Here are the following three examples of Socrates' teaching on how to live correctly - 1) about the people, 2) about slaves and masters, and 3) about the family.

Here is a story about family - about how you feel good when you understand your loved one and understand their actions!

About slaves and masters - how if we are not able to provide for ourselves physically, are we able to grow spiritually? And how you shouldn’t judge others, but rather work on yourself.

And the first story is about a smart guy who tries to lead the country, although he doesn’t even know how much bread the people need from harvest to harvest. And without any idea of ​​the consequences, this leader will conduct experiments on the people! Who needs these leaders anyway? We would live just fine without them!..

Here they are, these stories.

L.N. Tolstoy “The Greek teacher Socrates”

Chapter III. How should people be governed?

Socrates once heard that a certain rich man, his name was Glaucon, was trying to become a boss. Socrates knew him that he was an inexperienced and careless person, and Socrates wanted to convict him. Socrates met him once in the city square. Glaucon stood in the midst of the people, and the people spoke to him with respect. Everyone expected that he would soon be the boss, and then everyone would need him. Glaucon expected to be chosen and was proud in front of the people. Socrates also came up.

- Hello, Glaucon! - he said. “I heard that you will be our ruler.”

“Yes, I hope so,” replied Glaucon.

- Well, it's a good thing. When you get a position, much will be in your power: you can do a lot of good to people. And your glory will go far.

- Why isn’t it so? - said Glaucon. - Why shouldn’t I be a good ruler?

“He is a good ruler,” said Socrates, “and he has a good reputation who has done a lot of good for his people.” Is not it?

“Of course,” answered Glaucon. - So, please, don’t hide it, tell us: what benefit do you think you can do to the people, where will you start?

Glaucon hesitated and did not immediately answer. He didn't know where to start. While he was thinking, Socrates said:

- Why are you thinking, it’s not difficult to understand how to benefit the people. People are people just like the rest of us. If you wanted to do good to your friend, the first thing is, would you try to increase his wealth?

“Of course,” replied Glaucon.

“Well, it’s the same with the people,” said Socrates. – To do good to the people means that everyone will be richer. Is not it?

“How could it be wrong,” said Glaucon.

- Well, how can we make all the people richer? - asked Socrates. - I think that every people should have more income and less expenses. Is not it?

“I think,” answered Glaucon.

- Tell me, Glaucon, where does the people’s income come from now and how much is it? You probably already know all this.

“No, I don’t know that,” said Glaucon, “I haven’t thought about it yet.”

“Well, you didn’t think about that,” said Socrates, “but you probably thought about how much you need to spend on your needs.” And if now the expenses are unnecessary, you probably figured out how to throw them off.

“No,” said Glaucon, “and I cannot answer that now.” I haven't thought about that yet.

“And I haven’t thought about it yet,” Socrates repeated. - Well, well, you still have time. You probably kept thinking about how you could enrich the people? What did you think about it? How do you think we can enrich the people?

“I think the best way to enrich the people,” said Glaucon, “is through war.” Conquer other nations and take all their wealth and divide it.

“This is true,” said Socrates, “the shortest way is to enrich the people, but it also happens that you will not conquer other peoples, but will only waste people and money on war, then the people will not get rich, but become poor.”

“That’s true,” said Glaucon, but war should only be started when you know for sure that you will win, and not that you will be defeated.

– So, in order to start a war, you must correctly know the strength of your people and the strength of the enemy? - said Socrates.

“Of course, you need to know,” said Glaucon. “So tell me, Glaucon, what military forces are we ready for war and what are the forces of the enemy with whom you want to fight?”

“I really can’t say this, I can’t remember it by heart.”

“So you probably have notes, please bring them, we will read them and count them,” said Socrates.

“No, I don’t have any notes,” said Glaucon, “and the enemy troops cannot be counted.”

“This is a pity,” said Socrates, “because if you cannot count the enemy, and there is no way to know in advance whether we will conquer or be conquered, it turns out that your means of enriching the people is not very reliable.” Whether you will enrich yourself or not is unknown; You will probably kill a lot of people, but instead of wealth you will become poor. So we’ll leave this, but tell us one more thing, Socrates said then.

- Tell us, Glaucon, how much bread is needed to feed the entire people? What was our harvest this year, and will everyone have enough bread before the new harvest? Are you sure you've thought about it?

– No, I haven’t inquired about this yet. - answered Glaucon.

Glaucon fell silent, and everyone fell silent. Then Glaucon said:

“You question everything so much, Socrates, that if you think about everything and calculate it the way you ask, then it will be too difficult to govern the people.”

– Did you think it was easy? - said Socrates. “I’ll ask you one last thing: I heard that you started helping your uncle on the farm, and then quit. Why did this happen?

“It was difficult for me,” answered Glaucon, “and the farm is large, and my uncle did not listen to me.”

“You see, you haven’t managed one house, but you’re trying to manage a whole people.” You can take on any task, but only those who understand it succeed. Be careful not to get yourself into trouble instead of glory and honor. Go and find out thoroughly everything I asked you about, and then think about management.

Glaucon silently left Socrates and stopped seeking the position of ruler.

Chapter IV. Who is better - a slave or a master?

It happened once that his neighbor Aristarchus came to Socrates and began to complain to him about his misfortune.

– I can’t imagine what I should do. “I was,” he says, “rich, I traded, then the trade didn’t work out and I went broke.” And then, unfortunately, there was war, they killed their relatives, and they had to take in widows and orphans. And now fourteen souls have gathered in my house. What is it like to feed everyone! Trouble after disaster, and I don’t know what to do.

“I feel sorry for you, friend,” said Socrates. - How do you think you can help the cause now?

“I wanted to borrow money and start trading again, but they wouldn’t give it to me because they know things are bad.”

Socrates shook his head and said:

- That’s right, there are fourteen souls to feed, we need to supply food; but your neighbor has more than twenty souls, and they are well-fed. And they make money, said Socrates.

- I compared it! - said Aristarchus. “He has one neighbor, nineteen souls of slaves, his slaves do more work than they eat.” And I have fourteen souls of free Greeks.

– How are free Greeks different from slaves? Because they are better than slaves?

- Of course, it’s better, then – free Greeks, and then – slaves.

“In words it definitely sounds like free people are better,” said Socrates, “but in reality it’s not the same; With your neighbor, you say, everything is fine, because there are slaves, but with you, everything is bad, because they are not slaves, but free Greeks. Apparently, slaves know how to work, but free ones cannot.

“And mine would be able to, if I could force them,” said Aristarchus, “but I can’t force them to work!” After all, they are of noble family and relatives to me, how can I get them to work? If you offend them, reproaches and discontent will begin, this is impossible.

