1. Economy for man, not man for economy
The logic of modern civilization,
which represents global capitalism in the final stage of capital
concentration and expansion of markets of raw materials, labor and
sales, is profit maximization as the basic task of production.
This approach appears to be a form of
fetishism, a kind of religious ministry to a deified material idol. It
breeds widespread poverty and actual purposeful genocide of the
"economically unjustified" populations of entire regions of the world,
escalation of class and ethnic conflicts, extremely wasteful and
historically irresponsible squandering of nonrenewable natural
resources, destruction of traditional cultures and moral standards,
imposing standards of consumer thinking and behavior that lead to
cultural and intellectual degradation of mankind, denaturalization of
consumer goods, leading to an increase in the number of diseases,
including the genetic degradation of the human species.
As an alternative, we propose a planned system of production, entirely
subordinate to the purposes and objectives of Life and Life
Reproduction, meeting the needs of a particular country in the
agricultural, industrial, and information products required for the
stable maintenance of a decent standard of living.
Such a type of production requires as a
prerequisite the nationalization of major industries and a significant
preponderance of public (state) ownership over private ownership. The
existence of such production should imply stable, sustainable
self-reproduction, rather than unlimited growth and expansion.
Of course, this approach does not exclude the differences in the levels
of development and consumption between developed regions and those
lagging behind, but, at least, the present absurd situation of
exterminating the "economically unjustified" population will be
impossible, given that population has everything needed for sustainable
life reproduction on their land.
2. The unconditional priority of the
principles of national statehood and sovereignty over the international
law, the authority of international organizations and the rights of
transnational corporations
Today, the capitalist system, which
has reached the stage of consolidating the world in a single market,
seeks to eliminate national borders and make the world completely "free"
in the sense of free movement of goods, raw materials, capital and
labor, thus totally fine-tuning it with the interests of capitalist
profit.
This results in withering away of the
nationhood, associated with the interests of specific nations and
populations of specific areas - that is, with the interests of socially
organized populations.
In parallel, a number of roles and
prerogatives, at first monopolized by the state, have transferred to the
extraterritorial power centers (especially TNCs), unrelated to the
interests of specific people and specific areas. We observe the
formation of private armies and quasi-police security forces of
commercial corporations. This situation is fraught with the
disappearance of law as a category and the absolutely uncontrollable and
irresponsible use of armed violence by financial clans.
A special tragedy of the situation is that modern states, being
inherently capitalist, primarily express the will of the bourgeois
class, and, in the interests of this class, are losing out to
multinational corporate structures with virtually no fighting and
resistance.
We propose the shift to the revival of the sovereignty of nation-states,
which is possible only if the first item on the program - the
nationalization of the basic means of production - is implemented. Only
in this case the state would become national, not in word, but in deed,
that is expressing the will of the nation, rather than the bourgeois
class. And in the modern world such a common nation-state, beyond any
class interests, can exist only on the basis of a classless socialist
society.
Only in this case, the monopoly on armed
violence remains under the control of people, and there may be
reproduction of the legal relationship (although the legal principle is
not absolute and should not apply to all spheres of public life, see
below).
3. Priority of preserving the natural environment
and cultural sites over their consumer use
The domination of the present-day
capitalocratic principle leads to the overexploitation of unique and
irreplaceable objects of nature and culture, wherever the possibility of
their utilization gives hope for profit.
In the best case, it admits the prevention
of their complete destruction based on the argument of maintaining them
as a source of long-term business. The argument that they can exist in
their own right is completely ignored. Everything is subjected to the
paradigm of consumption, formed by advertising for the sake of the
increase of business profits.
Rejecting the logic of the subordination of Life to the interest of
profit-making, we also deny the principle of the rule of consumption.
Of course, the monuments of nature and
culture can and should be used for the benefit of man, but only in such
a manner that does not contradict the conditions of their conservation
and does not cause harm.
4. Preservation of national cultures as an
alternative to the unification of the world
Providing free movement of goods, raw
materials and labor in order to maximize profits, capitalocracy rapidly
destroys the diversity of human cultures. In place of a flowering
diversity of cultures there emerges a unified space of faceless housing,
English-language pop music on radio and television, advertising brands,
unified fast food, consumer lifestyle, corporate standards of conduct.
The masses of people, wandering the world as
a free-moving labor, lose their national and cultural identity and
become a depersonalized "gray race".
The notorious "multiculturalism" does not
save the case, transforming cities into a sort of circus buffoonery or
Babylonian fair. Such "multiculturalism" does not only protect, but even
more destroys the identity of national cultures, randomly mixing their
elements and destroying their internal unity.
