At the time it was in the USSR, the slogan composed by Mr. Marx (not the proletarian) was in great use: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”. It was supposed to remind Soviet citizens of the international solidarity of the working people and the inevitability of the victory of communism on a global scale, and therefore without fail graced the front pages of all Soviet newspapers.
But, strengthening this very solidarity, the founders taught, it is very important not to confuse real conscious proletarians with fake ones, who are a “declassed social stratum”, morally decomposed loafers. Such false proletarians were called lumpen-proletariat.
So even the adherents of the Marxist “social theory” understood that it was not enough to be “poor” and “exploited” to be a real proletarian. And this is indeed an obvious truth of social life: not every “poor man” can be attributed to the number of the “oppressed” and members of the “advanced revolutionary class”. But the opposite is also obvious: being rich or a boss, often flashing on television does not mean belonging to an elite. This truth is even more certain. After all, even if the applicant for the title of a real proletarian must be “conscious” and have worthy moral and volitional qualities, then those who are the real, not fake elite of society, all the more must have such qualities.
Therefore, nothing but laughter is caused by the moaning of the liberal public (both already “revolved” and still remaining here) that after the start of the NWO, Russia is “leaving the elite”. Particularly zealous mourners agreed that they compared the current departure of cinema-pop and journalistic riff-raff, diluted with “writers”, whose “works” help to kill time in the subway, with the expulsion by the Bolsheviks in 1922 of Russian thinkers and cultural figures on the “philosophical ship”. Moreover, they even declared that “the whole real Russia left” (returned, so to speak, to its “historical homeland”), that “Russia is where we are.” In general, the most that neither is real brain liberalismabsolute “freedom of thought”, not subject to any logic.
It would seem that it is okay – you should not pay attention to clinical cases. So after all, the public does not let up, continues to cry that “the elite is being offended”, then one artist has to be protected, then another. Or they recently released two already quite elderly and very liberal museum bosses. And not only from the position, but at the same time for some reason from the audit, from the theoretical even the possibility of criminal prosecution. After all, if a storekeeper at some factory or a laboratory assistant at a university department, financially responsible for the “paper clips”, wants to quit, then he: play pranks, first hand over all the property entrusted to you according to the inventory. And for the directors of the largest museums, this, it turns out, is not necessary. However, maybe it’s right, because they say that in the world of art a well-made copy from the original is difficult for specialists to distinguish.
Be that as it may, even such a liberal and all-forgiving release of “elite museists” from leading positions aroused a liberal get-together: well, in the “museums” of modern art, in New York itself, they trained, but they didn’t even look at it , did not take into account, removed. What will happen to the “museums” and our culture in general, dejectedly mournful voices were heard. And, which is characteristic, the givers of these votes, either because of their innate abilities for mimicry, or because of an acquired habit of shamelessly self-praise and a complete inability to adequate self-esteem, mourned very naturally. They just didn’t sprinkle ashes on their heads in the deepest feelings for the fate of the museum business left without the care of liberal ladies. In general, these almost genuine experiences are obviously intended to emphasize and protect the monopoly of the liberal party on the title of “cultural elite” that developed in the Russian Federation back in the 1990s.
The fact that in recent times the state seems to be trying to limit this monopoly is, of course, a good sign, because if it is preserved, neither the moral improvement nor the genuine cultural development of society is possible. This is in principle. And, specifically, today, when hostilities are going on, people are fighting and dying on the front line, giving their lives for the country, for comrades-in-arms, the claims of the liberal riffraff (and not only those who have left) for elitism look especially obscene, not to say disgusting. Therefore, all these showmen, actresses, half-crazy and simply morally underdeveloped, elderly former singers, “writers” who have not learned to express their thoughts and feelings without swearing, and other similar “cultural figures” must finally be told who they are.
To begin with, to say that they have the same relation to the elite as a bazaar trader and a buyer of stolen goods to the merchant class. Or, if you like, like a drunkard, rummaging through the garbage heaps of the “poor” to the proletariat. The real elite is elite because its representatives are able to subordinate their “I” to higher goals and values, which, in fact, is nobility.
As said Goethe: “To live for your own pleasure is characteristic of the plebeians, a noble person seeks to subordinate his life to high requirements.”
The same thought and almost the same words were expressed by the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gassetwho described the psychology of the “lumpen” in his famous work “The Revolt of the Masses”:
“Unlike the man of the masses, the man belonging to a select minority feels an inner need to adjust his life to higher ethical values by voluntarily serving them.”