- Well, now you have no reproaches or discontent? - asked Socrates. – Do you all live in harmony?

- What agreement! - answered Aristarchus. - All you hear is reproaches and quarrels.

“So that’s it,” said Socrates, “and without work you have no consent and have nothing to feed on.” After all, nobility and nobility do not feed your relatives and do not give consent. So shouldn't you do this: shouldn't you give them whatever work they can? Wouldn't it be better when they start working?

“I would do this,” said Aristarchus, “but they wouldn’t like it.” And in the city, people will probably judge me.

- And now they don’t condemn? - asked Socrates.

– And now there are good people who condemn people for poverty; They condemn me, but they don’t give me money to get better.

- That's exactly it! - said Socrates. “But you can’t listen to all the gossip; But try, put them to work, maybe things will work out better.

And Aristarchus listened to Socrates. Six months later, Socrates met Aristarchus again and asked how he was living. And Aristarchus says:

“I live well and thank you for everything.” I listened to you then and now things have completely improved. One man entrusted me with wool on loan; my family spun this wool, wove cloth, and then sewed dresses for men and women for sale. They sold it - not only did they get money for the wool, but they also took profits. Since then we started doing this business, and we are all full, and we have no quarrels, and we have money.

– What do people say? - asked Socrates.

“And people don’t scold,” answered Aristarchus and laughed.

Socrates once saw a young gentleman lying lounging in the square and fanning himself from the heat.

- Why are you so tired? - Socrates asked him.

“How can I not get tired, I walked about ten miles from the village today.”

- Why are you really tired? Was he carrying something heavy? The young man was offended.

- Why should I carry it? That's why there is a slave; he was saying what happened to me.

- Well, is he tired or not?

- What is he doing? He was healthy, he walked all the way - he sang songs, despite the burden.

“I feel sorry for you,” said Socrates, “it turns out that your slave can serve you and every person and himself, but you cannot even serve other people or yourself.”

Another time Socrates saw a master beating his slave with a whip.

- Why are you hitting him so hard? - asked Socrates.

“How can you not beat him,” answered the owner, “he is a glutton, lazy, he only thinks about how to sleep, have fun, and eat sweeter food.” Even a hundred lashes are not enough for him! Socrates called the owner aside and said:

- Well, what are you thinking about, except for how you can sleep better, eat better and have fun? - The owner did not answer anything. - And if you yourself only think about this, then how many lashes should you receive for the very thing for which you punish a slave? Isn't he taking your example as an example? - This owner was offended and left Socrates.

Chapter V. How to live in a family

When Socrates began to tear himself away from his stonemason work to go to the square to teach the people, his wife was offended and thought that there would be losses; but when a lot of people began to gather to see Socrates, she was consoled and thought: “They pay well for teaching, teachers live in contentment; We will live like this too.” But Socrates thought differently. He thought: “I cannot take payment for teaching - I teach what the voice of God tells me, I teach righteousness. How am I going to get money for this?” Although a lot of people gathered to listen to Socrates, he did not take money from anyone. And he earned money to support his family through his skills: as long as there was enough for the necessities.

For Socrates' wife, living in poverty seemed both difficult and shameful. She often grumbled that her husband did not take money for his studies. Sometimes it came to tears, reproaches, and abuse. Socrates' wife - her name was Xanthipa - she was a hot-tempered woman. When he gets angry, he tears and throws everything he can get his hands on. The children and most of all Socrates himself got it from her. But he was not angry and either remained silent or persuaded her. Once she scolded and scolded, but Socrates remained silent; She felt annoyed, and out of anger she poured a tub of slop on him.

“Well, that’s right,” said Socrates, “there was thunder, and after the thunder there was rain.” - And he began to dry himself. Socrates did this himself and taught his sons the same. Once the eldest son was rude to his mother. Socrates says:

“What do you think,” he says to his son, “about those people who do not remember good things?” Are such people good?

“If people don’t want to do good to those who did good to them, I think that these are the worst people, and everyone thinks so.”

“You judged correctly,” said Socrates. “Well, now tell me, what if one person, when he has no strength, carries another from place to place, feeds, dresses, dresses, puts him to bed, raises him, looks after the sick, accepts illnesses for him, endures his anger with love.” . What - such a person did good to another?

“He did a great good,” said the son.

“Well, this is exactly what your mother did for you, and even more than that.” She carried and fed, and did not sleep at night, and she herself did not know whether she would ever receive gratitude or help from you. And what do you reward her for this and do you honor her as a grateful person should?

The son was embarrassed, but did not want to submit and began to make excuses:

“I would honor her if she were different, otherwise she would scream and offend me for nothing.” You won't be able to stand it.

- And when you were little, did you shout all the time? But she endured it, and loved you, and looked after you. This is what you should do too,” said Socrates.

Current page: 1 (book has 7 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

Antonio Gramsci, Gyorgy Lukács
The science of politics. How to control people

© Translation from Italian by G. Smirnov, V. Dmitrenko, P. Kozlov, E. Molochkovskaya, A. Orla, L. Popova, Y. Suvorova, 2017

© Translation from German by S. Zemlyany, 2017

© TD Algorithm LLC, 2017

* * *

Science of Politics

A. Gramsci (from “Prison Notebooks”)

Preface. The doctrine of hegemony by A. Gramsci

Antonio Gramsci, founder and theoretician of the Italian Communist Party, member of parliament, was arrested by the fascists in 1926, imprisoned, released completely ill under the amnesty of 1934 and died in 1937. At the beginning of 1929, he was allowed to write in prison, and he began his enormous work, “Prison Notebooks.” They were written by Gramsci not for publication, but for himself, moreover, under the supervision of prison censorship. They are not easy to read, but through the efforts of a large number of Grammar scholars, the meaning of almost all the materials has been restored, and the differences in interpretation are small. In general, we are talking about an important contribution to almost all sections of the humanities - philosophy and political science, anthropology (the study of man), cultural studies and pedagogy. Gramsci made this contribution by developing Marxism and comprehending the experience of the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of 1917 - and at the same time the experience of fascism. He thus created a new theory of state and revolution - for modern society (in development and, perhaps, overcoming Lenin's theory, created for the conditions of peasant Russia). However, it turned out that while working for the victory of communism, Gramsci made many discoveries of general scientific significance.

As you know, “knowledge is power,” and this power can be used by anyone who masters the knowledge and gets the opportunity to apply it. Fire helped man emerge from the primitive state, although a man sent to the stake of the Inquisition may say an unkind word about Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods for people. The theory created by the communist was effectively used by the enemies of communism (and our communists do not even want to know about it). Gramsci is not to blame for this.

