 3-rd House will be that of the Wise (HW), where must be performed democratic choice
from below, even
iterative, with corresponding weights, so that to be able to choose people also from the near environment (say, husband, boss, a colleague, etc.), and there must be chosen about 5 such persons, and on the next iteration only between already chosen ones (how it is officially done in each party or congregation).
Yes, 3 Houses, of the Rulers, of the People, and of the Wise, is now smt. quite different, this is not the usual cheating and throwing of dust in the eyes of people. But, mark this, that the Rulers rule, yet their decisions can be stopped if voted with significant majority (of 2/3, usually) in the left 2 Houses; then the People decide
nothing, they only
approve or not the done by the HR laws or other documents, and, in a way, perform a kind of
veto; then the HW also decide nothing, but can
propose and give work for the Rulers, if supported by the People; and no new laws can be approved if not accepted by HP and HW (together with the HR, by default before the official proposition of the law). This might slow a bit the work of the Government, but everything will be correctly done. The Ministries and other parts of the Government must be chosen by HR, but probably also approved by the other 2 Houses. Political parties can exist, in principle, but
not in the elections, because HR is unpolitical body, HP naturally also, and in HW are chosen persons, not parties; there can exist some, let me call it, Political Council, where can enter representatives of the political parties according to their percentage (say, in HP), but this body can only propose smt., and if voted
together. So this is how we, from the BE Party, see the future ruling.
There are also some other moments, chiefly concerning some moral stimuli, that can be, or not be backed by some payments. What I mean is that in most of highly educated circles is
not paid based on some amount of work, but is paid some basic salary, that must suffice for decent living (according to the position), and then can be given some bonuses, of the amount of 30 to 50 % from the basic salary (or less, naturally, but not much more). Yes, but the less qualified workers are, in fact,
deprived of this good principle, and why should they be? In addition to this can be given some
moral stimuli, say, by this scheme: everyone can carry some badges, on which will be coded his (or her) PIN code, and if photographed it will be seen, so that if one
likes this person he may send him some
personal gifts. The difficulty here is that these gifts must
not be possible to send to other persons (so that there must be some limitations, how much to a given person, to look for some cycles or loops of sending of the gifts, but this could probably be possible to arrange somehow. And they will be in portions of, say, 1/1000 of MMS, and everybody will have rights to send about 100 such coupons, and they will be taken from additional fund, and if not used will be lost; they will also be
anonymous for the recipient, and you can sent not more than 3 such coupons in a month to one person (and, probably not more than 10 in an year, smt. like this), so that people will just look to whom to send them, what must be very good for the services. There can be probably also negative coupons, but about 5 times less, smt. of the kind.
OK, there can be other interesting moments, but in short, I insist that when to everybody is paid smt. in advance and later subtracted, if this is possible, then this will ultimately
increase, instead of to decrease, the exploitation and lead to enhanced self-exploitation. The only thing that I fear is that in this way the
speed of development can be raised even more, where I insist that it is already too fast! But, people, it depends on you alone, and I suppose that it can be hoped that when everybody can do what he wants, he will begin, in the end, to aim not at higher productivity (of unnecessary new products), but at bettering of his
spirit and tastes, because -- why not? And if in addition to this we decrease significantly (say, at least
10 times) the population of the world, then this must turn to be only good. There are not reasonable minuses, after all.
2.09. About Our Inaptitude to Give
My dear readers, I am happy to announce to you, that before a pair of days, in the process of choosing of topic for this chapter, I have made an important ... discovery, not exactly of some new America, but, still, of smt. important to be known. I have found that we, not only the humans, but all animals, even the single cells, as well also all plants and trees and so on, are not able to give what is necessary to the others; we are doing this, give smt., yet not what is necessary and not in the best way, because we are simply
not designed to give but to take! Yes, and what we give, usually? Well, as far as we all are systems for
processing of various elements and stuffs, we just
change the elements (say: the orange tree is a system for changing of, sorry, sh#ts, to oranges, or the lamb is a fabric for changing of grass to lamb flesh, and other examples), so that the plants transform the stones to earth or humus, and we give, generally speaking, feaces. Yet this giving is not really giving, this is wasting or making of some residual products, this is not our direct giving; the real giving to the others are the ... seeds, naturally, or in the case of animals these are the children (or at least the eggs). You can ponder for yourselves but I can't see what else we can give, except for the higher animals some
artifacts, some by-products of our existence (like burrows, habitats, homes, utensils, highways, pictures, books, music, etc.). That's it, and I will try to prove now that in this process we are usually badly directed, we do not give the best, what we can give, out of ourselves.
