Is it possible to make politics with clean hands? "Environment of Reflection". Politics with clean hands

Modern politics is, on the one hand, an extensive network of knowledge in the political aspect (philosophy, political science, economics, geography, history, sociology, ecology, ethics, anthropology, etc.), and on the other, a way of action aimed at achieving something. something determining the nature of interaction between state and society in the internal aspect and between states in the external aspect. Most often in politics, the course of action in the internal aspect is aimed at achieving power, usually in the form of a struggle for power. In the external aspect, most often the course of action is associated with achieving the maximum possible benefit in relation to other states, as well as ensuring external security. And here, in most cases, the principle is realized: in politics, “the method is not important, but the result is important.” That is why political practice at the time of the appearance of the “Protocols”, and even more so in our time, is permeated with hypocrisy, meanness and deception, largely due to the insidious fetishization and slippery mythologization that have become established in it. But let us give a few characteristic excerpts from the “Protocols” concerning various aspects of the implementation of policies by the “elected”.

“Politics has nothing to do with morality. A ruler guided by morality is impractical and therefore not secure on his throne. Whoever wants to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. The great national qualities - frankness and honesty - are vices in politics, because they overthrow the strongest enemy better and more faithfully. These qualities should be attributes of the goyim kingdoms, but we should not be guided by them” (from protocol No. 1).

“In order to distract too restless people from discussing political issues, we are now pursuing new supposedly political issues - industrial issues. In this field, let them rage!... Weaning themselves more and more from independent thinking, people will speak in unison with us, because we alone will begin to suggest new directions of thought, of course, through such persons with whom we will not be considered in solidarity” ( from protocol No. 1).

“Our password is strength and hypocrisy.

Violence must be the principle, and cunning and hypocrisy the rule for governments that are unwilling to lay down their crown at the feet of the agents of any new power.

Therefore, we should not hesitate to bribe, deceive and betrayal when they should serve to achieve our goal. In politics, we must be able to take other people’s property without hesitation, if with it we achieve obedience and power” (from protocol No. 1).

“We need to take into account the modern thoughts, characters, and tendencies of peoples, so as not to make mistakes in politics and in the management of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system, the parts of the mechanism of which can be arranged differently, depending on the temperament of the peoples we meet along the way, cannot be successful if its practical application is not based on the results of the past in connection with the present” (from protocol No. 2).

“The main success in politics lies in the secrecy of its enterprises: the word should not be consistent with the actions of the diplomat” (from protocol No. 7).

“When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed: states fell ill with a fatal disease - blood decomposition. We can only wait for the end of their agony” (from protocol No. 10).

This, in particular, is where the poisonous shoots in the nature of dirty politics in our time have largely taken root. We have already quite convincingly revealed this character from the political aspects discussed above (democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity, human rights, civil society, freedom of speech and economic policy) through the prism of the attitude of the authors of the “Protocols” to them. And in order to make it possible in practice, in the interests of the well-being of society, to implement progressive options for these aspects that are constructively justified at the end of each subsection, politics should be carried out by professionals with clean hands and thoughts. It is precisely such people who will be able to most positively perceive the scenario and technology proposed in this book for carrying out a restructuring that is truly necessary for the benefit of human society in the form of its transfer to SPM, based on IP. Therefore, the success of this restructuring will lie in how perfect it will be personnel policy upon the arrival of this type of people into the system of power and management. To approach the solution of this difficult problem, let us once again dwell on the objective nature of people.

Initially, no person, no society is responsible for what they are. After all, even by their natural heredity different people endowed with well-defined individual physical, physiological, psychological and mental characteristics. In addition, after birth, a person is formed in very different natural and social conditions. But if a person is born a physical freak, which is clearly visible to everyone, he himself, of course, is not to blame for this. The parents and the conditions under which it developed are not chosen after conception. But the birth of potential moral monsters (people prone to murder, villains of all stripes, unscrupulous in their actions) can be quite problematic to determine, especially at the initial stage of their existence. This is precisely one of the rather complex problems of any society, what every person may be capable of in the future. If a person exhibits some kind of vicious tendency, then society should try to protect such a person from the manifestation of this social negativity throughout his life. Well, on the other hand, for the positive development of any society, it is very important to select from among your environment the most preferable people in various aspects and create conditions for them to perform fruitfully.

The above arguments are, of course, a trivial truth that the well-being of societies on any scale, including humanity as a whole, directly depends on its ability to localize social negatives as much as possible and develop social positives as much as possible. And here it is also quite obvious that the success of solving such a problem will also directly depend on how professional and moral the first leader of society, at the level of an individual country, the head of state, is. Unfortunately, within the framework of the modern world community, the heads of individual states various reasons There are quite a lot of people unworthy for such a role, who in their characteristics correspond to the pseudo- and anti-elite types of elitism. We will dwell on these reasons a little lower, but here I want to dwell in more detail on the above-mentioned in my opinion and the opinion of my extraterrestrial Teachers, clearly outstanding heads of their states, namely: Fidel Castro and A.G. Lukashenko.

Head of the Republic of Cuba Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, who before his voluntary resignation combined two positions - Chairman State Council Republic and Supreme Commander-in-Chief - he is a highly intellectual, very honest and strong-willed person, despite the fact that he himself is not from a poor Cuban family, he became not just a revolutionary, but the leader of a revolution that overthrew the virtually puppet regime of Batista in Cuba. For me personally, a miracle simply happened when, after the collapse of the USSR and the Socialist camp, Cuba, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, preserved and continues to successfully develop the truly humane human principles of its existence. It’s only a pity that Fidel Castro, over whom we, as we know, have no control, has now abdicated the above-mentioned powers. True, these powers were also entrusted to the legendary revolutionary, namely his brother Raul Castor Rus. However, I would like to present to you, my dear reader, at least some of his views on the current situation in the world. The judgments presented below were expressed by him back in 2000, with which I personally completely agree:

“The advanced capitalist system, which later evolved into modern imperialism, ultimately imposed a neoliberal globalized order on the world that is completely intolerable. It has given rise to a world of speculation, the creation of fictitious wealth and values ​​that have nothing to do with real production, and fabulous personal fortunes, some of which exceed the gross domestic product of dozens of poor countries. It is unnecessary to add to this the robbery and waste of the world's natural resources, as well as the miserable life of millions of people. This system promises nothing to humanity and is not needed for anything other than self-destruction, and along with it, perhaps, the natural resources that serve as the support for human life on the planet will be destroyed.”

“What happened 10 years ago (let me remind you that these judgments were made in 2000) was a naive and unconscious destruction of the great social and historical process, which should have been improved, but not destroyed. Hitler's hordes could not achieve this, even killing more than twenty million Soviet people and devastated half the country. The world remained under the auspices of the only superpower, which in the fight against fascism did not suffer even 5 percent of the victims suffered by the Soviet people.”