If today you open a large Western scientific database for the word “Gramsci” (for example, the huge American “Dissertations” database), you are simply amazed at the wide range of social phenomena that are studied today using Gramsci’s theories. This is the course of inciting national conflicts, and the tactics of the church elite in the fight against “liberation theology” in Nicaragua, and the history of sports in the USA and its influence on mass consciousness, and the features of current African literature, and the effectiveness of certain types of advertising. Perhaps, if 20-30 years ago pragmatic Western social science considered it obligatory to use the methodology of classical Marxism (of course, along with others) to analyze all important social processes, today it is considered necessary to “roll” the problem in the concepts and methodology of Gramsci.

One of the key sections of Gramsci's work is the doctrine of hegemony. This is part of the general theory of revolution as the breakdown of the state and the transition to a new socio-political order. Here, briefly, is the essence of the teaching, directly related to our problem.

According to Gramsci, the power of the ruling class rests not only on violence, but also on consent. The mechanism of power is not only coercion, but also persuasion. Mastery of property as the economic basis of power is not enough - the dominance of the owners is not automatically guaranteed, and stable power is not ensured.

Thus, the state, no matter what the dominant class, stands on two pillars - strength and harmony. A situation in which a sufficient level of agreement has been achieved is what Gramsci calls hegemony. Hegemony is not a frozen state once achieved, but a subtle and dynamic continuous process. At the same time, “the state is hegemony, clothed in the armor of coercion.” In other words, coercion is only armor of much more significant content. Moreover, hegemony presupposes not just consent, but benevolent (active) consent, in which citizens desire what the ruling class requires. Gramsci gives the following definition: “The state is the entire set of practical and theoretical activities through which the ruling class justifies and maintains its dominance, while seeking the active consent of the governed.”

This is not just about politics, but about the fundamental quality of modern Western society. This is evident from the fact that other major thinkers came to similar conclusions in a completely different way. The American philosopher J. Waite, a researcher of Heidegger, writes: “By 1936, Heidegger came - partly due to his political experience under Nazi Germany, partly as a result of reading the works of Nietzsche, where, as we could easily see, virtually the same thoughts were expressed, – to the idea that Antonio Gramsci (at almost the same time, but based on a different experience and kind of reading) called the problem of “hegemony”: namely, how to rule implicitly, through the “fluid equilibrium” of time blocks of various dominant social groups, using "non-violent coercion" (including so-called mass or popular culture), so as to manipulate subordinate groups against their will, but with their consent, in the interests of a tiny part of society."

* * *

If the main strength of the state and the basis of the power of the ruling class is hegemony, then the question of the stability of the political order and, on the contrary, the conditions for its breakdown (revolution) comes down to the question of how hegemony is achieved or undermined. Who is the main agent in this process? What are the “technologies” of the process?

According to Gramsci, both the establishment and subversion of hegemony are a “molecular” process. It proceeds not as a clash of class forces (Gramsci denied such mechanistic analogies with which vulgar historical materialism is full), but as an invisible, small portions, change of opinions and moods in the consciousness of each person. Hegemony is based on the “cultural core” of society, which includes a set of ideas about the world and man, about good and evil, beautiful and disgusting, many symbols and images, traditions and prejudices, knowledge and experience of many centuries. As long as this core is stable, there is a “stable collective will” in society aimed at preserving the existing order. Undermining this “cultural core” and destroying this collective will is a condition for revolution. The creation of this condition is “molecular” aggression in the cultural core. This is not a statement of some truth that would make a revolution in consciousness, some kind of insight. This is “a huge number of books, brochures, magazine and newspaper articles, conversations and disputes, which are endlessly repeated and in their gigantic totality form that long-term effort from which the collective will of a certain degree of homogeneity is born, the degree that is necessary to produce action, coordinated and simultaneous in time and geographical space.”

We remember how such a long-term gigantic effort was created by the ideological machine of the CPSU during perestroika, before the cultural core of Soviet society was finally broken in the consciousness of the “soviet”, and the hegemony of the “privatizers” was established, at least for a short time. This whole “revolution from above” (in Gramsci’s terminology, “passive revolution”) was precisely designed in accordance with the doctrine of hegemony and molecular aggression into the cultural core. Yeltsin's advisor, philosopher A. I. Rakitov, frankly writes in an academic journal: “The transformation of the Russian market into the market of modern capitalism required a new civilization, a new social organization, and, consequently, radical changes in the core of our culture.”

What in the cultural core must be influenced first of all to establish (or undermine) hegemony? Not at all on the theory of the enemy, says Gramsci. It is necessary to influence ordinary consciousness, the everyday, “small” thoughts of the average person. And the most effective way of influence is the tireless repetition of the same statements, so that they become accustomed to them and begin to be accepted not by reason, but by faith. “The masses as such,” writes Gramsci, “cannot acquire philosophy except as faith.” And he called attention to the church, which maintains religious beliefs through the constant repetition of prayers and rituals.

Gramsci himself was well aware that both the forces defending their hegemony and the revolutionary forces must fight for everyday consciousness. Both have a chance of success, because the cultural core and everyday consciousness are not only conservative, but also changeable. That part of everyday consciousness, which Gramsci called “common sense” (the spontaneous philosophy of the working people), is open to the perception of communist ideas. Here is the source of “liberation hegemony”. If we are talking about the bourgeoisie, striving to maintain or establish its hegemony, then it is important for it to neutralize or suppress this common sense, introducing fantastic myths into the consciousness.

Who is the main actor in establishing or undermining hegemony? Gramsci's answer is clear: the intelligentsia. And here he develops a whole chapter about the essence of the intelligentsia, its origins, role in society and relationship with authorities. The main social function of the intelligentsia is not professional (engineer, scientist, priest, etc.). As a special social group, the intelligentsia arose precisely in modern society, when the need arose to establish hegemony through ideology. It is the creation and dissemination of ideologies, the establishment or undermining of the hegemony of one class or another that is the main raison d'être of the intelligentsia.

The most effective hegemony of the bourgeoisie coming to power occurred in France, where a close alliance of capital and intelligentsia quickly developed. Underneath this union lay a close connection between both the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia with the German Reformation, which gave rise to powerful philosophical movements (as they say, “Kant beheaded God, and Robespierre the king”). In general, Gramsci considers the combination of the Protestant Reformation with the political model of the French Revolution to be the theoretical maximum in the effectiveness of establishing hegemony.

Selling their labor, the intelligentsia goes where the money is. Gramsci writes: “Intellectuals serve as the “orderlies” of the dominant group, used to carry out functions subordinate to the tasks of social hegemony and political control.” True, there always remains in society a part of the intelligentsia that Gramsci calls “traditional” - that intelligentsia that served the group that lost its hegemony, but did not change its banner. Usually the new group that has gained hegemony tries to tame it. In addition, social movements that mature to fight for their hegemony give rise to their own intelligentsia, which becomes the main agent in influencing the cultural core and gaining hegemony.