Yet also in the not proper giving of faeces we do this not in the best way, of course. The animals, beginning with the insects, leave some nasty sticky and bad-smelling things
everywhere, and only some higher intelligent animals (like the dogs and cats) have learned to ... lick their bottoms, am I right? So that even in this case the things are done in the wrong way (while, to give an example, the flies -- or the cockroaches, my "beloved"
home animals -- could have taken for their duty to go and sh..., I wanted to say, to defecate around some plants, or at least in one place, not everywhere). This is a critique to our God, naturally, but I will drop this for now (as not directly related with the topic). But the proper giving, the seeds and eggs are surely much more than necessary; yet having in mind that this is a kind of
care for the others I will not criticize our God, I will criticize later only the humans. But the point is that the plant itself does
not need to produce so many seeds (say, apples, or plumbs, or whatever), it would have sufficed to produce about a dozen fruits, because if they, ah, not all, but if 1/100-th part of them will grow out, then the plants will, how it is said sometimes, sign their ... death sentence with this! Because this will lead to
over-population, how it happens with the humans for about nearly 2 centuries. And all this happens by the simple reason that we are
not used to give, nobody has taught us to do this (not the dear God, at least).
Still, for the plants and animals this is understandable, because the former have no brains at all, and they have also no feeling of ache, plus that they feed the animals, this is very nice -- the plants have practically no drawbacks, if you ask me. (I personally, so much like the plants, that feel remorse to
kill them, and have begun for some years to ... donate some seedlings, of various spices chiefly, but also of some home plants; I leave them on near-by bus stops, and as if in most cases smb. takes them later.) The animals have some beginnings of brains but they can not think abstractly, and also by them equilibrium is maintained by several species (say, wolves and hares) so that they usually do not over-populate (with the exception of locusts, where they simply die having eaten all vegetation), but with the people it is not so, we know this, but continue to give birth to new human beings, hoping in this way to conquer the Earth -- with the typical example of the Chinese. (In fact, in this respect nearly as bad as the Chi-se are the Hindus, but they stay in their country, they do not emigrate, so that the problem with them is localized.)
But people, we do not know how to give not only children (and "droppings"), but also a heap of other of our artifacts are bad intended, directed not in the right direction. Take these skyscrapers and cities and highways, they are entirely superfluous. (E.g., in the time of baroque there were no skyscrapers and no highways, but was beautiful music, while today we have the first things, but produce chiefly sh#tty music, so that we are
worsening many things.) And all this is
giving (to the others, to the world), so that we simply can not and
want not to give proper things! Or also furniture, kitchen appliances, homes, cars,
everything is not of the necessary kind. Because: what is the necessary kind? Ah, necessary is to make our life happy, and this is a matter of
feelings, this is not at all necessary to be done with material surpluses, there are arts and sciences, that can and must matter, especially on the background of artificial and GM foods (that can easily feed us).
And -- I have mentioned this but here is good to repeat it -- we have jumped out of the right
time coordinate, we do everything exceedingly
fast, and the speed is in the long run equivalent to bigger
number, that is how it is! You take, well, not exactly the computer technologies and the Internet and the cell phones, where this is obvious, no, you take simply Edison's phonograph: for a bit more than one century there have happened several revolutions in this sphere of production and now everything is digitally coded, but this means that a heap of devices are thrown to the garbage, and they do not decay by themselves, this is, or was, entirely unnecessary, the things have not been sufficiently used! We produce mountains of cement, concrete, asphalt, plastic substitutes of trees, etc., which may be well designed, but they are
without soul, that's it. And these things we have given to one another, they are gifts, I do not invent. As I said, we hurry to live, but in our hurry we spoil everything around, and why? Ah, because we have not some proper
centralized government for the
whole world. Now, one may say that this is the way of God, yet He has worked (I would have said "works", but you know that the gods have done, what they have done, at once and for ever) under the postulates that there exists unlimited amount of resources and unending time, while with us this is
not so, all our errors result in the end in lost and wasted human lives; if you like this you may continue by the same way, yet I am sure that this is not the right one.
