- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The liberals were amused by all the problems of the 90s and the collapse of the USSR (although neoliberalism in the 90s is a completely different thing). Our people associate liberalism with homosexuality. You probably know how things stand on this topic in Russia. Liberalism, they say, is a western thing, alien to Russian. And how do they treat the West in our country? 70% of Russians do not like the West and see it as a potential enemy. The Russian media has made Liberalism and liberals a “fifth column”, saying that we are trying to break up the state from within, and in general, we don't need your freedoms.�
Because for many years, they have been reminded from all channels that liberalism led to the “dashing 90s” and “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XX century” in contrast to the stability and prosperity of the zero and current years.
I don't know about contempt, but what is really alien to most Russians has nothing to do with liberalism as a worldview. I'm telling you as a liberal. I am convinced that liberalism, as the doctrine of universal equality and freedom, is well regarded by all. They hate the incarnation. Moreover, in Russia, which suffered greatly in the 90s, when “liberalism” was used to cover up crimes against people and the state, the word liberal really became a curse word. And we, people who know everything about the liberal idea, understand that they are not liberals at all, moreover, they never were. Human rights are now used as a cudgel to eliminate unwanted regimes, economic competitors, and to keep vassals on a leash.
This is largely because, thanks to the efforts of state propaganda, Russians have come to understand liberalism not at all for what it really is. V. O. Pelevin put it well: “Classical liberalism is one of the highest humanitarian achievements of mankind. To turn the word “liberalism”into the dirtiest national curse word means, in fact, to marginalize an entire nation, throwing the people on the sidelines of world progress.”
Rather, they despise the extreme form of liberal views, when the realization of the individual's right, the concept of his freedom violates the rights and freedoms of others and leads to turmoil in the state.
Universal equality of rights is an illusory concept, while there is no understanding of Service in the majority, selflessness and self-sacrifice are not mastered, universal equality of rights is a declarative concept, far from reality.
Because Orthodoxy has spent over a thousand years conducting very effective selection on the territory of our country… Any free-thinking and thoughts about equality, about any rights of the “flock and cattle” were destroyed. Orthodoxy was so successful in uprooting even the rudiments of freethinking that by the 17th and 18th centuries the word FREETHINKER had become a curse word… On the basis of belonging to freethinkers-it was possible to lose both rights and freedom.
Freethinking is a necessary condition for the development of science. And in Russia up to the 18th and 19th centuries, how many great Russian scientists do we know with a Russian surname? P. Pallas, Kaspar Wolf, Karl Baer, Gottfried Leibniz… One M. V. Lomonosov somehow got in the way… And he studied abroad, and was married to a Catholic.
Therefore, for more than a millennium, Orthodoxy has shaped the slave psychology of the entire country's population. Slaves don't need freedom. They are not able to appreciate its merits. They fear her and hate her. Like the man who trampled on Danko's warm heart.
They hate those who have broken into power, realizing that they will not keep it.
They hate marginals and lumpens – because for them freedom means responsibility.
The socialist period was too short to replace slave psychology, which was already embedded at the genetic level.
So it is with liberalism. Very few ordinary people even know and understand what liberalism is. And hate the “liberalists” – this is what propaganda will teach us… From each “teapot” streams of lies and demagoguery. That's why a simple citizen hates “liberast”. With all the sincere hatred of a slave for a free man. A Christian's attitude to human dignity…
Because liberalism is not a “doctrine of freedom and equality of rights” at all, but an ideological justification for the superiority of the rich over the poor and their right to parasitize the poor.
Legally (ideologically), people are equal…
BUT IN FACT-one was born the son of a businessman, received an awesome education, had money, connections, and a brilliant education from a young age, and the other had to work from childhood to survive. No education, no housing, no basic necessities.
So what's the point of freedom if you spend your whole life maintaining life?
Practically, we get: if there is money , there is freedom. And you can protect your rights, because you know them yourself, and you have money for a lawyer.
You can even buy a helicopter, even a football club.
And if you are poor? Then what do you have the right to buy a helicopter if you can never make it? It is nafig not necessary.
Freedom-no, all life is in search of money. You can't protect your rights, because you don't have time and don't know how. and there's no money for a lawyer… as a result: whoever is richer is right, and doesn't care about the ideological attempts of liberals – in fact, they didn't work and can't work.
Therefore, those who work themselves – liberals were hated and will always be hated.
Just because they, the liberals, justify the parasitism of the rich ON US.
So it happened historically, market supporters in perestroika Russia were first called members of the democratic platform of the CPSU, then they were rebranded as democrats. After the obvious failure of the Democrats 'policy – that is, the disastrous consequences of their reforms, the smearing of the Democrats' name-the most radical part of them was replaced in public policy by a more moderate one. The radical part changed the smeared brand of Democrats to the brand of liberalism.
The moderate party began to use the opposition to liberals as a justification for pursuing the same liberal economic policy.
However, there are not so many idiots in Russia, most of them firmly associate the economic and political reforms of the nineties, the law enforcement practice that developed at that time, with liberals-former democrats.
The people do not like either liberals in power or liberals in opposition, except that they prefer the less obvious ones to the more obvious ones. It is clear to both liberals and the people: no matter what liberals call themselves, no matter what ideas they hide behind, the desire to reduce the role of the state, the replacement of social institutions with monetary regulation – will inevitably meet with rejection of the population.
Now, offended by such dislike, liberals are beginning to talk about the idea of liberalism two hundred years ago, to which popular dislike has nothing to do.
Very simple: this is historically the case. And this is not exactly a “doctrine of equal rights” – read in encyclopedias, rather it is a doctrine of the rights of owners and the limitation of the role of the state, that is, it is actually a theoretical justification of the oligarchy.
And it just so happened that in the 90s, when the people felt deceived, reforms were carried out precisely under the slogans of liberalism. No one thought that the achievements of the USSR would simply be merged one by one, everyone at first thought that we would only take the good, and we would not lose our good. Well, to weaken the state in a country like Russia-this could not end well, of course. So it turned out that, unfortunately, today almost any liberal is a Russophobe. And how else to treat them then? Squeamish, and that's even better.
Because they associate liberalism not with freedom and equality, but with people who call themselves liberals, but they extend freedom and equality only to those whose opinion coincides with their own. Because “when we build freedom and equality, portraits of Stalin will be banned” – this is not liberalism, but some kind of bullshit.
And so the liberal values we have are very much appreciated by citizens. Only there are very few politicians who show them in deeds, and do not proclaim them in words. But here Khodorkovsky is a liberal. Well, how to respect him?
Liberalism means privatization, lower taxes, and the destruction of the welfare state. Liberalism is a predatory misanthropic philosophy that leads the world to fascism. Liberalism is Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman is Pinochet's financial guru. Liberalism is the freedom of capital, the power of money over states, people, and common sense. You still ask why they hate him?
Solely because of the shortage of worthy representatives of this teaching. The liberal idea itself is very close to the Russian national idea, but it so happened historically that in modern Russia, almost exclusively Russophobes, Sovietophobes, and elgebatekyu gathered in the “liberal party”-activists and anarchists who do not shine with human dignity. And some fronting representatives of bohemia, sometimes speaking out with a liberal message, are not taken seriously by the people.
President Putin himself has a very good attitude to liberalism, but simply for reasons of state-building in our era, the emphasis is placed differently.
And not only Russians.
The fact is that liberalism is a very interesting doctrine. Its main criticism consists of two points.
The alternative to “freedom from” is “freedom for”. Freedom in this sense is necessary to achieve your results. That is, I'm interested in writing comments in Yandex.Q, and I don't mind at all the hypothetical “immutability of power” in Russia. A kind of personal freedom.
In addition, the cohabitation of people within a society inevitably causes a set of rules. “Your freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins.” As a result, the rules work in such a way that a good person, an excellent specialist in his field, a light who violates specific rules, gets the punishment he deserves. And for liberals, this is unacceptable. They are against the framework, they are for a certain anarchy. Therefore, their teachings are not accepted by the masses.
As a result, the struggle for equal rights is turning into a very negative trend in modern society. This struggle begins in two directions: the struggle for privileges (the journalist of the sports column of a provincial newspaper was arrested-nothing, the liberal blogger was arrested-a scandal, we don't have freedom of speech) and the struggle for weakness (here, I didn't learn anything, I don't really understand anything, but they don't make me president of the country – inequality is obvious). The excesses of this struggle are obvious and unpleasant, which is why liberalism is negatively perceived.
So liberalism in our country is 70 years late, it is simply irrelevant today in the format that they are trying to bring us.
So it is clear why-what did they liberalists do good for the country? “Nothing! They only stole money for themselves and ruined everything, but they didn't build anything new! They promised to improve your life, but instead they only made it worse! They need to be held accountable for the reforms of the 90s and for the coup attempts. All liberalism is subject to liquidation, except for the LDPR – although they are liberals, they have nothing to do with liberals. The Liberals are the most lame political organization!
The author confuses liberalism with the CIA's guidelines, according to which American agents must pass themselves off as liberals. But in Russia, American spies were quickly discovered.
because many Russians live in a slavish mindset and for them, good slavery is already the limit of their dreams.that is, today they have reached the limit of their slave dream and they don't need anything else,because the soul doesn't demand – why do they need freedom if they are slaves!
No one despises those liberals who fought for equal rights and a guaranteed set of freedoms.
They won and we are grateful to them.
But those who continue the war after victory raise questions.