I also admire the President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko. This person, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of all honest and decent people, is close to the ideal of the head of state, the nature of the formation and construction of which we substantiate in the 4th section. The newspaper “TOMORROW”, and above all, its editor-in-chief, the famous Russian patriotic writer A.A. Prokhanov, reflects on various aspects of the formation of this state as the 5th empire at the current time (this was in 2008) from issue to issue. . The fact that a person like A.G. Lukashenko was able to legitimately, in the current conditions of “democratic reforms” that Shushkevich had already begun to implement in Belarus, also according to the scenario and patronage of “overseas consultants” with powerful financial support from outside, win in 1994 in the presidential elections of all rivals vying for this post, and now even retaining it for the 4th term is a significant and even significant positive event not only for Belarus, but also for the entire post-Soviet geopolitical space. Below I present a fragment of A.G. Lukashenko’s speech, delivered at a UN session in early 2006, from which it is clear how much his judgments on the same tragic global event coincide with the above judgments of Fidel Castro:

“15 years have passed since the collapse of my country, the USSR. This event completely changed the structure of the world. The Soviet Union, with all the mistakes and blunders of its leaders, was then the support and hope of many states and peoples. The Soviet Union ensured the balance of the global system.

Today the world is unipolar. With all the ensuing consequences:

flourishing Yugoslavia was destroyed and disappeared from the map of Europe;

multiethnic Afghanistan has become a hotbed of conflicts and drug trafficking;

The carnage in Iraq continues to this day. The country has become a source of instability for a huge region;

Iran and North Korea are targeted.

Belarus is a country like the majority in this room. Emerging from the rubble cold war, Belarus has become a knowledge-intensive, high-tech state with ten million highly educated tolerant people. The UN classified us as developed countries with a high level of human development.

We, like you, want little from the planet: peace and stability. We will create the rest ourselves with our own labor.”

We will need such knowledge in order to, in relation to human civilization and its constituent elements, most correctly design the transformation technology for the transition to SPM, based on IP. Naturally, such a transformation should begin with Russia and its immediate environment, i.e. from the post-Soviet geopolitical space. The quality of such technology will largely be determined through the correct understanding of the state of culture of the corresponding society. In turn, the degree of correctness of such an understanding will depend on the adequacy of the understanding of the phenomenon “culture”, which, in my opinion, in particular, is not entirely correct in modern conditions. Therefore, below, through the diagram in Fig. 1.3, I present my version, confirmed by my extraterrestrial Teachers, of what, in the most general case, should be understood by this phenomenon.

In accordance with the diagram in Fig. 1.3, the culture of any intelligent substance in the most general case includes 3 constituent substantial elements: science, esotericism and art (see Fig. A). Theoretically, if this intelligent substance exists for a sufficiently long time, then culture can fully become synonymous with art (see Fig. B), where Fig. B symbolically depicts the nature of the mutual transformation of the substantial elements of science and esotericism towards their mutual transformation. As for the symbolism “REALITY” and “IDEALITY” adopted in the diagram, this means that at any stage of maturity of an intelligent substance, the reality of its existence and interaction with the outside world from the point of view of evolutionary expediency should strive for an ideal corresponding to a 100% state “the degree of realization of creative creativity.”

In order to more consciously perceive the symbolism presented in the diagram in Fig. 1.3, we present a disclosure of the concepts indicated on it: culture, science, esotericism and art, with the addition of them that objectively determine the state of culture of any intelligent substance, namely religion and philosophy, which can also be perceived as its constituent substantial elements. We will make this disclosure through the interpretations traditionally accepted for these concepts at the current time according to the dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov, and for the concept of “esotericism” from the Explanatory Dictionary of Esotericism, Occultism and Parapsychology, compiled by A.M. Stepanov and published in Moscow in 1997, which I mark with the index “T” (traditional version). Due to the fact that, in my opinion, agreed with my extraterrestrial Teachers, traditional interpretations contain varying degrees of imperfection and inaccuracy, I present their more correct formulations, the interpretations of which are marked with the index “P” (proposed option).

07:00 / 22.10.2014

Last week's number one topic was for funds mass media, and not only Belarus and Russia, was the press conference of the President of Belarus Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko to Russian journalists. And in this press conference, despite the abundance of diverse issues, the most pressing and painful topic of Ukraine today became the main one.

I think that the position of the Belarusian president, more than openly expressed at this press conference, was not liked by either Ukrainian, Russian or Western politicians. And among the Belarusians, even their comrades-in-arms, probably more than one frowned: why so openly? I should have been more diplomatic, I should have been more careful... Politics is a dirty business...

But Alexander Lukashenko swung – and not for the first time, not only at this press conference – to the unprecedented. The Belarusian leader is trying to prove, and first of all to his people, that politics can be done with clean hands, that it can be honest and not determined by what and who benefits now, with whom and against whom. this moment It’s better, more profitable to be friends, but in other, completely “non-political” categories: honesty, decency, loyalty to one’s word...

Well, really, who in today’s official Kyiv would like the truth, publicly expressed by a person on whose support everyone was counting heavily, that an unconstitutional seizure of power was committed in Ukraine, in fact, a coup d’etat? But if we discard all the verbal fluff on this matter, then the bottom line will be precisely this fact. Why, why, whose fault, who started first, and who gave or did not give back - these are questions of a different order.

What, will Russian leaders like to hear from their closest, and today practically the only reliable, unconditional ally, that the annexation of Crimea is not the restoration of historical justice, but a banal seizure of part of another state? And that the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics would not have lasted three weeks without Russia’s help?

And at the same time, Lukashenko just as firmly and unequivocally declares: whether someone likes it or not, whether we share Russia’s policy or on some issues we have our own opinion, different from the “big brother”, but this is our closest ally and friend.. And no internal disagreements, no promises will force us to betray him and, if something happens, let tanks through to Moscow. Whatever happens, whatever happens...

Well, tell me: you would like to have a friend or brother who would honestly say: they say, it was wrong for you, Vovka, to take your friend’s wife away - even though you once loved each other, and life was hard for her, and she herself you asked for it - but you shouldn’t have... No one will feel better from this - not you, not your friend, not your wife. But since this happened to you, since a friend didn’t give a damn about his wife and allowed her to be taken away, I will help you in any way I can... And you started a fight with your friend in vain - now you both have black eyes, and those who pushed their heads against you, they stand on the sidelines, chuckle, and teach how to behave further. And you would probably be glad to make peace, but you don’t know how - you’ve “messed up” so many things... But keep in mind: if this friend suddenly gathers a gang and comes to take revenge on you - for his wife and everything else, then I will stand for you to the last, regardless of whether that gang beckons me with carrots or threatens me. Because we are friends, brothers, allies!

I think it’s everyone’s dream to have a friend who won’t hesitate to tell you everything he thinks, but won’t go over to the side of your enemy just because he’s stronger or richer, justifying his betrayal with lofty words, political circumstances and the interests of the state. But not everyone is capable of becoming like this...

A recent friend of mine, a Belarusian, former power engineer, who, due to circumstances, spent most of her life in the Russian outback, and, upon retirement, returned to her “historical homeland,” sent a letter last Friday, part of which I will allow myself to quote: “Today I listened to the press -Lukashenko’s conference for Russian journalists. He, as always, performed brilliantly. And I listened for 6 hours in one breath, with my mouth open. Year after year I love him more and more. Belarusians will appreciate it only when someone else comes and what happens in Ukraine.”

I would like my friend to be wrong and that what happened in Ukraine would never happen in Belarus - because not only Russians and Ukrainians value our president, but also Belarusians themselves - at least the bulk of them. And so that Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko still proves to the whole world that the unprecedented happens, and a politician can also be an honest and sincere person with clean hands...