* * *

This is a very short and simplified presentation of some points of Gramsci's teachings. I think it is already clear from this presentation how fruitful and extensive this concept is. Gramsci was one of those who laid the foundations of a new social science that overcame historical mathematics (in both its Marxist and liberal versions). It is not for nothing that his name is mentioned in the same breath as the names of M. Bakhtin in cultural studies, M. Foucault and other innovators in philosophy. Gramsci is one of the first philosophers who sensed a new scientific picture of the world and transferred its main spirit to the science of society.

I will give several examples of those social processes, the current study of which has shown that they proceeded in accordance with Gramsci's doctrine of hegemony (they are mainly taken from American dissertations). We'll talk about perestroika later.

Perhaps the greatest confirmation of the fidelity of Gramsci's theory is the successful strategy of the Indian National Congress party for the non-violent liberation of India from colonial dependence. Through many “small deeds and words” the party won a strong cultural hegemony among the mass of the population. The colonial administration and the pro-British elite were powerless to oppose anything - they had lost the necessary minimum of mass consent to maintain the previous order.

Another brilliant and deliberately designed “operation” was the peaceful transition of Spain after the death of Franco from a totalitarian and closed society to a liberal market economy, federal structure and Western-style democracy. The crisis of hegemony of the Francoist elite was resolved through a series of pacts with the hegemonic left opposition. As a result of these pacts and compromises, the left were “accepted into the elite,” and the Francoists changed their odious coloring and phraseology and became “democrats.” The left was able to “persuade” the masses to endure, to give up their social demands - the right would not have been able to do this.

Based on Gramsci's theory, cultural scientists explain the role of things (“consumer goods”) in establishing and maintaining the hegemony of the bourgeoisie in Western society. Things (material culture) create the environment in which the average person lives. They carry “messages” that have a powerful impact on everyday consciousness. If things are designed taking into account their function as “signs” (“information systems of symbols”), then, due to the enormous scale and diversity of their flow, they can become a decisive force in the formation of everyday consciousness. It is the design of consumer goods (the automobile occupies a special place in it) that has become in the United States the main mechanism for introducing cultural values ​​into consciousness (creating and preserving a “cultural core”). Experts especially note the ability of this mechanism to effectively “standardize and segment” society.

Standardization and segmentation are an important condition for hegemony in civil society, where it is necessary to maintain “atomization”, the individualization of people. But at the same time, it is necessary to connect the “segments” with connections that do not lead to organic unity - safe for hegemony. As studies using Gramsci's methodology have shown, sport has become an effective means for this in the United States. It generated such symbols and images that connected the most diverse segments of society - from the black bottom to the bourgeois elite - with soft ties that did not lead to any social unity. Sport created a special cross-section of general mass culture and everyday consciousness.

Very interesting are studies of individual, more specific cases when opposing forces deliberately planned their campaign as a struggle for hegemony in the public consciousness on a specific issue. This was the case, for example, with Thatcher's privatization campaign in 1984–1985. English trade unions opposing privatization tried to win over public opinion, but lost the competition for hegemony. In general, the British agreed to privatization and recoiled from Thatcherism only when they experienced its consequences firsthand.

Gramsci’s methodology well reveals the essence of the activities of the “Trilateral Commission” created on the initiative of N. Rockefeller under the leadership of Z. Brzezinski. This is one of the most closed and influential organizations of the shadow “world government”. It includes about three hundred members from the USA, Europe and Japan. The goal is to stabilize the new world order by achieving unimpeded access for transnational corporations to all countries of the world, especially in the financial sector and energy. It is recognized, however, that in reality the Trilateral Commission has contributed to a destabilized world compared to the 1970s. But another conclusion is important for us: this shadow organization was able to mobilize influential forces in all major countries to influence public opinion so that the “unpleasant” consequences of its activities completely disappeared from public debate. These forces (scientists, the press, “spiritual leaders”) were able to influence everyday consciousness so much on a global scale that people seemed to stop seeing the obvious. Their “common sense” has been turned off.

Finally, completely in accordance with the logic of Gramsci’s teachings, the liberal intelligentsia undermined the hegemony of socialist forces in the countries of Eastern Europe. In the United States, dissertations have been made on the role of theater in the destruction of the cultural core of these countries - fascinating reading (Gramsci himself, in his theory of hegemony, also devoted much attention to the theater, especially the theater of Luigi Pirandello, which greatly contributed to the rise of the fascists to power in Italy). For example, the work of the well-known theater of Heiner Müller in the GDR, who in his plays aimed to “undermine history from below,” is examined. This is a typical example of a phenomenon called “anti-institutional theater,” that is, theater that undermines public institutions. According to the study's conclusions, the directors consciously "looked for cracks in the monolith of hegemony and sought to widen these cracks - in the long term until the end of history." The end of history has long been called the desired collapse of the “Soviet bloc” opposing the West.

S. G. Kara-Murza

Parties, state, society

"Modern Sovereign"

… Machiavelli’s “The Prince” could be viewed as a political ideology, appearing not as an insipid utopia, not as doctrinaire reasoning, but as the creation of a specific fantasy influencing a divided and dispersed people in order to stir it up and organize a collective will in it. The utopian character of “The Sovereign” lies in the fact that the Sovereign did not exist in real historical reality; he did not appear to the Italian people as a direct objectivity possessing certain characteristic features; on the contrary, he was the purest doctrinaire abstraction, a symbol of a leader, an ideal condottiere; however, the passion and mythology contained in this little book and possessing enormous dramatic power in it are tightly concentrated in the final chapter and find life there in an appeal addressed to the Sovereign, who really exists.

In his little book, Machiavelli discusses what a Sovereign should be in order to lead the people to the creation of a new State, and his reasoning is strictly logical, scientifically detached; in the final chapter, Machiavelli himself becomes the people, merges with the people, but not with the people in general, but with the very people whom he convinced with his previous reasoning, the people, the consciousness and expression of which he feels himself to be, the people with which he mentally identifies; it seems that all “logical” work turns out to be nothing more than the self-reflection of the people, internally holistic reasoning, developing in the people’s consciousness and ending in a passionate involuntary cry.

Antonio Gramsci

Passion in the course of internal self-reflection again turns into affect, feverish feeling, fanaticism of action. That is why the epilogue of “The Sovereign” is not something external, “hung” on it from the outside, something rhetorical - this epilogue should be interpreted as a necessary element of the work, moreover, as that element, the reflection of which lies on the entire work and transforms it into a kind of “political manifesto”.