They are no longer fighting for human rights, but for the disenfranchisement of society. States, societies, and families. Individual rights are important, but they cannot always and unambiguously be placed above the rights of society. Any society exists only by restricting the freedom of its members, and without society, most people will not survive.
Fanatics of individual rights are deservedly despised.
The fact is that the neoliberal economic transformations of the 1990s in the Russian socio-political discourse were persistently mistakenly called simply “liberalism”, although it was precisely neo-liberalism (it was first introduced into world politics by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), i.e. radical capitalism.
* The prefix “neo -” contrasts neoliberalism (an economic system where the state apparatus is in the service of big business) with classical liberalism (where the state does not interfere in the economic sphere in any way.
I note, however, that classical liberalism (at least in its economic aspect) is not applicable to modern capitalism, since without reasonable state regulation (for example: Germany), production oligopolies and monopolies as well as “too big to fail” banks appear (see the economic crisis of 2008).
for the same reason as residents of other countries: there are no companions for the taste and color:)
and this, by the way, is the main internal contradiction of liberalism: a liberal, if he is a real liberal, must respect equally those who hate liberalism
whereas a non-liberal in his own worldview believes that he has the right to hate and suppress dissent
that is why liberalism has long ceased to exist in practice: the “liberals” in power are no longer any liberals in practice, because they suppress dissent in every possible way, even to the point of criminal prosecution
that is, in fact, they are arranging the same totalitarian tyranny, and they have left only slogans for themselves from liberalism.
this is about how Christ bequeathed people to love and turn the other cheek, and people who believe in him organized crusades, genocide, slavery, etc., formally calling themselves Christians
Of course, there is nothing wrong with liberalism as such (if the situation allows it), but, as Grandfather Lenin used to say: “Anyone who takes their word for it in politics is a complete fool.” They say beautiful things, but who is behind these speakers? Who finances them? Are these circles really interested in liberalizing Russian society? I doubt it. They pursue their own economic interests that do not correspond very well to the interests of Russian society. So much for liberalism. Just a screen.
The heaviest legacy of more than a thousand years of slavery, domination of some over others, all sorts of “strong hands” and other shit.
The notorious slave mentality, it exists, in such conditions it could not fail to develop.
The slave does not dream of freedom, he is afraid of it like fire. The limit of a slave's dreams is that the master is kinder and better, so that he cares and beats less often.
Because they know what liberals are really concerned about and what their coming to power will mean for every citizen of the country.
Let me remind you once again that there are no cases in history when liberals who came to power would have made the life of the people better! The only thing they compete with each other when they come to power is who will steal more.
So many people don't even know Dostoevsky's classics.
Our liberals have nothing to do with liberalism.These are Russophobes who have gone from the extreme of glorifying the authorities, to shitting everything and everything .Logically, being proud of something you play into the hands of the Kremlin, so you need to slide into the black market and call it a protest.
That is why they are blamed for the collapse with decommunization and self-flagellation .When the West played on their self-conceit of progressive reformers, offering to give away the markets of Eastern Europe, to open up to globalists their uncompetitive home to.Go. towards Capitalism.(although with him, they generally compete for them,and protect their manufacturers.)
Because we have lived in a totalitarian state for more than 100 years. They do not know and do not understand the essence of liberalism. And they despise what they don't understand, usually people with low intelligence.
Because people do not know and have not seen real liberalism, in Russia there are only liberals, liberoids, anarchists who demand OTHER rights for themselves, immeasurably greater than everyone else's.
Because Russians are slaves with 500 years of experience, and those who are masters are former slaves. True liberalism has never existed here, and it looks like it won't for a long time (maybe never). Well, every nation deserves what it has. All this is very sad, people are wonderful, but out of an old habit they follow the rules of someone else's game, and allow themselves to sit on their necks.
If the point is important to you, the terms “freedom” and “equality”will do just fine. If it is important for you to divide people into your own and others', you will cling to the combination of the letters “liberalism”.
This teaching has already shown itself in all its glory: in the dashing nineties, it hit our country like the invasion of Hitler and cost our people millions of victims. Until we hang the liberals in the squares, as we did after the Victory of the Vlasovites and policemen, we will continue to suffer under their rule.
And equality of rights without equality of duties is a beautiful figure of speech, but in reality it is a blatant injustice.
It is not without reason that the word “Degradation “literally means”Absence of differences” in Latin. And this word is used in the sense of ” degeneration, decline.”
Smart people in ancient times understood what liberalism smells like!
Libertarianism (from Lat. libertas — “freedom”) – a set of political philosophies and movements that support freedom as a basic principle
Alexander Reid Ross, a researcher in the field of nationalism at the Right-wing Radicalism Think Tank, believes that the views of Boogaloo members are close to those of libertarianism. (About the 2020 Protests and vandalism in the United States)
The International Alliance of Libertarian Parties (IALP) is an alliance of libertarian political parties worldwide. Its mission is to promote libertarian ideas internationally.