But what I mean chiefly (and have meant when have come to this title) is that we simply do not know how to
make presents, how to give the most desired by someone things, or, then, how to give redundant for us things to smb., who will be glad for this and will say "thanks" to us! And this is what matters and what can be bettered, because nowadays there are more and more things that are in surplus for us, yet nobody wants them (or we can not find such people who will want them). Let me give you some examples from my Bul-ia (which, being the poorest country in Europe, is very demonstrative, in the sense that in the other countries will be much more unnecessary things that we throw away, but which smb. may strongly need). So very often, and this for 20 or so years, are thrown out ... toilet bowls -- probably because they are too big to ...
eat from them, ha-ha (or, then, because people have an attitude to them like to a, hmm, sexual partner, and think that a pair of years is enough for them and soon is time to change the bowl -- whether I know?). Then there are thrown out many pieces of furniture, like arm-chairs, beds, sofas, usual bed-mattresses, and quite often entirely sound ones, or a bit torn while carrying them to the garbage (I suppose, because they are heavy and can hardly be put in an usual 3 person's lift), and these are quite useful things.
So if one has given an ad here and there, that he wants to give smt. as present, or against symbolical reimbursement, he could have found, I suppose, the needed person, but this takes time, and people throw out former lovers, and a lover is a bit more valued than a sofa or a mattress -- or am I wrong? Or also kitchen appliances, like fridges, electric ovens, and on and on, at least partially working. In any case, this bothers nobody, because we have normally a flair for business but not for gifts, i.e. we, and I judge also all humans, are not
giftsmen, so to say, we are businessmen. While I have seen in one Western country that they have the habit a pair of times in the year to carry out what they do not need and leave it before their houses, so that if smb. wants it, he (she) can simply get it and carry with him. Sometimes, 1 or 2 times in the year, they organize also
charity markets for the local church, where everybody carries his redundant domestic items, donates them to the church, and the latter chooses several commissions for the different things, and they establish some modest prices, and what is sold remains for the parish, and what not, stays for a pair of days and only then is thrown away. Hence there
are ways, such that everybody can win smt., at least to raise his self-esteem that has donated smt.; and later they have also big holiday eating and drinking (grilled chickens and beer), and put their hands on the shoulders of the neighbours and shake to the left and to the right and sing songs. Such things.
Yes, but we in Bul-ia do
nothing of the kind, while if we are not really religious we could have organized such markets under the wing of local Municipality. Also we could have chosen some non-religious days for these events, like I have proposed somewhere, say on: 4.4, 8.8, and 12.12, or else on 3.3, 6.6, etc., on some easily remembered days, and not to carry out what we have entirely
unexpectedly, so that nobody can prepare himself for the occasion. Yes, but we have simply not such habits, we just do not think about the others, even when we lose nothing from this. (Because the reason for our
unwillingness to give smt. to the others, to show ourselves good to many people, is that we don't want to be taken for gulls or dupes; yeah, but we have to learn to make difference between normal market and
cheating environment, and donation to our brethren out of good heart.) And I will tell you also what will happen if we begin to organize such days of free giving: ah, there will come all near-by Gypsies and will carry everything with some kind of hand-carts (usually old prams); yes, but we can also take care to have some guards watching in such days, and because of this some Church patronage is preferable.
Or take also the clothes and /or shoes. We have put here and there containers for old clothes, we have even initially locked them up with padlocks, but they can be opened from
below (and the Gypsies have done this for long time). (You see, there is a difference between Gypsy and Gypsy, how it is said, and our ones are surely unbelievers like all Bul-ans. Not that I have smt. against these people, they are very useful in our country, because there are many jobs that can be fulfilled good only by these people, I just call the things with their proper names.) And now I come to the thrown out food, which begins to become more and more with the time, and even with the
rising of prices of basic food stuffs (like bread, milk, sunflower oil, and so on), what is a thing that can bother not only this ethnic minority (because they are used to look in the garbage), but usual Bul-an pensioners (and especially intellectuals like myself). Ah, it is thrown out
everything, and by different people; some leave shamefully an end piece of bread (in plastic bag, of course), or a bitten ... donut or smt. of the kind (just on the border of the bin), while other wealthier persons throw in their bags, together with the dust from cigarettes and fag-ends, nearly whole loafs of bread, meat and mincemeat to be grilled, in their original packages, sometimes open but sometimes not touched, with just a bit gone expiration date, also pastries, chocolate candies, dried sausages, wine or beer, and you name it! Well, if you ask me this is simply inhuman! Also various kinds of vegetables and fruits, if the bins are near to such shops. And in order to be able to grasp the bags the wise Gypsies walk usually with a short (about half a meter)
hook, so that they check methodically nearly the whole bin, for several minutes, and only then walk to the next one.