We assert that cultural diversity is the key to development, and, on the
contrary, the unification or chaotic confusion of cultures inevitably
leads to cultural impoverishment and cultural degradation of humanity.
We also believe that each national culture is an internal unity, and
only in this inner unity of each of its elements it becomes meaningful
and imbued with spiritual life.
Various aspects of culture, such as elements
of clothing or traditional law, have a deep inner connection. Breaking
these ties, placing cultural elements, torn from their medium, in an
alien context, makes them meaningless and in fact deprives them of their
cultural value.
Culture in the broadest sense is a way of life of an ethnic group. It is
inseparable from the social relations characteristic of this ethnic
group, its accommodating landscape, methods and nature of production.
The destruction of ethnic boundaries destroys the ethnicity, and,
consequently, the culture as a way of its being.
Cultural development is achieved through diversity, and this diversity
requires a certain (though certainly not absolute) level of isolation of
cultures from each other. Cultural contacts, occurring between peoples
as subjects of cultures, of course, enrich these cultures, but they
should not exceed the level at which they turn into fusion and
confusion, leading to the unification and reduction of cultural
diversity.
A national culture should have the time for
processing and ethnification of the experience, obtained from external
contacts, otherwise these contacts become destructive for it.
Therefore, we oppose the policies that encourage the migration processes
and ethnic mixing and support limiting migration and maintaining, to the
extent possible, the constancy of ethnic composition of each specific
territory.
5. The same applies to the conservation of
biological, anthropological and racial diversity of humanity
6. Traditional social structure as an
alternative to social atomization
Traditional social structures ensure
multiple and diverse connections and relationships between people,
governed by education and customs, rather than legal norms.
In this context, a particular importance is
given to traditional social institutions (especially family) and the
traditional social roles, specific to a particular society and a
specific culture. The presence of such multiple informal relations
between human beings, on the one hand, is the key to preservation and
transmission of a national culture and unwritten life experiences from
generation to generation.
On the other hand, it protects the
individual and the society as a whole from the arbitrary actions of the
state and from the manipulation of consciousness.
In an effort to transform the human material into ideal subjects of
labor and consumption, the capitalocracy deliberately destroys the ties
that unite people into a social organism, it destroys culture, which is
inexpedient in terms of commerce, divides generations in order to reduce
the formative influence of parents on the child and enhance the impact
of mass media, schools and other educational means under its control.
The purpose of capitalocracy is the maximum
atomization of society, maximum alienation of man from man, and, in the
limit, the reduction of the diversity of human relationships to the
standards of a legal contract.
Particular efforts in this regard are concentrated on three areas.
-
First, capitalocracy seeks to combat
all forms of non-commercial art. An attempt is made, and not
without success, to completely replace the artistic creativity
with commercial pop industry, which is fundamentally not only
extremely primitive, but also entirely high-tech.
-
Second, there is a consistent
leveling of gender differences, i.e. the differences in the
social behavior of genders. In parallel, under the hypocritical
slogan of "protection from domestic violence" the capitalocracy-controlled
state assumes the role of a mediator and supervisor of the
relationships between man and woman in marriage and outside it.
The result is the destruction of the family as the basic unit of
society.
-
Third, under the same pretext of
"protection from domestic violence", the state positions itself
as a mediator and controller between parents and children,
deliberately undermining the authority of parents and virtually
making family education and cultural transmission from
generation to generation impossible.
We put forward and defend the opposite
values.
We believe that only non-profit art, which
arises from the inside urge for creativity, rather than from the need to
satisfy someone's demands, is full-fledged. We believe that
non-conventional, non-legal, informal forms of relationships between
people not only have a right to exist, but should be protected and
developed. Therefore, we favor unformatted arts and informal cultures.
And of all the informal ties and
non-contractual relations, we put at the forefront the most traditional
forms as time-tested, rooted in the culture, most stable and able to
most effectively resist the destructive influences.
As a prerequisite for socio-cultural and organic unity we assert the
absolute value of those types of social behavior, which are developed by
culture, such as the historically established interactions between
senior and junior, teacher and student, parents and children, between
relatives, between friends, etc.
We affirm the naturalness of the connection between traditional gender
patterns of social behavior and biological sex, and regard the
disruption of this connection (under whatever specious and "socialist"
slogans it is made) as totally destructive from the cultural and
biological points of view.
We affirm the value of traditional social institutions, especially the
traditional family, and believe that government intervention in the
internal relations of family members is possible only in exceptional
cases, but not everyday life. We believe that the destructive
interference of state and public structures in the internal affairs of
the family is a much greater evil than the notorious "domestic violence"
and the hypocritical struggle with it which this interference is
disguised in.
We are aware that the traditional social relations we uphold are
incompatible with capitalocracy, which is why we set as the sixth
paragraph of our program the protection of traditional forms of
sociality, and above all put forward the need for transition from the
economy of profit to the economy of Life and Life reproduction, which
involves the socialization of production and elimination of the very
basis of capitalocracy.
It is better to pull the bad grass with the
roots.
7. Traditional religions as forms of
collective spiritual life, calibrated by millennia of experience of many
generations
At the same time, we by no means see
the main threat to spiritual tradition in atheism, materialism and
rationalist philosophy, but in commercial pseudo-religions, constructed
as a sphere of ritual and psychological services.
We are primarily against the muddy wave of
pop mysticism, pseudo-religious commercial businesses in the spirit of
New Age, as well as ecumenical and renovation currents, trying to adjust
the traditional religion to the standards of consumer society.
One of our tasks is the assimilation of traditional forms of
spirituality by those informal cultures and subcultures, which oppose
the pop-industry anti-culture.
8. Freedom of intellectual and artistic
creativity as an alternative to "intellectual property"
The so-called "copyright", originally
conceived as its name implies, to protect the rights of the author, has
now taken completely distorted forms and serves the interests not of the
author, but the capitalocracy machine.
The system of "intellectual property" today
postulates the existence of property rights not only for discovery and
technology, but virtually for any text and visual image. And in most
cases, the right-holder of this property does not have the slightest
relation to its authorship.
It reaches the absurdity, when the rights of
"intellectual property" are registered for the works of long dead
authors.
The consistent application of the principle of intellectual property in
its modern capitalocratic interpretation makes the development of
science, art and culture in general virtually impossible. Any scientific
discovery is based on the synthesis of knowledge accumulated by
predecessors. The copyright ban on the use of the developments of
predecessors makes it impossible to promote any further development.
The same can be said about art: any original
work grows out of the surrounding cultural context. If the surrounding
context is cut into fragments and prohibited to use, live creativity
becomes impossible. An artist’s place is taken by a team of lawyers,
verifying the compliance and non-compliance of a combination of sounds
with the previously obtained licenses and able to prove the illegality
of a piece of art.
What can work in such conditions is
rubber-stamping commercial pop music, rather than real art. Thus with
the help of the laws of "intellectual property" the capitalocracy is
able to deal with the non-profit art not only by its financial
strangulation, but by direct violence - by sending authors to jail.
The copyright and patent law, however, are not only about the
development of arts and basic sciences. They obstruct the development of
civilization in all fields. Promising discoveries and inventions are
bought up and buried
by corporations in order not to create competition
for their goods, whose production is already established and profitable.
Drug prices are jacked up hundredfold and
thousand-fold, because the patent law eliminates competition and
monopolizes the market. The developing countries are caught in the
eternal neo-colonial dependence, being deprived of the opportunity to
adopt the achievements of progress and having no funds for buying
licenses.
There appears an absurd situation where people know how to produce a
cheap medicine and can easily establish their own production, but under
the international law cannot make it without a license and die of
epidemics.
We stand on the position of unrestricted freedom to produce, copy,
distribute, modify and process information of any nature, whether a
scientific paper, a technical development or an artistic work, except
for the information that is socially dangerous or destructive in terms
of moral character. We recognize certain (though limited) rights of the
author, but categorically refuse to accept the rights of the owner of a
patent or license, if they are not the author himself.
The copyright law should not be standardized, and the right of the
author of a literary text is absolutely not the same thing as the right
of the author of a technical invention, and certainly is not the same as
a registered trademark.
We recognize the right of the author of an artistic or scientific text
to require the reference to his/her name when this text is quoted or
distributed, as well as the identity of the text signed by his/her name.
If the text has been subjected to editing or modifying, it should be
stated that a text by a certain author is taken as the basis for the
present text; it has been modified and is not the original.
With this indication the modified text may
be freely distributed and used. We reject the right of the author of a
text to impose restrictions on its copying and distribution, if the
author of this text or its fragments is indicated, as well as on its
modification, if the fact of modification and inconsistency with the
original is indicated.
We recognize the right of an inventor to a material reward for his/her
invention, either in the form of a lump-sum repayment by the society, or
in the form of a short-term monopoly on its use.
However, after that any invention becomes in
the public domain and can be used without limit as well as developed by
other inventors.
The proposed approach is progressive as it removes the completely
artificial limitation that "intellectual property" puts in the way of
progress.