---------------------

Is it possible to make politics with clean hands?

Some reticence of some respondents in matters relating to politics is quite understandable: since Soviet times, the country has retained the fear of the ubiquitous state security agencies and snitches. Almost all respondents easily admit their apoliticality and passivity. It stopped being embarrassing.

It’s not like before, when before going abroad you had to go through an ideological commission, ready to ask you anything. I remember how one of those nervously awaiting execution asked in a crying voice: “Listen, what is the name of the left party in Mozambique/Nepal/Cambodia?” Then, admitting a lack of interest in political events in the country and abroad and not demonstrating one’s combat readiness to enter into a counter-propaganda battle with an ideological enemy was like death.

It's a different time now. Idle interest in politics is not in fashion.

“I don’t like politics, I’m not interested in it. I don’t watch political debates on TV, but just listening to the program half an ear is enough to say that much more men’s names are pronounced. There are almost no women's ones. And I heard such an interesting version. They used to say that everything we do is the machinations of imperialism. Now it turns out that this is the machinations of Israel. Why? Because the wives of many representatives political elite, especially the one who remained from the old days, the Jews. So women have a role in politics gray cardinals. This is probably present if they talk about it. Sometimes even the most absurd things turn out to be true. ...In general, spheres of influence are divided between several groups. They promote the people they need, handing them portfolios to lobby their interests.” (№ 4).

The most convenient way to resist the flow of informational “black stuff” on television, strawberries in the press, is to plunge headlong into the television soap suds, create your own mini-world, protecting yourself from the noisy and dirty world with double-glazed windows. Here, apparently, we can verify the correctness of Wilhelm Reich’s statement that the intellect can act in two main directions: towards outside world and from him. Imaginary indifference is a defense against aggression when faced with a frustrating situation. Intelligence serves the desire to avoid anxiety and prevent unpleasant experiences.

Severe trials shook the health of older respondents; prevention and treatment of diseases, rest, and nutritious nutrition became unavailable to them. Even those respondents whose financial situation, according to our preliminary assessment, is quite good, even if they do not work in several places, do not refuse the opportunity to earn extra money. IN Soviet time spending many hours in endless queues was a kind of psychotherapeutic release: women wrote down culinary recipes- how to make something out of nothing, complained about husbands, mothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, shared secrets traditional medicine. This is such a powerful outlet. In addition, having received the coveted goods (2 pieces per hand), those in line experienced such an emotional surge that they now cannot get when passing by counters littered with unavailable goods.

People of intellectual labor, gritting their teeth, run in an endless vicious circle. They have no time to stop: to survive, they need to move. Movement is everything, the final goal is nothing.

How sweet and pleasant is the smoke of the fatherland?

We were interested in what motives encourage people to leave Kazakhstan. A Korean political dissident, who allowed himself sharp criticism of his ruler, had to stay in the Union, as he thought, for several years, but it turned out to be for life. He was offered residence in any city in the country except Moscow and Leningrad. The most suitable place The former capital of Kazakhstan appeared to the young rebel. But his hopes were not justified, the reunification of Korea did not happen, his whole life was spent in political emigration.

"Nowhere for me but mine home country, it didn’t pull, but the way there was closed. After all, no matter how much I am drawn back to the origins, I understand that in 60 years such changes have taken place there that I will come to a foreign country. So, my body will find peace here in Kazakhstan." (№ 10).

But here is a statement characterizing the mood of the Russian population in the first economic difficult years independence, when the craving for their historical homeland forced many to leave their homes. Now that life in the country has become relatively normal, and in comparison with the situation of the population in other former Soviet republics it seems very prosperous, the desire to leave Kazakhstan is expressed less and less often.

“During the period of perestroika there was an emotional outburst; we wanted to leave Kazakhstan for Russia. Some kind of purely instinctive desire. This desire appeared and disappeared over time. They do not seek good from good. Everything is fine in our country. Excellent relationships with the indigenous population. There was and still is an opportunity to leave. My wife's brother moved to Krasnodar and got a job. I’m not going to leave Almaty anywhere, we live normally” (№ 9).

The thirst to travel is inherent in all our respondents. Many had the opportunity to travel abroad, but as was emphasized, these were mainly trips within the framework of foreign projects: participation in seminars and conferences. Many respondents who visited a number of European countries, however, I do not have my own funds to travel to the new capital Astana or to meet classmates in Moscow.

Not a single respondent expressed a desire to leave the country forever. No one would refuse a lucrative offer to go on a foreign business trip or vacation. Required condition all trips – return to hometown. “When you wander, you return home, and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.” Our respondents are also convinced of this.

A man's view of the difficulties of market development

Two respondents made attempts to engage in entrepreneurial activity. The first example is perhaps one of the typical examples of how a small business ends up for people driven into a dead end by life, when a novice businessman does not have marketing knowledge, skills, experience, when he acts on a whim or according to old ideas about effective economic activity. Left without work at an age when there was no hope of finding a job in his specialty, which was no longer needed by anyone, our respondent (No. 9) took up the most common type of male self-employment - private cab driving.

“Practically no sense came out of it. This is not a profitable business: gasoline becomes more expensive every day, the car wears out. Unprofitable."

An attempt to feed the family by doing large-scale transportation on a KamAZ was also unsuccessful.

“Things didn’t work out either. There was no specific tax amount. Only general phrases that can be bypassed on the left or right. The tax, for example, is from 3 to 7 percent. Any official considers himself entitled to say, give 3 or give 7. It depends only on him. And from you, of course, if you give it to him. ... We don't have normal laws. Everything depends on our legislation, in particular in the field of taxation, business, inspection, there are a lot of incomprehensible words and contradictions. Continuous links to other paragraphs, no specifics, it doesn’t say what needs to be done. There is no clarity, no clarity. This confuses the accounting department." (№ 9).

But there are also more successful examples of entering the market. You can get off to a very good start entrepreneurial activity without nomenklatura privatization of ownership of the main means of production. In this case, the starting capital is the personal savings of the founders of the organization.

“It took me 8 years to get to the position I am in.” given time I am. I cannot say that I have reached the final point. I can say that I have progressed 70%.

At the beginning of our activities, we employed 4 people. We can say that this period was difficult: I had to act as a director and be a broker, a watchman, and a loader. If we were afraid of difficulties, we would not get down to business at all. Since 2003, we have already employed 40 people, now we have 115 people. True, we will have to repay the loan for many years” (No. 8).

My attempt to find out what average salary employees of a limited liability partnership receive was unsuccessful: a trade secret. But the businessman agreed to talk about the problems that arise during production activities.

“It doesn’t take any special work to found an organization, both abroad and in Kazakhstan. It is not difficult anywhere to officially register papers... The difficulties lie in the fact that for the development of an organization it is constantly required financial resource. If there is no recharge, development immediately slows down. When we did not have a credit history or a corresponding image, it was very difficult to get loans from banks. Over time it became easier and easier. Of course, this is connected with collateral; without collateral nothing is possible.”

And, of course, I was interested in the entrepreneur’s opinion about the prospects for the development of small and medium-sized businesses in Kazakhstan, to which I received a short but comprehensive answer:

“Small and medium-sized businesses have a future in Kazakhstan.”

When I asked what kind of help small and medium-sized businesses receive, the respondent was less laconic.