And why I am telling you these details? Ah, because I think that you don't know them, and this is funny, of course, this entire chapter was funny, surely, but you have deserved it, if have moved to this point. And also because I have pretty reasonable proposition in this regard, namely that on the garbage bins, just below the handles for heaving of them in order to be emptied, I wish to be put some usual little ... hooks, say, 3 on the left side (if you look to where the bin opens), and 3 on the right one, with stickers below them, but the people will be able to remember them soon, where is pictured the following: on the left: bread and pastries, milk and milk products, sausages and meat; and on the right: wine and alcoholic drinks, clothes and shoes, electric and other appliances (with pictured, say, mobile phone). Yeah, that's it how it has to be done; probably also with small
pocket in front, where to be left sheets of paper with phones or emails of those who are ready to give smt. for free (or against symbolic payment), what is too big to be carried to the garbage (various household items). In this way the garbage bins will become a
beloved place for walking in every time of the day and night (what I have begun to do in the last pair of years, because I need
movement, but I can't just walk like an aristocrat, I prefer to
find smt., so it is much more interesting -- with or without "ha-ha", it's up to you).
And do you know what is the
worst thing with this throwing of good (or eatable) things in the garbage? Ah, it is that this happens in very
big quantities but quite rarely, not often by just a bit, where the latter would have been preferable, when taken for direct usage, not for storing. I mean that you may find (how I have found) at once 5 or so pairs of shoes thrown out, or several big sacks with books (probably 100), or a pair of kilos smt. cooked and just poured out in a bag (say,
after some official holidays), or bags with clothes, or boxes with vegetables or fruits, and so on. This is because people simply clear in their homes (or shops), but this is not a proper giving -- what is reduced to the very title, that we are not much apt to give things to the others. OK, this is everything, and here follows again a parting verse in my usual, semi-funny, semi-philosophical style.
The taking is for us like breathing, hence
we are equipped for this, but
giving, gents,
provides for us a lot of problems,
in which we stumbºle, I see no trends
for bettering, this gives just more suspense!
2.10. About Immorality of Capitalism
This is the last chapter for this year, so that I will summarize here everything about the bad capitalism, what can quite naturally be reduced to lack of whatever morality in it. Surely, because -- let me take such trifle as the
ads. They are immoral, this is obvious, because it is one thing to go to the market, where every tradesman advertises his products, and it is quite another thing to want to watch some film, or listen to the news, or to business bulletins etc., and to be forced to listen to some advertisement about entirely
different things. But it is so nowadays, and chiefly for this reason I have stopped since more than
15 years to watch
at all TV, for it is for morons (and I am not such one)! Here
no excuses are fair enough, because there were no such ads before a century or two, and it was not so under the communism, to be sure, hence, the ads are not at all necessary! I see well that they exist because the common masses are just
silly and do not want to act
against the ads (what is elementary: one must just build
negative lists for everything, and
not buy what is highly advertised), but if there was some morality in this social order they would have been simply banned! They exist primarily because the wealthy persons (or companies) want to be able to
buy the attention of the masses and
manipulate them (like puppets), what they may find quite justified for them (and who spends more money wins the market), yet the immorality remains, this is obvious cheating (even if the masses
want to be cheated)!
Then the immorality is seen also because is bought what is sought, while the morality is smt. proposed by authorized wise persons, who have to apply
other criteria about the necessity of whatever, i.e. that the human masses must be
thought, because they are not clever enough, there must exist some pastors to '
pasat'-walk-to-graze the (silly) "beasts" to the pasture. We must not deny set before millenniums establishments, must not deny the justness of Churches! Yes, and this am proclaiming exactly I, who am convinced
atheist and do not believe in whatever extra-material beings, but am believing in the
necessity of morality! As I have mentioned, there can perfectly well exist (at least theoretically) the notion about
intersection of all religions (including the atheists), which has to be
pure morality! I admit that reaching of this supreme goal is very difficult in the realm of
delusion (what every religion is), but we could have tried to do this somehow, little by little, approximately, to call some congregation of at least 5 major religions, and to make them to find some
platform for uniting of all of them, not in everything, but, say, at least about this, that everything on this world, in the moment, and with the previous and further situations, i.e.
in the space and in the time, is somehow
tied and regulated, and our deeds cause consequences, effects, so that we are not alone, and have to think about the others, otherwise we will be badly punished!