It can be scientifically shown how Sorel 1
Georges Sorel (1847–1922) - French sociologist, theorist of the revolutionary trade union movement (syndicalism), author of the book "Reflections on Violence", in which he considers the myth of the general strike as a collective mobilizing idea that can become the basis of revolutionary changes.

Based on the concept of myth ideology, he did not reach the understanding of a political party, but settled on the concept of a trade union. True, in Sorel the “myth” received its highest expression not in the trade union as an organization of collective will, but in the practical activity of the trade union and in the already existing collective will, in practical action, the most complete realization of which would be a general strike, that is , so to speak, “passive activity”, which is negative and preliminary in nature (a positive nature is given only by achieving a consensus of associated wills), activity that does not imply for itself the phase of “active and constructive”.

In Sorel, therefore, two necessities fought among themselves: the necessity of myth and the need to criticize myth, since “every pre-established plan is utopian, and the very concept of foresight is nothing more than an empty phrase,” then the irrational cannot but dominate, and any organization of people - antihistory, prejudice; in this case, individual practical problems that historical development poses can be solved only case by case, using the first criteria that come to hand, and opportunism turns out to be the only possible political course. However, is it possible for a myth to be “non-constructive”, is it possible, remaining within the limits of Sorel’s intuition, to imagine that a truly effective instrument is one that leaves the collective will at the primitive and elementary stage of its pure formation for the sake of disunity (for the sake of a schizoid “split” ), even if violent, that is, destroying existing moral and legal relations? And this so primitively formed collective will, won’t it immediately cease to exist, randomly scattered into the infinity of individual wills, moving towards the positive stage in different, dissimilar ways? Not to mention the fact that there cannot be destruction, negation without implicitly implied creation, affirmation, and not in a metaphysical sense, but practically, that is, politically, as a party program. In this case, it is clearly visible that behind spontaneity lies the purest mechanism, behind freedom (an involuntary impulse of life) - determinism taken to the limit, behind idealism - absolute materialism.

The modern sovereign, the mythical sovereign, cannot be a real person, a specific person; it can only be an organism; an element of a complex society in which a collective will has already begun to take shape, has achieved recognition and has partly already manifested itself in action. This organism has already been given by historical development, and it is a political party - the first cell in which the sprouts of the collective will are united, striving to achieve universality and totality.

In the modern world, only direct and inevitable historical and political action, characterized by the need for swift, lightning-fast measures, can be mythologically embodied in a specific personality; promptness of measures must be necessary due to the great immediate danger; great danger, which, precisely because it is great, instantly inflames passions and fanaticism, annihilating the criticality of reason and corrosive irony, capable of destroying the “divinely providential” character of the condottiere. But this kind of direct action, by its very nature, cannot be long-term and organic: it almost always turns out to be an action of the type of restoration and reorganization, and not of the type characteristic of the creation of new states and new national and social structures (as was the case with “The Prince” Machiavelli, in whom the restoration aspect was just part of the rhetoric, that is, it was associated with literary ideas about Italy as the direct successor of Rome, which was called upon to restore the system and power of Rome), of the “protective” type, and not the original creative one, in which, in other words , it is assumed that the already existing collective will turned out to be weakened and dispersed, having survived a formidable and dangerous crisis, but not fatal and catastrophic, and which therefore needs to be concentrated and strengthened again, but no longer as a collective will created ex novo initially and directed towards specific and rational goals, but as possessing concreteness and rationality, which have not yet manifested themselves in any way and have not yet been subjected to criticism of the real, universally recognized experience of history.

The abstract nature of Sorel's concept of "myth" is manifested in hostility (taking the form of passionate moral disgust) towards the Jacobins, who, undoubtedly, were the "categorical embodiment" of Machiavelli's Prince. The Modern Prince should have a section devoted to Jacobinism (in the broad sense that the concept has had historically, and that it should have conceptually) as an example of how the collective will was concretely formed and acted, which - at least in some of its aspects – was created ex novo initially. And it is necessary that the collective will, as well as political will in general, receive its modern definition; will as an active consciousness of historical necessity, as the protagonist of a genuine, real historical drama.

* * *

One of the first sections in “The Modern Sovereign” should be devoted specifically to the “collective will”, posing the question: “When can it be argued that there are conditions under which the collective national-popular will is capable of awakening and developing?” What is needed, therefore, is a historical (economic) analysis of the social structure of a given country, as well as a “dramatic” depiction of centuries of attempts to awaken this will and an explanation of the reasons for their constant failures. Why was there no absolute monarchy in Italy during Machiavelli's time? We must go all the way to the Roman Empire (issues of language, intelligentsia, etc.), find out the role of medieval communes, the significance of Catholicism, etc. - in a word, we must create an outline of the entire Italian history, concise but clear.

Positive conditions should be sought in the existence of social urban groups that have developed accordingly in the sphere of industrial production and have reached a certain level of historical and political culture. Any formation of a collective, national-popular will turns out to be impossible without the large masses of peasants working the land also invading political life. Machiavelli sought this through the reform of the militia, the Jacobins did this during the French Revolution, in understanding this one must see Machiavelli's Jacobinism ahead of its time, the embryo (more or less fruitful) of his concept of national revolution. The whole course of history since 1815 reveals the efforts of the traditional classes to prevent the formation of this kind of collective will in order to maintain "economic-corporate" power in the international system of passive equilibrium.

An important section in The Modern Prince should be devoted to the question of moral and intellectual reform, that is, the question of religion and worldview. In this area, too, we find the traditional lack of Jacobinism and the fear of Jacobinism (the latest philosophical expression of this fear is Croce’s Malthusian position towards religion). The modern Sovereign must, of necessity, be the herald and organizer of moral and intellectual reform, which will mean creating the ground for the subsequent development of the collective national and popular will, leading to the implementation of a higher and more universal form of modern civilization.

These two main provisions - the formation of a collective national-popular will, the organizer and at the same time the active, effective expression of which is the Sovereign, and moral and intellectual reform - should have formed the structure of the entire book. Specific points of the program should be included in the first part, that is, they should flow “dramatically” from the presentation, and not turn into a dry and pedantic enumeration of arguments and conclusions.

Is cultural reform, and therefore a rise in the citizenship of the oppressed sections of society, possible without previous economic reform and a change in their position in social and economic life? That is why moral and intellectual reform cannot but be connected with the program of economic reform; moreover, the program of economic reform is the very concrete way in which any moral and intellectual reform realizes itself. The modern Sovereign, developing, overturns the entire system of moral and intellectual relations, since its development means that every action begins to be considered as useful or harmful, as good or evil, only depending on how it relates to the Sovereign, whether it serves to strengthen his power or resists it.

The sovereign takes the place of a deity or a categorical imperative in consciousness; he becomes the basis of modern worldly consciousness, a prerequisite for the complete secularization of all life, all its customs and mores.