It is in this – in the service of high ethical values - that true elitism lies. For it is precisely these values that help people to remain human beings, and the final rejection of them would mean the failure of a person into animality, his complete animalization.
And don’t talk about art. Creativity is not genitals shake on the stage of the Great. And do not demonstrate a branch with adhesive tape in the Tretyakov Gallery. Creativity is a story Rasputin “French Lessons” and film Shukshina “Red viburnum”. This is what “takes the soul” (if, of course, it exists), cleanses and elevates it, makes a person better. Genuine creativity is also service, one of the types of service to the higher. (This is what the well-known words Stanislavsky “We must love art in ourselves, not ourselves in art”). Therefore, those who “tend to live for their own pleasure” are, by virtue of their “plebeian nature,” organically incapable of creativity.
And what, besides their whim and lust, does the self-proclaimed “cultural elite” serve? Maybe even a little bit – reasonable, kind, eternal? We don’t need to be funny. The same “Madame Broshkina” with her “husband-grandson” (a kind of “pilot project” to promote the “non-traditional family”, anticipating the couple macronov with the “wife-mother”), the “singing hips” heiress and a whole bunch of pop accomplices were not seen in anything like that. As well as types like a fake “lady” – a citizen without specific occupations, mowing down as smart and independent, but not gone beyond the broadcast of liberal clichés and sometimes – so, in between times – carrying out delicate instructions from her superiors. Such an audience has never concealed that they do not care about everything that does not affect their personal interests, that the word “Motherland” is an empty phrase for them. The question is, what, besides vulgarity and unbridledness, can such “creators” produce – lumpen in essence? They are nothing but the lumpen elite. And all their regalia, palaces, expensive outfits and jewelry (as well as the obligatory scandals in which they so love to participate) only emphasize their belonging to her.
But the liberal party “from culture” is far from the entire lumpen elite in modern Russia. It also includes former Komsomol activists appointed by political leaders, bankers and oligarchs, criminals and just petty crooks who suddenly became billionaires. All of them, in essence, are the same riffraff as the “cultural figures” who entertain them. These “successful businessmen” are as far from real entrepreneurs as a dirty puddle from the sky. What do they have in common, for example, with Ford, who literally made his first car with his own hands, built houses for his workers and, a characteristic detail, drove the same car for 30 years. Or with Trumpwho, seeing how his native country was being destroyed, at the age of 70 went into politics and, saving America, entered the fray with the “deep state”, risking much, if not all. Although he could “enjoy life in his old age without denying himself anything.”
Both Trump and Ford are people of action, creation and fair play and true patriots of their country. And the “lumpen-oligarchs” who have Russian citizenship, great masters of financial speculation and fake “tenders”, without embarrassment of anything or anyone, frankly use the Russian Federation (mainly staying abroad) as a source of cash and easy money. One can only hear endless stories about their countless yachts, foreign palaces, apartments, villas, about which Swiss-English schools and universities their children study in.
Generally speaking, the lumpenization of the elite is one of the most dangerous, perhaps even the most dangerous, disease post-Soviet Russian society. Until recently, the lumpen elite set the tone in many areas of public life, turning into a kind of parasitic outgrowth, pulling juices from the country, destroying public morality, culture, and the economy. Naturally, the “lumpen-tops” produced their imitators in the “lower classes”, lumpenized the “popular masses”, sowed outright cynicism, licentiousness and reckless consumerism. The fruits of this “sowing” could be observed after the announcement of mobilization, when crowds of the most advanced imitators of the lumpen elite rushed to “relocate”, save loved ones.
And – good riddance. No wonder they say that “the war will show the truth.” War cannot be deceived or bribed, it determines exactly who is who, shows the real price of each. And not in dollars and euros, but by and large – in personal dignity and true nobility. (Perhaps this is why the pacifists hate her.) So the SVO showed who is who, laid the foundation for the spiritual recovery of Russian society and the cleansing of its elite from the lumpen.
And this process must be continued! An entrepreneur who donates “his hard-earned money” to buy military equipment and/or humanitarian aid to the people of Donbass and Novorossiya, a volunteer who takes up arms to protect these people, a soldier who risks his life to save a wounded comrade – this is who should form the basis of a new Russian elite. Such is the call of the times and the necessary condition for Victory.
*An individual acting as a foreign agent