Surely, I see not why all religions could not be united under the platform that for each and every of our deeds will come some reaction, and that it will hit
us and in
this world (which we all see and know that it exists), only in
probabilistical manner, not exactly us, but our relatives, friends, beloved persons, or compatriots, people from our region or nation or ethnicity! This is at least
obvious, and even if I am wrong, we all can be convinced that I am
right -- like it was with the rotation of the Earth instead of the Sun, where the exact truth is
not really important in many cases, it has
academical meaning. Like it is also with the materialism and idealism in the philosophy, these are
dual notions, they can be both true (in some sense), hence they can as well co-exist peacefully (how it happens for millenniums). Otherwise put, the throwing out of religions from the civil matters and ruling of the state (what has happened with the Great French revolution from before more than 2 centuries) was not the best decision in the long run. Probably for that time and for a country like France, because the masses there are, anyway, religious (although the events related with ... Joan of Arc play very important role, if you ask me, there the masses were against the power of the King, but the Church always remains behind the contemporary life, so that it must have been acted more severely against it) this was good, yet also in the USA (where the puritans have done many silly things, like that dry law), or in many other countries (say, in the Islamic ones), but it must have retained some advisory rights, because there are countries (like my poor Bul-ia), where without religions we have simply made one big mess out of the capitalism. To put it in the most succinct way, from the positions of every Church the democracy is not at all real governing, it is a joke.
Then the very democracy, I mean the right-wing one, is obvious cheating, surely and not denying, because every leader (or party) proposes himself, this is beating in the chest, like at the fairy markets, and this is also kind of advertising, this is not competent choice (but I have discussed this enough in the Codex of BE party). The
idea of communists was much better, it was badly implemented, yet this was chiefly because of bad capitalist environment, in which the ex-comms have existed, but as idea this is the
liberte, egalite, fraternite of French revolution, and even
better, because this was without the totalitarianism of money (like I have discussed this in this year)! So that some new communist models will obviously, at least for me, appear all the time, because the contemporary capitalism becomes worse and worse, instead of better (I have mentioned this). For example, all parties become inevitably ...
mafias, they do ... neither receive nor transmit (like the saying in Bul-ia goes), because they have to preserve their monolithic character in order to stay firm in the contemporary multi-party environment, and all big bosses tend to become
dictators, for the simple reason (like I surely have stressed somewhere) that the masses just want to see an
iron fist to act! These are common problems of all forms of ruling, but the things become worse, the further in the future we go, because there is no morality to soften the hard faces of political parties.
Somewhere in the beginning of 90-ies (of the last century), when the democracy came in Bul-ia, I was for some time defender of the thesis that the democracy is not a panacea, it is bad (form of ruling), yet there is not known smt. better than it, what might have been true in war times (around the First and Second world wars), but nowadays this seems hardly believable, because of the worsening of the capitalism and our entering in deeper and deeper economic crises. We are going now to suffocate ourselves because of the ... affluence in which we live, and lacking of goals or purpose in life, of exactly existence of
no problems (where the problems exist, naturally, yet in moral aspect). Otherwise put, the democracy seemed to be better than the totalitarianism because of as if much
bloodless existence of the former, but this was so only in the euphoria of the first years, yet then the disorders have begun and they don't seem to cease at all. I mean that we are now not inclined to fight
world wars, because have enough examples of current-days apocalypses, but there are enough border conflicts and local wars (where for the Am-ns "local" means in the
entire world, of course). So that the bloodlessness is, for one thing justified, and for another thing it is not at all guarantied!
And, people, let me remind you one of my many thoughts, here that the force and compulsion are
necessary in order to
avoid bigger terror! What is nearly obvious, when is so massively applied. Id est, the existence of some big blocks built with usage of some force was necessary (like the former Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, the Socialist Bloc), and dissolving of them was not so very good, after all, or will continue to pose problems even for centuries. And also nobody can say for sure that there are less disturbances nowadays between the countries, because even when we do not fight wars, we are not living friendly enough -- say, we have now no families, and the marriage was observed for millenniums (really) as the biggest joy or nice happening in life of everybody, yet now we are deprived of it! Hence people are not much happier, no matter that we as if (how I said that this
can't be proved really fair) have
changed fighting for some ideas
with massive
cheating, because this is what we have done, if looked unprejudiced at the matters! (Take also into account that to fight in defence of some religion or ideology is caused by
moral values, this is bad acting, surely, but there were ideas in this,
mitigating circumstances, while in the incessant cheating and over-smarting on political or economic scene are no ideas, this is bloody coarse reality -- yet people like to dream, you know, they want to have some ideals.)