“Perhaps there are some programs, but my organization has not encountered them. The only thing I can say is that we constantly receive information support: we are informed that a group of businessmen is traveling to some country with government officials to establish contacts and attract investments. If you are realistic, you need to understand that if you travel with a government delegation, then the turnover should be at least 20-50 million dollars. Organizations with turnover below this level are not interesting to foreign investors. Small business is not interesting for foreigners. For them, small business representatives are nothing. In the service sector, prices are rising, but the quality of services is not improving. As an everywhere. Productivity is zero, and payment is maximum».

Thanks to physical endurance, mental stability, perseverance in achieving goals, independence, the ability to act in conditions of uncertainty and risk, sociability, willingness to learn new knowledge in order to better navigate a new area, and, very importantly, learning ability (the respondent received a second economic education, which he considers more useful for himself than the first - technical) - his LLP has achieved significant success.

Men and women

An eternal topic that all respondents spoke willingly and a lot about. Just start it a little, then you can’t stop it... Especially if we're talking about about a special woman - with an oriental mentality. If in Soviet times the free daughter of the liberated East was a major trump card for power, now some incomprehensible changes have occurred. Previously, a lot was said with pride about how quickly Kazakh women managed to emancipate, and the reason was seen in the nomadic way of life. They say that the proud nomad always walked with her face open, which was allowed to her due to the special advancement of the steppe community and the unprecedented consciousness of Kazakh men. It was not taken into account at all that cattle breeding required women to take care of the housework along with men, and, if necessary, to ride a horse and protect the herds from raids by horse thieves if men were not around. Try to ride on a horse and fight with the enemy in a burqa!

Now the image of the proud, born free daughter of the steppes is fading away, they prefer to remain silent about it, but it seems that part of society has firmly decided to move forward into the past - to polygamy, the dependent position of women in society and in the family, having firmly adopted the laws of the new consummated life - everything is for sale , made an expensive commodity out of her daughters. Everything has a price, even mother's milk.

Does this phenomenal phenomenon of “Eastern mentality” exist in nature? Once in the prenatal ward, in the intervals between contractions, I could observe how women of Eastern and Slavic nationality give birth differently. Clenched teeth, light moans and screams, swearing, often with obscene expressions, inappropriate behavior, as doctors put it. Isn’t it the case that for an Eastern woman from birth the bar was set too high, and she, like an Olympian, set a record - she strove to conquer heights. Hence the ability to withstand the attacks of emotions, fit unnoticed into any environment, hide, mask feelings of annoyance, dissatisfaction, indignation, resentment under a skillfully formed bodily mask that expresses self-control, even goodwill and complete harmony with the outside world. What can constant unfinished emotional experiences and strict control of feelings lead to? Is this not the reason for the self-immolation of Uzbek – also Eastern – women? In Kazakhstan, such acts were not observed: it is clear that either life is a little easier, or women’s nerves are stronger.

“The demands on women have always been very serious. Women are always asked a lot. The state of the family, the atmosphere in the family, relationships in the family, children, raising children, circle of friends, receiving guests, comfort in the house according to the laws of the East depends on the woman. Whatever tone a woman sets, so it will be. If a woman greets guests with a smile, cordially serves the dastarkhan, treats the guests with pleasure, you feel warmth. Coldness and insincerity are immediately revealed" (№3).

“After all, in her sacrifice, a woman sometimes knows no boundaries, and this eastern tradition- don't lose face" (№ 1).

Our respondent, the chief accountant of a foreign mission, painted a vivid portrait of a reanimated eastern man from the feudal past with sweeping, rich strokes.

“Our clientele consists of big boys, former partocrats, current rich people, currently large business executives. The fact is that only those farms that have at least 200 thousand hectares of land can buy our products. He is a real king in his area. Or he sits in Almaty, heads a holding company, and somewhere in Kustanai he has large farms, and he travels around them. And there it is customary like this: men sit at the table, and women quietly enter the room only to serve them. Guests are not even introduced to the women, although she is the mistress of the house or the daughter of the owner. Our German likes it, and he envies our peasants: he wants it to be like this in his family. ... He most likely has some kind of Freudian complex, but here they give him the opportunity to forget, pearls are thrown in front of him. It must be said that he sometimes notices things that do not catch our eye. For example: a man walks and a woman follows him. Among the Kazakhs, women are not in such a humiliated position as in other Asian nations. We notice that the Chechen man is walking ahead lightly, and his wife is dragging a heavy bag behind him. That Uzbeks sit separately at festivities - men separately, women separately, and the men are served all the best. And the European’s view of Kazakh gender relations is more keen-sighted than ours, and he notices nuances that we do not feel.” (№ 4).

Our respondents are educated people who consider themselves tolerant, understand how inappropriate such behavior is in our age, and accordingly treat this type with a certain amount of irony.

It is possible to understand young men who have not yet matured as individuals, who feel their imperfection, and who suffer from a number of complexes. After all, there are not so many real “Eastern women” now: globalization and emancipation are doing their job, the rare educated girl will be able to skillfully play along with her husband, giving him a constant feeling of her indispensability, exclusivity, talent, knowing that in intelligence, education, and creativity she is in no way inferior life partner. Hence the desire to marry southern or rural women, who, according to an unspoken folk legend, are inferior in development to city girls.

“I am convinced that women are more subtle, highly organized beings. And they have a practical mind. This is especially noticeable among eastern peoples. When a woman gets married, she receives not a developed personality, but raw material from which, like a creator, she must mold a person, then bring him to mind, educate him, and guide him. Of course, you mold from what was, from what you got. Often a man owes his career and image to his smart wife. And he, poor thing, has no idea. How often do we meet men who stay with their sick wife until the end? Women are more decent in this regard.

Adultery is a common phenomenon. Both men and women cheat. I can easily understand women: after all, she wants to at least once give up the role of mother-teacher. Women's infidelity remain a secret for the husband and children, they do not destroy anything. A man, carried away, spits on everything - on the years lived together, on the psyche and future of the children. Then, perhaps, he regrets, because often his career and well-being end with a new girlfriend in life. And it always surprised me that later, choked with happiness, having come to his senses, he returns home with a suitcase, but without wrapping himself in cellophane, without tying himself with a beautiful blue bow, in full confidence that he will be greeted with open arms.” (№ 1).

“I completely share the opinion of those scientists who believe that there is a “male” and “female” mind. Maybe I have a slightly ironic attitude towards this. I am clearly aware of the difference between women's and men's minds and thinking. Women's thinking is difficult to explain; sometimes the illogicality of women's actions is simply amazing. When you ask them, they cannot explain why they acted this way and not differently. It's getting fun. There are significant differences. Not in the sense that some are dumber and some are smarter, but in terms of working methods. In percentage terms, there are approximately the same number of stupid men as there are stupid women. Only they are stupid in their own way."(№ 6).

The leitmotif of reflection on this topic turned out to be a statement widespread throughout the post-Soviet space about the weakness, infantility and destructiveness of men. The desire of women to ensure the survival of the family turned out to be a saving grace for the country in difficult times. This is recognized by both female and male respondents. Women became the generator of ideas on ways to survive and adapt to new conditions. In men, the survival mechanism did not work. Reproduction and socialization, completely nationalized and filled only with women, was able to create increasingly inferior men. Hence, a decrease in their authority in society and family, a decrease in life expectancy, a decrease in the general level of health and culture.