Like any progressive movement, our approach
is doomed to ultimate victory, since, being implemented in one country,
it inevitably leads to the multifold superiority of this country’s
development and willy-nilly forces others to follow its example.
9. We favor the strict supervision by the
public organizations of any technology being introduced into the sphere
of public administration and management
With the introduction of various
hardware, especially electronic, in management, a situation is created,
in which the technical capabilities and limitations (the logic of the
machine) are in contradiction with the constitutional rights of
individuals and indeed triumph over them.
The simplest example is the electronic
system, which automatically processes documents and may require of a
person parameters, which he/she may not have and not obliged by law to
have (e.g. TIN, credit card number, etc.), or offer alternatives, none
of which are suitable.
To argue with the electronic system is
impossible. It creates a situation of domination of technology over
civil rights. Particularly threatening are those electronic systems
which automatically accumulate and process the electronic information
about citizens and create their electronic profiles.
We stand for a substantial restriction of electronic monitoring and
control and strict public control over them. In particular, we
categorically oppose to awarding people personal numbers. The number
should be identified only with a specific document, such as a passport,
but not with its owner.
We stand for the categorical prohibition of
the summation of information about people in a common database from
different departmental sources, unless there is a direct need for it,
for the technical dissociation of this kind of databases, including the
dissociation of documents, under the numbers of which the information
about a person is stored.
For example, medical information should be
stored only in the medical database under the medical record number, not
matching with the data stored under the number of a bank card, passport
data, etc. The purpose of this separation of information is to limit the
technical capabilities of the state and, especially, non-state actors,
to violate the individual right to private life.
We would also like to alert the public to monitor the timely destruction
of personal information about a person in departmental, company and
other databases after the cessation of actual and immediate need for its
use, with a view of compulsory depersonalization of the disused numbers
of his/her documents, etc.
We support the categorical rejection of the implantation of microchips
in human body except in cases of extreme necessity for medical reasons.
We also favor the ban on placing
RFID-chips in consumer goods and
installation of sensors. We oppose the introduction of
bio-identification and electronically readable elements in the personal
documents.
And, of course, we strongly advocate the legal prohibition of
wiretapping by government services prior to its judicial authorization.
We are, therefore, for the creation of a strong social counterweight to
balance the technical capacity of public and commercial services of
collecting, storing and analyzing personal information about citizens.
10. We assert the priority of rights of the
majority against minority rights in all respects: economic, cultural,
national, etc., as well as the priority of public and national interests
over group, clan and personal ones
The modern capitalocratic society, deliberately destroying the unity of
the social organism, specifically encourages minorities, opposing them
to the interests of the majority.
Ultimately, this leads to stripping the
entire society into a set of minorities lobbying the narrow sectarian
interests of their clans.
The purpose of this policy is obvious: the
capitalocratic oligarchy is numerically a tiny minority and can stably
maintain their position only in a society fragmented into minorities, in
which they are the strongest minority.
We are aware that every member of the society in some respects belongs
to the majority, and in some other respects - to a minority. The
principal difference in the positions is that the capitalocratic system
accentuates the features of belonging to a minority, making them
socially prestigious or lucrative, and obscures the features of
identification with the majority, making them undesirable and
unprofitable.
This results in a subjective
self-identification of an individual with one of the minorities, rather
than with the socio-forming majority. Our approach is diametrically
opposed to this. It is to encourage and promote the features of identity
with the majority and level the features of attributing oneself to
minorities.
Summarizing the above ten theses, we should say, that we speak from the
position of domination of man, his biological, social, cultural and
spiritual needs over the technosphere, state machine and impersonal
economic forces. We strongly refuse to position ourselves on the
political line between the "right" and "left" imposed on us by the
capitalocracy.
Speaking from the standpoint of
socialization and nationalization of the means of production, natural
resources and intellectual property, from the position of domination of
the planning elements in the economy over the market, we do not consider
binding ourselves with the typical "left" love of minorities, the
struggle for gender equality (not to be confused with legal equality)
and hatred of the traditional "patriarchal" social norms and
institutions.
On the other hand, being supporters of
traditional religion, morality and family values, we do not believe it
mandatory to burden ourselves with the typical "right-wing"
absolutisation of economic freedom and individual rights to the
detriment of the people as a whole.
We are located outside of the linear "right-left" political system,
dictated by the world capitalocracy, and propose our own draft of the
civilization development, involving, as opposed to globalist concepts,
prudent self-restraint of society in material production and
consumption, but unlimited freedom in creative, intellectual and
spiritual self-development .