After the World wars we have become a bit more
experienced to fight directly, but we try to do this with other means, which can only prove that the capitalism, especially in its final stage, is bad. Take, say, the Jap-se wonder, where an united and moral (both, in its bad and good meaning) country can win superiority in the world not with military weapons but with conscientious work in the civil and business area. Or take also the bettering of Western capitalism on the background of Communist Bloc (because this, what has made the West to change the policy of the stick with that of the carrot, was the rightness in many aspects of the left-wing ideas), what shows that the right-wing capitalism has what to borrow from the left-wing communism. Or take then this
self-inflicted Corona virus -- because of our unwise exceedingly high opening to the world, eliminating of all not only state's but also continental borders, and immoderate air flights (I have discussed this) -- what shows that no matter how strong we are, we are still vulnerable when acting silly. Or probably to mention in the end also the suicide bombers of Bin Laden, who have proved that one (person, but here nation, the Am-ns) can't for ever parade with his
bossy arrogance (here military), one must show some commiseration with the others (here weaker but deserving all honours ancient nations). And other examples for the badness and immorality of contemporary capitalism.
Ah, I have even invented one new and funny (but very suitable) name for the final phase of world capitalism in which we now live, and will share it with you now, in the end of the year, in order to refresh the situation. This is Bul (or rather Serbian) word, and comes from our verb '
cocam /tsotsam' (or 'coc-kam'), what is to suck! This word in Bul-ia sounds not decent, i.e. this is not usual sucking but such exaggerated one, where we overdo everything, but as I have explained not only in this chapter, the capitalism in its dying phase becomes more and more exaggerated (like these zero, in order not to be directly negative -- yet they are equivalent to some -5 -- percents). Well, I agree that on this world everyone sucks smt. from smb. else, where can be horizontal mutual sucking, and vertical sucking on the part of the highly placed persons, but everything must be somehow justified (and it was, more or less, in the former social orders, which were much coarser than the contemporary capitalism, yet this was because the reality has required it, but nowadays the reality does not at all require exacerbated exploitation -- of more intelligent or more moral inhabitants --, we live in conditions of abundance). More than this, in the former social orders those on the very top have given a ... breast or two to the paupers to suck a little, because this was
wise, this was necessary for the peace in the country, the rulers were observed (and they alone have taken this for justified) as
substitutes of God and have tried to be good and just, as far as this is possible, yet nowadays it is not so, nowadays everybody wants just to 'coca'-suck!
( Allow me to give you an example from my Bul-ia. So by us the dental services must be
paid by the patients, entirely, and f.ex., a 2-piece set of false teeth costs about one whole MMS! I mean that I have not succeeded to find now a concrete price, I have found only ads and no prices, but before
20 years I have asked some dentists, and it has turned out that even 1-piece prosthesis, up or down one, costed about 1 MMS, and 2-piece turned to be nearly 2 MMS, could you believe it? So, and there is continuation to this. Before about 5 years was said and advertised that the dentists can make also free dental prosthesis, yet under the condition that the patient is from
60 to 65 years -- and mark the upper limit --, but the pulling out of any teeth or roots had to be paid, as well also the materials, and probably smt. else. It was, however, not said -- one could have only supposed this -- that they will make such ...
botched work, so that every normal being is bound to
cease to wear them! Yes, really, I have seen this on one of my she-neighbours, whom I have seen a pair of times with terribly
ugly false teeth, deadly white in colour, and surely also badly made, because after an year or so I saw her only
without any teeth -- like myself -- and she said to me by occasion that has not teeth and just swallows everything. But she had to pay, surely, some money, not very little, and they have pulled all her teeth, which were at least 5, so that she was rendered
worse and has paid for this! Did you get it? Ah, it is easy, all our as if charitable acts are mere ads in order to
cheat more the people, there is not charity at all by us, because we have now ordinary right-wing capitalism, not socialism anymore! Id est: everything is cheating, cheating, and one more time cheating! )
So that I am very glad that have come to this brilliant name for the capitalism, such as it is in our days; respectively, we can speak about
cocaism,
cocation, and
excocation as exploitation. I am so glad, that have dedicated also here a little verse to the topic, which follows. And this is already the end of this whole year, I have succeeded to cope with the difficult task and congratulate myself alone with the success. At least one more year I must manage to do this, but about 4-th and 5-th I begin to doubt, this seems too hard self-
excocation for me.
`Ah, the point is that we all are ... leeches!
And aboºut this we don't need preaches.
And if one does not want to be sucked,
he's rejected, being "ugly duck".
I suppose that this us something teaches.
Finished Jan 2023, Bar..., sorry, Bulgaria.
END OF SECOND YEAR