Many people believe that management techniques are only useful to those whose profession is related to management. In fact, this is a set of techniques that can be applied in any area of ​​life where society is present.

Do not succumb to the provocations of your old, harmful neighbor, build the right relationships with your children, establish contact with unpleasant relatives or employees; in the end, it will be profitable to sell your dacha or even a sofa on Avito.

In other words, the set of techniques will work with absolutely all people, regardless of their gender, age and social status.

For people in leadership positions and entrepreneurs, the first thing they should do is learn how to manage people. Of course, it’s not enough just some tricks gleaned from different sites.

Masterful management of people requires a full range of techniques and even a slightly modified worldview.

But I’ll tell you about this later, but now – 10 ways that will be useful to you in your career and in life.

1. Right View

There is a special look that makes people reckon with you, recognize you as a strong opponent at the subconscious level.

This view can be useful in any controversial situation when you want to declare that you are worth taking into account and you make the decisions here.

You need to look into the eyes, but not at the surface of the eye, but as if through it, looking into the soul. The result is a piercing gaze that declares your decisive attitude. And people feel it.

2. Energy break

To get what they want, people sometimes use the tactless question method when surrounded by other people. In private, you would not hesitate to refuse or answer negatively, but in public you are confused and may agree or answer so as not to seem greedy, secretive, etc.

To avoid falling for this bait, you can use the energy pause method. You look into the person's eyes as if you are about to respond. He prepares to accept your answer, but you don't answer.

You continue to look at him but don't say anything. He looks away in confusion, and then you start talking about something else. After such an incident, he will no longer try to force you to answer in public.

3. Pause and encouragement

Sometimes people try to demand something based solely on the intensity of their demand. That is, the person basically understands that his demand is unfounded, and you understand this.

Nevertheless, he actively and very emotionally demands something, hoping that you will give in, fearing conflict. If you support his tone or begin to object, a conflict will occur.

Instead, pause and encourage the person in a friendly manner to continue the conversation. Feeling supported, a person will stop getting excited and begin to speak more calmly.

But even after that, do not stop the silence, nod and encourage him to talk further. The person will begin to explain, then make excuses and, finally, apologize.

4. Eye protection

Of course, you are not the only one who uses some techniques, and not only consciously. It happens that people unconsciously feel what they need to do to achieve what they want, and they behave that way.

If you notice the gaze of your interlocutor, he may use some kind of psychological influence on you, whether consciously or not.

Remember: you are not obliged to play a staring contest with him by accepting the rules of his game. Look into his eyes, smile, letting him know that you noticed his gaze and you don't care, and look at other objects.

5. Overcome hostility

Life often confronts us with unpleasant people with whom we are simply forced to communicate and maintain good relations.

In order to maintain normal communication or get something from this person, you will have to really overcome your dislike for him. And not just putting on a fake smile, but imbued with sympathy and kindness.

How to do this if you are facing a scandalous, nasty guy?

Imagine him as a small child. If a child behaves badly, it means that he is embittered, unhappy or spoiled. In any case, the environment is to blame for this.

Basically, it's true, so you're not even fooling yourself. When you see this person as a child, you cannot be angry with him, and people always feel kindness and sympathy, and this disarms them.

6. Pressure

Many people put pressure on their employees, relatives and friends to get what they want. What it looks like from the outside: repeated repetition of the same demands - sometimes soft, sometimes hard, sometimes persistent and emotional, sometimes unobtrusive.

The main purpose of pressure is to deprive you of hope that the request or demand can be avoided.

The person makes it clear to you that you simply cannot do it differently; he will stand his ground until the very end.

What can you do about it? It helps to call a spade a spade. For example, you can immediately ask the person: “Are you putting pressure on me?” As a rule, a person then gets lost. Equally important is the ability to firmly say “no.”

7. The ability to say “no”

You must learn to say “no”; this will be very useful in the fight against various kinds of manipulators, among whom may be not only obsessive partners, but also your friends or family.

You must learn to say exactly this word - “no”. Not “it won’t work,” or “I don’t know,” or “we’ll see,” but a firm “no.”

8. Don’t explain your refusal.

This is also a great skill that is acquired with experience. If you refused someone, said your firm “no”, be able to do without explanations and even more so without excuses.

At the same time, you should not feel guilty for refusing without explanation. People feel the inner mood, and if you hesitate within yourself, they will get comments from you and maybe even persuade you.

Again, it is not always a good idea to refuse without explanation, but there are times when it is necessary.

9. Position without evidence

In negotiations, evidence of correctness often plays a negative role. Rightness is a state that is transmitted at the level of sensations. You feel right and other people agree with you.

If you start to prove your position with arguments, this can destroy your confidence in the rightness.

Let's say you make one argument, and your interlocutor refutes it. If after this you give a second argument, it means that you agree that the first one was unsuccessful, and this means the loss of your positions and unshakable faith in your rightness.

10. Fix a new role

If you take on a new role - head of a department, team captain, or some other - you need to immediately fix it, outlining your authority. Do as quickly as possible in your new role what you could not do in your previous role.

Give some order, make a decision, ask for an answer from your subordinates, and so on. The longer you wait to take on a new role, the more your rights may be reduced.

These ways to manage people and prevent yourself from being manipulated are only a small part of all the techniques of management art that change not only your communication style, but also your worldview. And you can acquire it by learning from professionals.

Management art and a new worldview

A large-scale program of 40 online seminars on the art of management will begin at the end of January 2015.

For 10 months, a seminar will be held once a week in the form of an online broadcast around the world, where a business coach will tell interesting techniques, analyze individual cases of participants and help them create their own strong philosophy.

Coaching consists not only of useful practices and techniques that can be useful, but also of working with participants, with specific people and their problems.

Moreover, the program is suitable for both start-ups and experienced entrepreneurs.

You will find out how many mistakes you made in management, correct them and never repeat them.

If you are going to manage people, you simply need a solid philosophy, strength of character and knowledge of various psychological tricks. You will find all this in the program of Vladimir Tarasov. It's time to sign up.

In January 2007, fate took me to China for a week. I had never been there before.

The background of the event is as follows. In November 2006, by prior arrangement, representatives of a large multidisciplinary company from Beijing visited the orthopedic doctors at the Volgograd Regional War Veterans Hospital. The management of this company became very interested in technological developments and methods of osteoplastic operations, which are used, developed and patented by orthopedic doctors of the hospital together with Volgograd Medical University. They were especially interested in operations to build up and straighten the bones of the legs and arms, both to eliminate the consequences of various injuries and for cosmetic purposes, as well as the technology of operations to eliminate cones on the big toes, that is, the consequences of transverse flatfoot. Moreover, the Center for Anthropometric Cosmetology, which operates on the clinical base of the hospital, is known throughout the world for its achievements in this area of ​​surgery.