“I remember the years of perestroika: unemployment, many families were breaking up. In this situation, it was the woman who found strength in herself - she began to do things that she would never have done in a normal situation: she went on shopping tours, did everything to survive. Many men were lost at this time. I know many families in which men still play the role of housewife. A woman in this regard stronger than men» (№ 5).

According to respondents, there is no pronounced legal discrimination against women; it is within the “norm” for a not entirely rule-of-law state, which is Kazakhstan. Rights are declared, you just need to know them and be able to use them.

“If we talk about rights and equality, then there is no total difference in rights for men and women. But women, it seems, don’t really need any special permission. If she has leadership qualities, she can achieve her goals. Women have become more confident and purposeful. But all this is in the middle level. At a higher level, their own laws apply, I don’t presume to judge that.”(№ 3).

The not-so-original idea about women’s biological destiny is presented by almost everyone as a revelation, but then they quickly add that a woman should work and make a career, if possible.

“A woman must work. But still, a woman’s destiny is to give birth to a child and raise him to be a real person. So that life goes on" (№ 5).

Processes of economic transformation continue in our society. Traditional approaches to gender roles and an unfavorable social environment limit equal rights and equal opportunities for men and women.

Each person has his own idea of ​​the ideal woman and the ideal man. Often our ideas coincide with stereotypical ideals, sometimes the man or woman of our dreams is just a figment of our imagination, or their time has not come yet. Each of our respondents openly shared how they imagine future chosen ones for themselves and their children. This does not require special external attractiveness: the main thing is spirituality, rationality, good character, thriftiness and decency. No sky-high or romantic.

“A woman, first of all, must be feminine. This is my idea. Only a woman can be a mother, so she needs to be wise, responsible, she must be a source of good energy in the family. The good old ideas about a man as a breadwinner and a woman as a keeper of the family hearth are still not outdated. Women seeking self-satisfaction, self-affirmation, and self-expression in their careers did not find male attention in life. When a woman tries to prove to everyone and herself that she can achieve a lot in business, neglects all household chores, children, when she earns money and hires a person to cook for the family, I do not accept this. After all, children should remember the most delicious mother’s pies and cutlets in the world. A woman who let things take their course in the family is not a woman, but a business unit.” (№8).

“...I will not demand from her the appearance of a top model or a movie star, super intelligence, super fame. Spiritual ones will come first, personal traits. This should be a calm, balanced girl. Mutual understanding, willingness to help, support in a crisis situation, decency, kindness - that’s what I would like to find in her. Definitely not stupid, because stupidity will begin to irritate, it is difficult when there is nothing to talk to a person about. ... The main quality is understanding. An exalted person who demands something incomprehensible from you, and who herself does not understand what she needs, is God’s punishment. Unpredictability, some inexplicable antics - maybe some people like those bright personalities, I don’t like them” (№ 6).

Our age has moved far away from romantic dreams. Don Quixotes are not held in high esteem in our society; no one demands strong-willed chins, thick hair, or a figure formed by bodybuilding; reliability, loyalty, and decency come first.

“My ideal is a man who feels the need to take care of his loved ones. Not necessarily about a woman, about your loved ones. Be brave. Cultured, intelligent, at the same time he must know where he must be tough or categorical. Must be able to say “no” when necessary. ... Ideal man should give a woman so much love and attention so that she does not try to turn into a man"(№8).

“An ideal man should be able to be responsible for his words and actions, should stick to his conscious specific plan, and not go with the flow. Must be able to make decisions that do not harm others. A real man- not a superman, not a super businessman, just a decent self-sufficient person, responsible for himself, his family, for his business.”(No. 6).GENDER DIFFERENCES ... identity, answer the question: “Who am I?” – Socio-psychological level ...

Introduction

On the one hand, Aristotle argued that man is a “political being” - political events, news, like a magnet, attract us to newspapers, radio or TV screens. On the other hand, there is a widespread stereotype that politicians have no faith, that politics is a “dirty business”, “dirty games”. Undoubtedly, politics largely depends on specific historical and civilizational conditions, on the prevailing ideology, moral and religious norms in society, on the level of development of the person himself, his worldview and culture. Therefore, what are the people themselves, society, the political institutions that reign in it, norms and traditions - such is politics as a whole. After all, the term “politics” (ancient Greek politika) is based on concepts related to the state, power relations, the science of managing people and society: “polis” (city-state), “polites” (citizen), “politicos” (statesman) .

The purpose of the proposed reflections is to understand whether the policy " dirty business", to reveal the peculiarities of the attitude towards politics and the ways and means of its “improvement”.

To achieve the goal, we will apply retrospective, situational and prospective methods, combining them, which will allow us to trace historically determined trends in the development of attitudes towards politics and determine the prospects for relationships with it.

1. Attitude to politics

Communicating with people of different social levels, we can conclude that not everyone can decide on the content of the word “politics”. However, everyone has a certain attitude towards politics, asserting in himself the significance with which he consciously justifies his own competence in shaping his answer to the question: “What is politics? »

The majority of citizens consider politics to be a dirty business, although they cannot significantly justify such an attitude towards it. But everyone could explain pathetically, citing his own significant experience, why he, in fact, considers politics dirty.

Really, life experience a person stores in memory almost all situations and the feelings that accompany them, directly or indirectly touching the life or subconscious of the individual. And life situations are not always accompanied by pleasant impressions.

The feelings that occur when realizing the results of the political activities of deputies, to whom citizens entrust their trust and votes in elections, in most cases cannot be called pleasant. Therefore, the problem of the life and well-being of the people is becoming more and more acute every day in a critical form in the life of the state.

Of course, you can philosophize for a long time about the dirt of politics, limiting yourself to your innocence from it, but does this concern the objective reason for this state of affairs? Does everyone realize that they directly influence the political situation in the country?

During the most normal and calm situation in the state, this influence is manifested in participation or non-participation in elections and in giving one’s vote to one or another candidate. In a problematic life situation, influence can manifest itself in non-support or support and participation in rallies, strikes, and acts of civil disobedience. In a critical situation, this influence is manifested in passive or active participation in the passage of revolutionary changes, which are accompanied not only by screams and threats, but also by shots, explosions and death.

The vast majority of Russian citizens actually life situation considers problematic. However, are they all aware of their importance in solving this problem?

The subconscious of the people does not keep up with the too rapid changes in the socio-political situation. Generations that were brought up and formed under the conditions of an absurd socialist society and a brutal communist dictatorship still hope that someone will think for them and solve their problems.

But regardless of whether the subconscious mind keeps up with the changes in the socio-political situation or does not, everyone feels directly on themselves the reality that at a certain moment spreads across the territory of the state of the people.

Only the CPSU carried out its policy over socialist society. Anyone who disagreed with her called her dirty, said goodbye to life or did “charity” in the radioactive fields of her “native” state. Few managed to find refuge in other lands, although how terrible it was to leave your homeland just because they were “offering” their idea to you through a gun - the idea of ​​communism. At the same time, this idea is difficult to talk about. Any idea of ​​good, when it is perceived by the people who support it and bring it to life. The people at one time did not accept the above-mentioned idea, for which they paid with tens of millions of souls. Only those people remained who were fit to support the policies of the communist dictators. Back then people were not asked about their attitude to politics. Everyone was “made” the same both physically and spiritually. They made the people a robot, the people a slave. Now the people are not needed by the leadership of the state, although the latter, in turn, is doing everything possible to show its devotion to it. And people perceive this as a normal phenomenon.

And politics is just a term that defines a system that is no small and significant, even more so than health or nutrition.

The term "politics" is of Greek origin - Politike, which means activity, and even artistic activity government leadership.

IN modern meaning, this word consists of activities related to relations between classes, nations and other social groups with the aim of creating, maintaining and guaranteeing the most optimal conditions for the existence and development of these social groups. Power, which is the subject of politics, is ensured by the support of the people, the army and law enforcement agencies, and is the main fact of influence on the same people. The authorities' policies must take into account the economic situation and interests that are significant for the main social classes of the state, and direct their activities in accordance with these interests.

Politics is a superstructure over the economic base, and it directly actively influences the economy and other spheres of society. Therefore, the people who consider politics to be a dirty business associate this attitude only with their idea of ​​the policy that the authorities exercise over them.

2. Politics and morality

The most important “dimension” of politics, the criterion of its effectiveness, is morality - a form of public and individual consciousness. This is a set of moral requirements (set out in norms, principles, categories and ideals), on the basis of which society and the individual evaluate human behavior and phenomena of social and spiritual life.

Moral norms are sanctioned not by the power of the state, but by the force of customs and public opinion, forming spontaneously in the moral consciousness of society, and not as a result of a specially issued law. Both theoretical traditional ethics and politics seek to understand and apply them.

Both morality and politics are organizational, regulatory, control spheres of society, but their existence and functioning differ significantly. IN modern understanding Politics is the science of the ability of the state and government institutions to optimize, harmonize, balance the interests of people, and ensure on this basis stable social harmony and “normal” development of society. This understanding of politics indicates the need for a moral dimension of political programs, public moral examination of political platforms, introduction moral criteria in the activities of politicians, compliance with the principles of political ethics. Otherwise, society will never get rid of the practice of vulgar politicking, the power of bureaucracy, and the dominance of politicized pragmatism.

Theoretical ethics evaluates the phenomena of political life as consistent or inconsistent with moral principles, since for ethics moral principles are eternal. Politics always happens in history, “here and now.” Consequently, we are talking about eternity and modernity, about constancy and dynamics - morality can in one way or another characterize political action, while at the same time being outside it; can limit politics, the freedom of uncontrolled political action, so politics often strives to free itself from it.

Over the past decades, famous Western thinkers have discussed the nature of the relationship between morality and politics. Brzezinski, Y. Habermas, A. Gaffey, E. Levinas, P. Riquior, R. Rorty, Russian - G. Vodolazov, A. Drobnitsky, Y. Irkhin, B. Kapustin, A. Obolonsky, A. Gordienko, S. Kosharny, V. Kremen, V. Pazenok, L. Sitnichenko, T. Timoshenko and others. But the contradiction in views on the relationship between politics and morality has its own background.

In European thought, the relationship between politics and morality is represented by the concepts of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Italian politician and thinker of the Renaissance Niccolo Machiavelli.

According to Aristotle, morality (ethics) and politics are the only branch of practical knowledge, the harmonious unity of “philosophy that concerns human affairs”, since it deals with the issues of education of integrity and customs of a decent life for the sake of achieving happiness and good. Ethics considers these issues in the aspect of the nature of the individual person, politics - in the aspect public life polis (ancient city-state). Both in politics and in ethics, the core motive is communication between people: “All communication is organized for the sake of some good (after all, any activity presupposes good) ... the communication that strives for the most important of all and occupies everything other communications. This communication is called state or political communication.”

According to the pragmatist and immoralist N. Machiavelli, morality is only a tool that an experienced politician must be able to use deftly and in a timely manner. In the famous treatise “The Sovereign” (“Prince”, “Ruler”) N. Machiavelli constructs the figure of an individual political figure who exists in an atmosphere not of communication, but of intrigue, machinations, and wars. Such a figure is based “on himself”, in actions proceeding “out of himself”: “the ruler must seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, pious, but he must control himself in such a way that, if necessary, he can become completely different and do everything vice versa". The categories of thought, plan, goal, and the constant worries about their effective implementation confirm the characterization of the ruler as a unique general type of “subject of action” in the political sphere, determined to use people and their moral values ​​as any objective resources, only the goal was worth it.

German philosopher and the moralist I. Kant, two and a half centuries after the death of N. Machiavelli, strictly forbade approaching the principles of morality from the point of view of empirical utility, as well as turning a person into a means for any purpose. According to Kant, every person has “practical reason,” that is, the ability of reason to inform him at any moment about what is good and what is evil from a moral point of view. The final formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is this: act in such a way that you always need humanity - both in your own person and in the person of everyone else - as an end and never only as a means.

I. Kant does not allow others to be used for their own purposes, because everyone is an end in himself. But we are not only talking about outsiders, oneself also cannot be used as a means to achieve some goal. What should a person in politics do in this case? Indeed, at its core, the latter is a representative activity associated with the representation of the interests of certain groups. Therefore, the politician faces alternative question: Should he go directly according to his own ideas about what is proper and fair, or in the interests of the group or party that he represents? In real political life, this alternative is reflected, reviving the “morality of double standards.”

So Kant began historical type autonomous morality - simple and strict, without political tricks and philosophies. However, history has many concepts of autonomous politics, free from moral “prejudice”, imitating the paradigm of N. Machiavelli. For example, Max Weber in his report “Politics as a Vocation and Profession” (1918) states: “Whoever wants to engage in politics in general and make it his only specialty must be aware of these ethical paradoxes and his responsibility for what will come out of them under their influence.” himself. He, I repeat, becomes entangled with the diabolical forces that lie in wait for him during every act of violence.” Weber himself did a lot to establish the paradigm of autonomous politics at the beginning of the 20th century - by justifying “legal” violence as a “specific” means of state power, by apologizing for relations of domination and coercion, by introducing the principle of freedom from value judgments about social life and so on.

In politics, as in any other sphere of public life, the process of formation and implementation of interests is initially associated with a person’s moral choice, his ideas about justice, the boundaries of freedom and the limits of equality, mutual responsibility in relations with political institutions. Therefore, politics initially combines two different coordinate systems, systems of assessments and orientations of a person in relations with state power: benefits and morality. Here it is worth recalling the utilitarian concept of morality, which is of great importance for politics. Typically, utilitarianism is imposed by a totalitarian consumer society, acting as a reliable means of protection. In this ethical theory, the criterion for the morality of an action is the principle of utility. Theoretical ethics can claim to offer politics, if not content, then at least a boundary of what is permitted and a goal. However, since moral laws are understood as something external to politics and far from it, one can only rely on “moral politicians” (I. Kant). At the same time, the “moral politician” is a new European myth, like Plato’s “philosopher-king”.

D. Hume emphasized that “political writers have established as a maxim that when thinking through any system of government and determining constitutional forms of government, a swindler must be assumed in every person who has no goals in his actions other than personal interest.” Realizing that honest people are found in life, including among politicians, Hume believed that politics should be built on general rules, which in politics are the game of egoisms. Politics is the opportunity to make selfishness serve the “common good,” since, according to Aristotle, “desirable, of course, is [the good of] one person, but beautiful and divine is the good of the people and states.”