Vladimir Zelensky's party has chosen libertarianism as its ideology. What is it? Does this sound like liberalism?
THE ANSWER WILL COME FROM THE CLASSIC WISDOM OF OUR ANCESTORS FROM “Malinovka”.
Because a person with life experience understands that any changes in the country lead to impoverishment of the population. And liberals are people who dream of seizing power, nothing more.
(I'm sorry, I've been sitting on TheQuestion quite recently, I answered it for the first time accidentally in a comment to the question)
To begin with, liberalism can be right – wing and left-wing. And then there's libertarianism. And people actively confuse these concepts.
Initially, the ideology of liberalism (mostly left-wing) is such that human rights and personal freedom come first. That is, in fact, it is the justice of the law, it is freedom of speech, it is confidentiality, it is compliance with the constitution, and there is no violation of a person's personal freedom.
But the fact is that in Russia this is definitely not the case now. No freedom of speech for you (Sokolovsky?), no privacy (“readable” FSB messengers) and all that sort of stuff. And potsreots and vata* mostly can't come up with excuses for this, except for what the media tell them, because the authorities must be supported, the authorities are always right. And what is happening here now is the exact opposite of liberalism, so some individuals hate liberals.
*I didn't want to offend anyone with this. I know a lot of smart people who support the government, moreover, with their own arguments and arguments, and cotton wool is rather inadequate, tearing vests on their chests and drinking “For the tsar-father”:)
You know, I would also like to believe, like most of the respondents, that propaganda or Soviet and post-Soviet “liberals” are to blame, but I have a personal history that does not allow this.
In the eighth grade, I think, when we were still in Soviet school, we were given an essay on “the most respected qualities of a person”, something like that. Completely without a second thought or intention to troll anyone, and having heard about liberalism at that time, it seems, only the term itself, I wrote something like this: intelligence, honor, conscience, courage, etc. – this is all, of course, wonderful and honorable, but above all this, I personally appreciate a good sense of humor. Because, first of all, who am I to make demands, and secondly, I can always negotiate with such a person.
I couldn't even begin to imagine what a piece of shit would be thrown at the fan. At the next class hour, Rusichka (also known as klassukha) gave me a hell of a scolding, exactly in the essence of what was written. For some reason, a particular rage was directed specifically at the sense of humor. To give her credit, she didn't lower my grade for literacy (and I'd never had it lower than 4, and now it was 5), but she did give me a 3 for content.
Now I think that Yes, the masses see us (and I'm a liberal is more or less conscious) systemic risk, it is because of our unwillingness “to keep the tradition” and “maintain standards” – to reproduce the “good” violence; to reproduce the stereotypes that we in our life that are useless or harmful; to adhere to generally accepted authorities; to submit to others baseless demands and to meet them (see above); cultivate forced collectivism; join the” popular “adoration or anger that has no personal basis; without the obvious urgent need to give and take obligations; join the hierarchy and fight for a place in it; persecute “apostates” or outcasts; etc., etc.
In short, liberalism is a revolt against tradition, and local traditions – what a surprise! – they really despise freedom and universal equality of rights. You have successfully chosen a picture with the slogan Don't tread on anyone for the “header” of the question – so this approach,” don't put pressure on anyone”, is perceived in a” traditional “society as undermining the foundations, and it is perceived instinctively: you can hardly get a rational explanation from the” common man”, but a bucket of shit is easy. On the one hand, the masses can be understood – this is all biology, the most ancient areas of the brain, they can not be redone quickly, or not at all. On the other hand, why spend any effort at all on such a rework, when you can and should build a community of your own kind, since we are so “rejected”, and the rework is obviously against our own rules. However, it is not necessary to remind you that our rules do not prohibit us from protecting our way of life in the way that is appropriate at the moment.
Because most people don't know what liberalism is. Few people have studied the essence of the current and its differences from conservatism and other ideas. What are the differences between the types of liberalism?
Putin's media stupidly fashioned a straw scarecrow, called it “liberalism”, pinned all possible problems of the past and present on it, and successfully “smash liberals” on the air, beating this scarecrow.
It is ridiculous that some American politicians in their propaganda also write off all their own problems as “socialists”.
But it's not funny that, unlike in America, we do not allow an alternative opinion.
Because many people are convinced that if the liberals come, then the “dashing 90s”will be repeated. Because these people were not interested in the very essence of liberalism, that this would be largely beneficial for them. Of course, such distorted views about liberalism should also be blamed on our state-run media, which has long confused liberalism with the concepts of total poverty, corruption, and so on. But people themselves, if they have access to the Internet, can not be too lazy and at least on Wikipedia to read about the concept of liberal democracy or liberalism. It's all because of the low level of political culture