The company in question is engaged in the construction business, including the construction of various projects on a turnkey basis in Siberia and Africa. It represents banking services and also owns a television studio, where a 30-episode television film about Chinese students in Moscow in the 50s of the last century is currently being created. This film is based on the biography of the former Chinese ambassador to Romania, who in the 50s graduated from the Moscow Energy Institute, where he studied with Li Peng, the prime minister of China in the 80s and 90s of the last century.

The company that owns the television studio is now headed by the son of this former ambassador.

In Volgograd, the Chinese guests were shown the hospital and its patients who had undergone various operations on the arms, legs and other bones. Then, at the medical university, various patented developments in orthopedic surgery were clearly demonstrated and described. All this made a deep impression on the guests, and they began specific negotiations.

It turned out that China has begun to implement a 20-year program of privatization of state-owned medical institutions, but in such a way that it does not worsen the conditions of medical care for the population. As part of this program, the company acquired several hospitals and a large hospital. At this medical base, it was decided to develop and apply the most advanced medical technologies. In addition, in China, its own orthopedic surgery is very poorly developed, almost in its infancy. And Russia in this regard, thanks to the genius of the late Ilizarov and his talented students, occupies the most advanced positions in the world! And we can be proud that in Russia, in turn, Volgograd orthopedists have taken the lead thanks to Dr. med. Sciences and Honored Inventor of Russia Egorov M.F. Doctor Egorov himself died suddenly in 2004 at the 52nd year of his life, but it was his interest in the developments that this doctor began that brought the Chinese delegation to Volgograd. Negotiations with them were conducted by Egorov’s associates, who are now headed by his student and successor, Candidate of Medical Sciences Barinov Alexander Sergeevich. The Chinese guests wanted Russian doctors to come to them to work together and teach local surgeons their methods. For this purpose, they invited Dr. Barinov and me, as the organizing manager, to come to China in January to get acquainted and continue negotiations, which we did.

On January 7th we flew from Moscow to Beijing. There we were met by a company representative who spoke Russian and put us on a plane, which after 40 minutes took us to the city of Jinan, the capital of Shandong province, where the hospital was located, which we were supposed to inspect, and negotiations with the management took place there. The negotiations turned out to be difficult and tiring; every day we spent at least 8 hours on it, with a break for lunch. The Chinese are very picky, they try not to miss a single detail, and they simply bargain with gusto! Demonstration of perseverance, dexterity and ingenuity in trade is very prestigious among them. So they were zealous, especially sensing our lack of necessary experience.

But their cordiality and hospitality outside of negotiations was beyond praise! They tried to please us in literally everything, gave us many gifts, and took care of our vacation. We were accommodated in the most luxurious hotel in the city, each given a gigantic room with a living room-hall and a huge bathroom. I could comfortably sleep seven people on my bed, and it wouldn’t get too cramped!

Breakfast in the hotel restaurant is a buffet, which included an abundance of freshly prepared Chinese delicacies, as well as Japanese and European cuisines, any of the most exotic vegetables and fruits, and drinks. Saunas and Turkish baths are free. Every evening our hosts took us to dinner in wonderful restaurants, where in a separate room we sat at a round rotating table, which was laden with a variety of dishes, sauces, seasonings and drinks, all of which we had to at least try out of politeness. But one dish was always the main and most expensive. Once in a seafood restaurant, such a dish was the famous sea cucumber, sea cucumber, or more precisely, ocean sea cucumber. In China, it is valued higher than black caviar, it is very expensive, it is called sea ginseng! In another case, the main dish was some kind of rare mushroom, similar in shape to a thick round cutlet, and in taste to a boiled kidney. And one day they brought the main dish with something like shrimp, we tried it, washed it down with the famous Chinese sorghum vodka “Maotai”, and then we were informed that this delicacy is the cocoons of silkworm caterpillars!! My Chinese friends ate them with pleasure and appetite, but we somehow didn’t want to eat, except maybe vodka... But to be honest, Chinese cuisine somewhat disappointed me. Before that, I had read a lot about it, gastronomy in general fascinates me, so I knew firsthand about all the famous dishes of China and was expecting completely extraordinary taste sensations. But everything turned out much simpler. The famous Maotai vodka smells good, but tastes like mediocre homemade moonshine. Peking duck is a very ceremonious dish to prepare and eat, but the taste is nothing special; my mother makes it better.

Boiled but still alive carp is insipid and watery, without seasoning it is generally tasteless. Chinese dumplings are beautiful and have a variety of fillings, but ours are more pleasant... The dishes on the table are served very beautifully and appetizingly, sometimes the meat tastes like fish, and the vegetables taste like meat, this is interesting, but nothing more. The Chinese willingly talk about their cuisine to foreigners; this is their favorite small talk. I asked a lot and found out that what they value most in cooking is the freshness of products and the correct selection of dishes depending on the time of year, day, and most importantly, the well-being of the body. The Chinese, especially the wealthy, with food, first of all, try to carefully maintain the balance and performance of their body, that is, the harmony of yin and yang, and taste pleasures can be obtained either through seasonings, or even completely neglect their benefits for... In such conversations, we imperceptibly moved on Chinese medicine, and then I noticed that my Chinese friends did not hide their irony towards it. It turned out that in China, conventional medicine has always been paid, and traditional medicine has been free. Chinese medicine is taught in courses for nurses, who are then sent to villages to work as medical assistants. The peasants are so poor that they cannot pay for treatment, therefore, when they fall ill and come to the paramedic, he, having made a diagnosis based on the pulse, orders the patient’s relatives to collect the necessary herbs and some insects, frogs and lizards in the forest and field, and make appropriate decoctions and ointments, and treat the patient ourselves according to his, the paramedic’s, recipes and instructions, and then - as fate will take out.

Several times we were taken to shopping centers, the goods there were very beautiful and abundant, all the most famous companies in the world were represented, but everything was produced in China itself, there was practically no import. The departments of river and seafood products are very interesting. The selection is gigantic and whimsical. For example, there are so many types of crustaceans that you feel not in a store, but in a pet museum. Or huge aquariums, filled to a third with water, small eels and river loaches wriggle in it, very large turtles stand at the bottom, sticking their heads out into the air, and they have huge frogs on their backs.

China was intensively preparing for the 2008 Olympics. The cities in which it was supposed to take place were quickly renovated, wonderful roads and buildings were built. The center of Beijing is simply stunning with its ultra-modern architecture and multi-story highway interchanges.

On the last day before flying home, we were given a tour of Beijing. We visited the Great Wall of China, walked along the famous Wangfujing shopping street, similar to our Moscow Old Arbat, there is also only pedestrian traffic. And in the evening we arrived at Tiananmen Square, the largest square in the world. There we took pictures at the mausoleum of Mao Zedong, on which hangs a huge portrait of him. Now it is prohibited to hang portraits of leaders in China in institutions.

In general, I had to observe many interesting paradoxes. The leaders of the company that hosted us are all very rich people, dollar millionaires, each have 2-3 luxury cars, which they love to drive themselves. They are very educated, speak English well, travel a lot around the world, but, like everyone else in China, they have a vacation of one and a half weeks. In addition, they are all members of the Communist Party, have a negative attitude towards the United States, and regret that the USSR collapsed as a serious counterweight to America. At the same time, their adult children study, work, and often just live in the same America, and their fathers report this with pride and pleasure. Lower-ranking employees behave very obsequiously in front of their managers, but the boss can freely seat his driver, translator or secretary at the same table with himself and equal or even higher-ranking people during lunch or dinner. Having learned that I was a former member of the CPSU and was even for some time the secretary of the party organization of a shift at the factory where I had previously worked, our Chinese hosts talked with visible interest about political topics over a joint dinner. During this conversation, they said that they see the benefits of well-organized democratic freedoms, like those that Western countries have, but believe that it is too early for China. As they put it, China had its own Gorbachev in 1911, he was the first president of the Chinese Republic, Sun Yat-sen. Then the emperor was overthrown, a bourgeois constitution was proclaimed, and China immediately sank into the abyss of a terrible civil war for 40 years, almost disappearing as a state. This experience is firmly ingrained in the consciousness of the Chinese elite, so the stability of society for them is the main goal and means of the country’s development. Here they follow the precept of Confucius: “It is easy to govern the people if you carefully observe the ritual...” That is, people must see that the words and deeds of the leadership do not diverge.

In general, despite the short duration of our stay, we gained so many impressions that it is impossible to describe it at once...

I have visited many countries in Europe and Asia in my life, but only China seemed to me like a truly different planet, mysterious and attractive...

P.S. And everything would be fine, but only in Beijing, in the Museum of the People's Liberation Army of China, there is an exhibition dedicated to the bloody Sino-Soviet border clashes of 1969-70, and in front of the museum is our tank, knocked out and captured then. During the times of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, Damansky Island on the Amur, which our border guards defended with their blood, was given to China, and now there is a memorial museum glorifying the “valor” of the Chinese soldiers, who then staged a treacherous ambush on this island, into which our border patrol fell and died. (from this incident all the battles began later).

In serious matters, the Chinese always speak only in hints and allegories; they simply do not understand direct language or do not want to understand. This is their age-old culture. But they can read signals such as the exposures described above. And their planning horizons span decades, or even centuries. Setting goals and then relentlessly pursuing them is also in their blood, and in every Chinese without exception...

Religion is one of the most controversial topics of conversation. Therefore, it is immediately worth noting that the purpose of this article is not to belittle or belittle anyone's beliefs and beliefs. The problem is not with faith as such, but with religion as an organization that has been used as a means of controlling people, to pit them against each other, to create terror and war. Religion in this context serves the purposes of many of the world's ruling elites.

Controversy of religion

Besides, religion is misleading - and that's putting it mildly. Within different religions, there are a certain number of different sects, each of which has its own teachings, its own version of the truth, as well as its own view of how a person should live his life. Only within Christianity there are several versions of the Bible, and the teachings contradict each other. What one religion says in one part of the world may be completely opposite to what another religion says in another part of the world. This alone is enough to mislead and scare away those who really want to find the truth in religion. And if different beliefs preach different ways of life and different truths, they can't all be right at the same time, can they? That is why, most likely, all this is united in one word - “faith”.

Religion as a control mechanism

John Shelby Sponge is a former American bishop of the Episcopal Church. He is one of those who speaks of a desire to understand this problem. He believes that religion has become a business and is used as a control mechanism. This can be seen very clearly through the rise of Islamophobia. The religion of Islam has been turned into a scapegoat, a target towards which people can direct their fear and anger. It also gave rise to invasion of various countries where Islam is practiced in order to strengthen global national security. However, the truth is that this religion has nothing to do with violence or terrorism. These man-made fears are part of the so-called “false flag” of terrorism. Sponge confirms that religion is involved in a business of control. Many people don't understand this, but religion is actually a business that runs on people's guilt.

God and the Church

Each church claims that it is the only true, some kind of highest religious authority. However, the idea that God's truth can be stored somewhere in a human system, a human faith, or even a human book is completely absurd. God is not a Christian. God is not a Judaist, not a Muslim, not a Hindu, and not a Buddhist. These are all human systems that people have created to help themselves understand the divine miracle.

Questionable Beliefs

Sponge also describes the difference between faith and religion. He has studied many religions and can say that the teachings of some of them touched him deeply, while the teachings of others did not affect him at all. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a religion that can provide answers to all questions. Using fear as a way to convince people to adhere to a particular lifestyle or a particular value system is a common practice in almost every religion, and it certainly cannot resonate in the mind of a reasonable person. The history of the church itself is problematic. Whether it was its role in the genocide of First Nations in Canada or the Crusades in Europe, the Church has always pushed its views on other people, as well as condemning science and any new inventions and discoveries.

Responsibility for the world

Everyone must understand that people have a responsibility to take responsibility for the world. The desire to leave global changes “to the will of God” suggests that in this way people simply abdicate all responsibility and are actually not present in this world. If you want to change the world, you need to do it, you, not anyone else. After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Dalai Lama himself expressed a similar thought. He stated that it is not enough to simply pray, we must take responsibility for the planet.

Ancient writings

If we talk about ancient religious sources, such as the Bible or the Koran, as well as many other books from various religions, then it is worth taking into account that they are very, very old. It should also be taken into account that there are several versions of the same text. Moreover, these texts have been manipulated, changed and distorted for many years, making it extremely difficult to accept any of them simply on faith, without any doubt.

Hypocrisy and religion

Another thing that can push everyone away from religion is hypocrisy. Many people claim to profess a particular religion, but do not even know its basic tenets and cannot correctly follow what they claim to believe. This can also be seen in the "spiritual movement", which can in principle be considered a form of religion.

Christianity, Buddhism or just God - your choice

When it comes to religion, each person should do their own research. You need to read books and study the doctrine with your own hands. Use your own head and look for what resonates most with you. Don't be influenced and don't let others think for you. Religious texts are always open to different interpretations, so only you can find meaning in them and apply them to your own life. You can believe in God but not be religious. Religion is something created by man, and if God suddenly appeared somewhere on Earth now, he would not even know what this religion is.