The force of egoism is our needs and interests, which tend to constantly grow and transform. Therefore, the decency of politics, its aspiration to “ public good“is provided only by us, that is, by individual “I”. Every person is an egoist, just like a politician, with varying amounts of resources (power, economic, intellectual and others) to satisfy his own appetites. The morality in “us” is weakly opposed to selfishness. In addition, we are participants in the process of “politics of satisfying appetites.” To the best of our ability (requests, demands, blackmail, etc.) we also strive to get “our” share of social wealth. This situation is especially obvious during the election race.

Interesting in this regard are the revelations of the current American President Barack Obama and his thoughts on reviving the American dream. Recalling his meetings with voters while running for the U.S. Senate, he writes that he was surprised by the modesty and similarity of people's hopes: “Most thought that if you were to look for a job, it should be one that would provide a living wage. It was argued that a person should not declare his insolvency just because he was sick. They were convinced that every child should receive a truly high-quality education, not chatter, and then have the opportunity to study further, even if his parents are not rich. Everyone wanted protection from criminals and terrorists; everyone wanted fresh air, clean water, communication with children. And in their declining years, everyone wanted a decent pension and respectful attitude towards themselves.”

What is important for Obama and for Americans is the belief that the American nation has dignity, it emulates ideals and values ​​that do not allow conscience to rest, living in the hearts of the majority. When you read a book about the revival of the American dream, a comparison with modern Russian realities comes to mind. What does the younger generation of Russians, who did not know the pressure of a totalitarian system, follow and profess? Do we have a national ideology that is necessary to instill national dignity, ideals and values?

You can create the following scheme: “I” must personally (“We” - socially) be responsible for the possibility (or impossibility) of satisfying interests, needs and, taking into account my individual reflection, take upon myself the obligation to perform moral actions. Only when a person feels that it is his duty to observe the moral law can we speak of a moral act.

Kant's ethics is sometimes called the ethics of duty. In the “Critique of Pure Reason” he wrote: “Practical laws, insofar as they simultaneously become subjective reasons for actions, i.e. subjective principles are called maxims. The evaluation of morality from the point of view of its purity and consequences is in accordance with ideas, and the observance of its laws in accordance with maxims.”

So, there is another formulation of the categorical imperative - always act in such a way that the maxim of your behavior can, thanks to your will, become a universal law of nature. The moral law appears to be as absolute and universal as causality. It cannot be proven with the mind, but there is no escaping it either. Describing the law of morality, Kant, in essence, describes human conscience - we cannot prove what our conscience tells us, we just know it.

Based on the above, we can define morality based on its understanding by I. Kant. Firstly, morality is the internal conviction of the subject, which is formed in the process of self-reflection and which he adheres to regardless of changes in life circumstances. The ability to distinguish between good and evil, according to Kant, is innate, therefore everyone adheres to universal law morality, which has absolute force and is “formal” because it stands above all experience. So, the subject is free from circumstances. Secondly, the subject relates himself (as “special”) to the “universal” - that which is a universal rule “for everyone” and takes this rule as the law of his own essence. Morality is the desire for the unity of the “universal” and the “particular,” the unity of a universal rule for everyone and the maxim of “my” and “your” actions. Such unity is a requirement presented to oneself and the “world”, and acts as a duty for the subject. Thirdly, morality is the belief, aspiration, awareness and implementation of duty (moral influence). This is a sphere of personal responsibility, which cannot be removed by any empirical circumstances and considerations. Fourthly, morality is the driving force of action. To call an action truly moral, it must be a victory over oneself.

Today in political life a significant place is occupied by the utilitarian concept of morality, opposite to Kant’s understanding of it. People whom we should recognize as politicians, having taken the well-known slogan “politics is a dirty business” as their personal credo, often behave as if the moral law was not written for them at all.

Politics can be moral and immoral, but it cannot be immoral, since it always reproduces the specific interests of people, has certain evaluative results, uses appropriate methods and means, and is carried out with different levels of professionalism. Through the significance of its functioning and its consequences, politics has always been, is and will be a sphere of especially significant morality and especially dangerous social immorality. Without an alliance with morality, politics loses its purpose and responsibility, without which it can turn into an inhumane mechanism for gaining and maintaining power, into a tool for the enslavement of people, rather than their liberation and protection.

As Vaclav Havel noted, “the essential goals of life are naturally present in every person. Everyone has some kind of desire for legitimate dignity, humanity, moral integrity, free expression of being and consciousness, transcendence in relation to the whole world of experience. At the same time, every person can, to one degree or another, adapt to living in a lie. Everyone can be subjected to a vulgar trivialization of the human in him or her, as well as utilitarianism... This means something more than a simple conflict between our two identities. This is something much worse: it is a challenge to the very concept of (human) identity.”

Identity is the awareness of one’s own involvement in the human race and universal human values. Today, the need to use moral criteria in politics is also dictated by considerations on a global scale. Ecological disasters, acute ethnic conflicts, hunger, a cultural crisis, endless wars and bloodshed - all these negative realities make the very existence of the human race on planet Earth doubtful. Therefore, scientists talk about a new “global” policy, the main imperative of which is the recognition of human life, individual freedom, its right to decent life. The basis of true politics was and remains the rules of morality and honor.

Moral education as a component of the moral and political factor to a certain extent influences any sphere of social activity and communication of people, causing the emergence of the necessary moral atmosphere in society, a special microclimate in the team, which under certain circumstances can significantly change the nature of actions. Moral education is a set of purposeful, systematic, active, specially organized influences on the consciousness and behavior of a person, which, simultaneously with self-education, form an individual and collective system of ethical concepts, moral beliefs, inclinations, feelings, character traits and moral habits of behavior in order to ensure that the concepts of justice , equality, dignity, goodness, happiness did not remain values ​​of consciousness alone, but turned into imperatives for the activities of politicians and government agencies, and were embodied in the “optimally” possible form in life.

As psychological research shows, from 18 to 22 years old the process of formation of self-awareness and self-identification occurs most actively. This is the time when a young man chooses his life and professional path. Representatives of this particular age category go into politics, therefore, in order for politics and morality to interact, the task of the state is moral education and teaching youth in a moral context.

Self-identification of individuals in a moral context occurs through native language, religion, ethical standards, cultural heritage, which are enshrined in a unified system of political and public organizations states. Further changes in national identity are no longer so much its formation as transformation, and depend on the socio-political, economic and other spheres of human life. The individual develops a subjective feeling of belonging to a community, acceptance of its group norms and values. Language space, relatively truthful (objective) history, and values ​​that are inherently universal acquire significance.

A politician who is brought up on moral principles will never allow himself or those around him to be indifferent to national, universal problems. Let us remember the words of the American poet Richard Eberhart, which have become famous: “Do not be afraid of your enemies, in the worst case they can kill you, do not be afraid of your friends - in the worst case they can betray you. Fear the indifferent - they do not kill or betray, but with their tacit consent There is betrayal and murder on earth.”

politics morality society economics

Conclusion

Considering the above, we can draw the following conclusions.

