With whom and against whom will we be friends?

    Firstly, you still have to be friends. And I don’t even know - unfortunately, or fortunately. The spontaneous manifestations of friendship among the masses are already pouring onto the streets of Greece, some countries of Eastern Europe and even South Korea. In Russia, fortunately, the friendship of peoples has long been under the reliable and wise control of the state. After all, what can you call wisdom these carefully calibrated gas PR-actions and other measures to force friendship. It’s me, without any irony - everything is very calm, neat and beautiful, as our old friend Alexander Lukashenko said. And indeed, at the level of a single Russia, everything is according to plan. We believe our prime minister by 77% (although earlier by 81%), the president - by about 73%, the government - did not find statistics, but we also probably believe. So be it - you have to believe someone.
    Let's get back to friendship. The key to understanding the role of conflict in the development of harmony in society can be a brief introduction to the basic ideas of political conflictology. Historically, the concept of a paradoxical combination of the concepts “struggle for life”, that is, conflict and “development of an integrated closed system” in a natural scientific context, we meet in the 19th century with Charles Robert Darwin. Everything is very simple: the presence of conflict between interacting entities is the driving force leading the system to a new, more perfect state. That is, this force mercilessly pushes the participants of the system among themselves, and the strongest survives. This concept was first introduced into political science by the German philosopher of Jewish origin Karl Marx. Everything is also very simple: class conflict is an integral part of society’s existence, he explains the process of historical development and improvement of socio-economic formations. That is, as other researchers (M. Weber, G. Zimbel, P. Sorokin and others) claimed, the conflict is something that has been given to us from above, and we can only rationalize it somehow, but we can rise above it unable. Only T. Parsons tried to define the conflict as a social pathology, but they looked at him as a heretic.
    All this led to the abandonment of attempts to "resolve" the conflict as a complete and final elimination of contradictions. Instead, the concept of “settlement” appeared, that is, the streamlining of force interactions between the warring parties - in fact, the introduction of certain “rules of war”.
    But theory by theory, but in practice everything happens the same every time. How the conflict arises, no one knows. The first stage is characterized by a hidden increase in discomfort - participants develop some desires independently of each other. If the desires are of an animal level (food, shelter, sex, family), it quickly becomes clear that if you unite in a flock, it will be easier to provide yourself with resources, which, with a reasonable approach, are more than enough for everyone. That is, the problems of vital livelihoods always only unite. But as soon as a society of people is formed, the very nature of human society leads to the development of “relative” mutual desires, which ultimately come down to the desire to possess what is different. This manifests itself as a desire to be the richest, most famous, most important, and, in the end, the smartest is to control the thoughts of others. At this level of development, all desires are unconscious desires of conflict. It is their unconsciousness that usually leads to the growth of incomprehensible tension, which, reaching a certain level, leads to a jump-like uncontrollable collision. And what pacifists profess is simply a fear of experiencing aggression.
    What turns out, wars are inevitable due to our inner nature? To answer this question, we consider what changes qualitatively in the state of an integrated closed system after the completion of the stage of open conflict. The main thing that catches your eye is if not the increased feeling of love for each other, then at least appeasement. This is accompanied by the emergence of joint development interests and the dumping of the aggregate level of imaginary "relative" social desires. Such a dialectic - the potential energy of the opposition is transformed into a qualitative translational movement. And while we remain at the level of “public animals”, Nature treats us just like animals, the number of which needs to be optimized, leading us in this way to some unknown goal ...
    The only thing that can save us from the upcoming next bloody massacre is only unification. But unification is on a new level. And with a new purpose. Not for the sake of imaginary social needs, not for the sake of physical survival as a species. What is needed is not just a new National Idea. We need a new goal for the existence of human civilization.
    Because today the problem is that we can no longer determine the subject of global conflict and even identify the warring parties - that is, somehow rationalize, direct the confrontation in a constructive direction. Globalization reveals such deep root causes of conflicts and such a quantity that it is already impossible to see the full picture. Hatred becomes causeless. Today it is impossible to defeat - there are too many enemies and at the same time we cannot reach them. We also have no right to lose.
    But let’s remember what we abstracted from at one time, taking the conflict for objectivity. Let us recall the force that mercilessly incites hatred towards each other in us. The time has come to be friends against God.

    Also popular now: