For the past approximately 400 years, since the time of Locke, we have been living under the flag of freedom, equality, and brotherhood. It is now difficult to imagine a reasonable person seriously denying the importance of personal freedom, the value of human life, the virtue of social equality, the preciousness of peace, friendship, and love. It seems that these concepts are the basis of our morality. They have always been with us and will remain forever. However, I suggest looking deeper and understanding what freedom really is, and whether it is for our benefit.
In his Two Treatises of Government, the English educator and philosopher John Locke formulated: “freedom is to follow my own will in all cases where the law does not prohibit it.” Armed with this obviously attractive formula and inspired by early humanists, liberal revolutionaries of all kinds have been changing the social structure of European countries all these years, along with the consciousness of their inhabitants. As a result, according to Professor Valery Kuvakin from MSU, “the Constitution of the Russian Federation is an expression of victorious liberalism-capitalism in terms of source and content,” and we are all liberals with you!
Vladimir Putin, in a meeting with schoolchildren, noted: “freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins,” echoing the thoughts of Mikhail Bakunin, one of the first theorists of anarchism and populism.
Thus, freedom is possible until two “free” individuals come into conflict with each other. “Is censorship permissible on the internet?” — students asked the president. “Of course not,” — the president replied… and added that — “if it incites terrorism, then of course it is permissible.” This was followed by a quote from Bakunin. In simpler terms, as long as your actions do not interfere with others, we are willing to give you freedom, but as soon as they contradict our expectations, your freedom will be restricted.
The key words here are “conflict” and “contradiction”. Where they are absent, there is freedom, and where they are present, freedom cannot exist.
Who will control and punish those who encroach on the freedom of each of us? Roskomnadzor? Moral police? Public court? “Conscience!” — a prepared libertarian will tell you. Each of us must have a moral principle, as Immanuel Kant bequeathed, which will not allow us to encroach on the freedom of others. First, of course, as we build the society of the future, it will not be for everyone. Therefore, we will still need a court and police acting on the motives of John Stuart Mill’s essay, recommending the use of violence against a person “only when he harms others.” Eventually, people will learn to live without conflicts and contradictions, and will stop harming each other.
Is it good when society consists of those who avoid conflicts by not conflicting with the interests of others? Can we develop constantly looking back at those who are hindered by our progress? And can progress be possible – the “basic law of nature” according to the liberal Voltaire — without conflict? Can a good teacher be tolerant of the mistakes of underachievers? Can a scientist create something new, fearing to offend colleagues? Can a new product be released, fearing to harm competitors? It sounds absurd.
However, this is where the liberals lead us under the slogans of freedom. It is precisely in a society without conflicts – national, domestic, economic, cultural, and political – in a society of freedom!
Certainly, none of this ultimately works out. In a society raised for centuries in the spirit of “everyone can do what they want as long as they don’t disturb their neighbor,” people are inherently averse to the idea of violence against them. They are born, they think, free, and therefore disdain both the state and authority, inevitably introducing violence into their lives. As a result, such citizens require three times more police than if violence had been an integral part of their existence from childhood, along with its derivatives: discipline, obedience, order, and control.
Violence in liberal societies is not only more than necessary, but it is also ugly and hypocritical. Bright slogans about freedom and equality cover up “exploitation and alienation,” as Professor Boris Kashnikov rightly pointed out. The cowardly “do not harm your neighbor” educates weak, indifferent, tolerant, and compliant people – who are easy to exploit.
Everything would be different if people were not afraid to harm their neighbor, disturbing their “freedom,” and considered conflict the norm – they would then calmly accept disciplined social order, respect subordination, consider labor, whatever it may be, the highest virtue, and of course would not allow alienation and exploitation. This would be a person of a completely different quality: firm, uncompromising, relentless, and consistent. They would consider submission the highest good. Of course, not for everyone, but for the “proletariat — the armed vanguard of all the exploited and laboring,” as Lenin wrote.
Those who have been instilling ideas of freedom in us for four centuries in a row are our enemies. We should not strive for freedom, but for order and discipline, as natural forms of natural and reasonable violence. We should not be afraid of violence, but respect and understand it. It is part of our nature, and we need to look this fact straight in the eye. Otherwise, others will do it for us, and we will remain slaves to our own tolerance.
Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/42 on 2024-04-20 at 17:52