Firstly, the people have clearly identified the illiterate and harmful policies of the leadership. But the fact that the people have decided this way will not change absolutely anything in real life. The only thing they (the people) lack to improve their situation is action. Action that will put an end to the truly dirty policies of management. An action that will entail a radical restructuring of the leadership system from the level of a farm or enterprise to the level of the state. The relevance of implementing this idea is only a determination of the people’s awareness of how critical their situation is. Politics is a superstructure over the economic base, and it directly actively influences the economy and other spheres of society. Therefore, the people who consider politics to be a dirty business associate this attitude only with their idea of ​​the policy that the authorities exercise over them.

Secondly, moral norms (requirements that regulate people's behavior through general prescriptions and prohibitions) seek to understand and apply both theoretical traditional ethics (statically) and politics (dynamically). As society realizes its value, the aggravation of the problem of human survival, a problem largely generated by the growing contradictions between politics and morality, the search for ways to synthesize politics and morality becomes an increasingly urgent task. Despite real obstacles, dominant stereotypes and prejudices, society strives to make politics moral, and morality practical and effective. This does not at all mean the dissolution of morality in politics, the loss of its control functions in relation to politics, since the complete subordination of morality to politics will contribute to the violation of human freedom and dignity.

Thirdly, society must realize that its further development is possible only under the condition of upbringing, education and adherence to morality, which must overcome utilitarianism. The ideas of Aristotle and Kant, which are still topical today, can help with this. Morality is an integral part of the individual worldview, therefore for the individual it largely determines the picture of the socio-political world.

Thus, today there is a need to morally improve politics through the development of culture in general and political culture in particular. After all, most problems arise as a result of a cultural crisis, which can be overcome not only with money, since our values ​​and spiritual life matter no less than the development of the economy.

List of used literature

1.Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics // Philosophers of Greece. Fundamentals: logic, physics, ethics. - M.: ZAO “Publishing House EKSMO-Press”; Kharkov: Folio, 1999.

.Aristotle. Politics // Thinkers of Greece. From myth to logic: Essays. - M.: ZAO “Publishing House EKSMO-Press”; Kharkov: Folio, 1999. - 832 p.

.Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason / Trans. with him. N. Lossky verified and edited by Ts. G. Arzakanyan and M. I. Itkin; Note Ts. G. Arzakanyan. - M.: Mysl, 1994. - 591 p.

.Kapustin B. G. Moral choice in politics: Proc. manual - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2004. - 496 p.

.Machiavelli N. The Sovereign // Machiavelli N. Historical and political works. Fictional works. Letters: Sat.: Per. from Italian/N. Machiavelli. - M.: ACT, 2004. - 819 p.

.Malakhov V. A. Ethics: Course of lectures: Proc. allowance. - 3rd ed. - M.: Education, 2001. - 384 p.

.Obama B. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reviving the American Dream / Trans. from English T. Kamyshnikova, A. Mitrofanova. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House "Azbuka-Classics", 2008. - 416 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Vladimir Petrovich Lukin. Politician with clean hands

I met Lukin a long time ago, when he entered graduate school at the Institute of World Economy and international relations, where I worked then. Then I went on a business trip abroad to Prague and lost sight of him for a while. But he knew that after graduate school he worked as a researcher and journalist. After I left Prague, Lukin arrived there and worked in the same magazine - “Problems of Peace and Socialism.” It was here that the “Prague Spring” of 1968 found him. Lukin was friends with Dubcek and sympathized with him. Being an honest, principled and very brave man, he did not hide his negative attitude towards the military suppression of the Czech “perestroika and glasnost”, although the liberal changes in Czechoslovakia were not called that then.

At that time, this was a truly courageous act. Along with a few dissidents who were not afraid to go to Red Square in protest, there were not many people in the USSR who openly condemned the actions of the Warsaw Pact countries in August 1968, although many secretly scolded them in their kitchens.

Who could then imagine that exactly 23 years later, thousands of Soviet citizens would take to the streets to sweep away communist totalitarianism and tens of thousands would defend the White House from the Kremlin putschists?!

But then, in the dark and dark period of political reaction, Lukin’s disloyal talk was enough for him to be urgently recalled from Prague to Moscow. He was fired from his job and was on the verge of expulsion from the party.

Soon after returning to Moscow, Lukin came to my newly formed US Institute. I won’t hide that in that situation, Lukin’s hiring gave me apprehension. But the reviews from people I respected about Lukin were most positive, and I decided, despite the “wolf ticket,” to invite him to work at my institute. True, I informed Andropov about this so that ill-wishers would not convey everything to him in a distorted light and would not turn him against me and Lukin. I was pleasantly surprised when Yuri Vladimirovich said: “Your institute, you decide for yourself.”

Lukin's authority both at the institute and outside it grew rapidly. I was glad about this, but I understood that Lukin would not stay at the institute for long: his scale and abilities were much greater; they should sooner or later lead to his nomination for political work. Which soon happened.

As I expected, Lukin was invited to a fairly high position at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Then, when they came big changes under Gorbachev, and then under Yeltsin, he became one of the most prominent and influential democratic politicians of the USSR and Russia, held high positions in parliament, and then he was appointed ambassador to the United States for several years. After returning from Washington in 1993, he and Yavlinsky created the Yabloko party (in fact, the first letters of this name are made up of the surnames of its founders - Yavlinsky, Boldyrev and Lukin).

It is impossible not to mention Lukin’s role in concluding peace in Khasavyurt in 1996, which put an end to the first Chechen massacre. Lukin was sent to Khasavyurt together with General Lebed to negotiate with Maskhadov. According to the peace agreement, the determination of the status of Chechnya was postponed until 2001, and the demilitarization of the armed opposition was provided for.

Nowadays it is customary to throw mud at this agreement, calling it almost “betrayal,” but I categorically disagree with such an assessment. Peace was the only right decision at that moment; another mistake was: after Khasavyurt, the Kremlin seemed to have forgotten about Chechnya. Moscow could not and did not try to control the situation inside Chechnya, nor to isolate the rebellious republic with a “cordon sanitaire” along its administrative borders in order to stop militants’ forays into neighboring areas, the free passage back and forth of gangs, weapons, drugs, smuggling and other things.

A “black hole” formed on Russian territory, which led three years later, in 1999, to a new war. As it was officially stated, the federal troops were better prepared for it. But why then did they again have to suffer such heavy losses - more than 20 thousand killed and wounded - and this on a territory comparable to the Moscow region, while possessing absolute superiority in heavy weapons, aviation, artillery, and armored vehicles?! Apparently, little has changed in our army in the more than 60 years that have passed since 1945, and the soldier, as then, is considered the most scarce item of “military supply”.

After Yabloko was ousted from the Duma in the unfair elections of 2003, Lukin, on the proposal of President Putin, was elected human rights ombudsman in Russian Federation. To tell the truth, this step by Putin surprised me, but, undoubtedly, it was one of the successful personnel decisions of the new president, unlike many others. It was probably impossible to find a better candidate for this job. Intelligence and education, impeccable honesty, integrity and unchanging civic position, sincere concern for ordinary people and open-mindedness are far from full list merits of Vladimir Lukin.

They say that politics is a “dirty business,” but they forget that “dirty politicians” make it that way. Vladimir Lukin is an example of the fact that politics can be done with clean hands, and this determines its goals, moral qualities, and to a large extent, effectiveness, because such a policy is likely to receive broad public support in our country and abroad.