Revolution as a consequence of the rise of self-consciousness to a high level

Abstract

I would like to determine why, despite the presence of well-known reasons for social revolutions, in Asian countries with popular indignations until recently there were no leap changes in the basics of the social system, in contrast, for example, to the indignations that arose during the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe? Why in some countries this transition was limited to reforming social foundations, and in others it was not without the strongest shocks of the foundations? Why is the revolution pretty fast the onset of reactionary changes follows?

Key words: revolution, society, state, person, self-consciousness, stagnation, decay, evolution.

Until now, the scientific world has not been able to find out the reasons for such a rapid development of human communities in comparison with purely natural processes. The evolution of human communities, again, for unknown reasons, passed for some communities into a stage of stagnation, as happened with most countries in Asia and Africa, or ended in collapse with the complete disappearance of states, as happened with the mighty Assyria or Babylon, or it went discontinuously - through stagnations and upheavals, but without complete disappearance, as happened in China before the 20th century.
In addition, there was no reasonable explanation for the fact of changing one formation to another either through a revolution, as, for example, happened in France at the end of the 18th century, or without it, as it happened in Europe, when the slave-owning system was replaced by the feudal one.
It is also hardly possible to recognize the October change of power in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, as opposed to the bourgeois revolution of February of the same year, as progressive, that always distinguishes a revolution, which, as you know, is characterized by a progressive jump-like transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, whereas as a result of the October change of power, a militarized semi-feudal state with imperial ambitions and a indigent population, consolidated in many respects, appeared.
So-called, the Meiji Revolution in Japan cannot also be called such due to the lack of known reasons for any revolution, as well as the presence of non-hopping changes, but gradual reforms in the country for almost half a century.
Thus, the very term "revolution", implying an abrupt transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, does not reveal the original cause of this sudden "break in gradualism", since problems in the economic sphere, alienation and resistance of elites, popular discontent, the emergence of new forms of ideology, a favorable international environment are only an external manifestation of certain inner essences, in the absence of which the turning points in history produce the same social system over time, as happened in China two thousand years ago, in contrast to France at the end of the 18th century.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine these inner essences, which, apparently, cannot be outside the collectivist consciousness of one or the other communities.
All living beings are different from other objects of beingness by the presence of consciousness in them, which, in fact, makes them alive. This means that, unlike inanimate objects, they acquire new properties that allow them to replicate themselves through reproduction thanks the genetic code available in them; to be merged with the environment through metabolism; thanks to mutations, to be distributed on different types of living organisms, and, at the same time, with greater or less success, to be modified in accordance with changes in the environment, in particular, to become more complex, etc.
However, these beings in the form of flora and fauna have no subjectness. They manifest themselves in the environment only in the form of dynamic components of the environment that do not conscious themselves, although and act to give development to this environment, but act instinctively-reflexively, i.e. their consciousness is limited consumption of sensations, and it does not go beyond the environment, and the development itself is very slow in comparison with comprehended actions. Therefore, such initial type of consciousness can be qualified as the lowest consciousness, the only inherent to all living beings, except for a person who has some kind of complement to it.
This restriction in the only of the lowest consciousness in any representative of the flora or fauna is removed in a person whose consciousness acquires a significant complement in the form of awareness of oneself as an object capable of going beyond the environment and capable of creative actions. Thus, one gets the opportunity to become the subject of action: he understands the meaning of his actions, composing projects, correcting them on the move, that is, remaining as part of the environment, he at the same time rises above it, becoming partly its master and even the creator as in various man-made structures, mechanisms, processes, and creations of the spirit, which is reflected in various areas of art and culture.
Such actions change significantly and with accelerate not only the environment, but also the content of a person, increasing his educational and cultural level, that is, allowing him to become gradually in awareness himself all higher and higher. Therefore, this type of consciousness, which is complementary to the lowest consciousness, can be qualified as the highest consciousness of the living beings, or self-consciousness, which is inherent only in people.
Thus, in a person there are two components of consciousness - the lowest, often called unconscious, or subconscious, and the highest consciousness, or self-consciousness. the level of which can differ significantly depending on the degree of development of the person or his communities.
Both these components exist and act in the body and through the body in an indissoluble connection, but the highest consciousness is incapable to exist without the lowest, as the last is responsible for preservation of the living being in the environment - without what impossibly to do, and the first – above all - for conscious and design activity of a being as individually, and in the human communities which are in a certain environment, and without it other natural beings always do.
It is these deep essences in the form of the lowest consciousness and highest consciousness, hidden and intertwined in every human consciousness, and, consequently, in the public consciousness, with all their antagonism because of the need to solve various problems for the most part contradicting each other, really determine development of human communities at any stage.
Thus, the highest consciousness in the course of its growth begins to oppose itself to the lowest consciousness more and more effectively - the struggle between them just distinguishes the person from animals, being manifested at early stages of development is hardly noticeable, and then - all stronger and stronger.
In other words, the growth of self- consciousness, or raising the level of the highest consciousness in the struggle with the lowest consciousness, gradually, but with an acceleration, expands the human sphere of activity, ensuring the permanent development both certain persons in their generations, and the development of their communities.
Consequently, the intensive development of communities of the living beings - previously barely noticeable, and the main contribution to which was made by mutations (random changes in the genome) - begins only with the appearance in them of self-consciousness, and, accordingly, - by its interaction with the lowest (animal) consciousness, which does not disappear anywhere from these living beings. This interaction is expressed practically in incessant fight of these consciousness forms, merged together, as they mostly have opposite aspirations, what it was in detail told above about, i.e., their interaction mainly is expressed in hostility (antagonism).
Thus, in living nature, characterized by the presence of only of the lowest consciousness at the level of only sensations, chance dominates in the form of mutations in the genome of organisms and the use of the trial and error method,
Favorable changes in the genome lead to the fixation of the community of these organisms in their niche of existence, unfavorable changes - to the degradation and subsequent disappearance of the communities of these organisms, just as fatal errors in the choice of ways of existence.
All this makes the development of all natural communities extremely slow, in contrast to human communities, which, thanks to the presence of self-consciousness, get the opportunity to carry out their activities not on the basis of mere chance, but also quite purposefully and even creatively.
Externally, the lowest consciousness manifests itself in each person in the form of his individuality, which, however, is characteristic of any living being, whereas the highest consciousness manifests itself in each person in the form of his personality.
The individuality of a person is manifested in a certain level of the ability to pry, perseverance, dominance, quick-wittedness, ability to cooperate in actions, which depends on the genetic and physiological characteristics of the person, as well as on his social experience and skills. In addition, each individuality of more or less developed beings has a certain sensitivity, impressionability, sociability and determination.
For personality, in turn, it is characteristic conscious diligence or laziness, self-confidence or self-criticism, politeness or rudeness, responsibility or bad faith, conviction or unscrupulousness. These personality traits are mostly produced by his mind, which, already being a property of a person's personality, has significant differences from quick-wittedness in its focus not only on nutrition, reproduction and dominance.
However, the main characteristic of personality is altruism, which is opposite to the unchanging egoism of the animal consciousness. The main features of the altruism of personality are to one degree or another of the fullness: kindness, friendliness, empathy, sympathy, mercy, sacrifice, that is, disinterested care for others.
Therefore, it can be stated that in every human consciousness, individuality, which mainly reflects the egoism of animal consciousness, coexists with altruism, which underlies the personality of each person. And both of these sides of human consciousness, mostly because of the difference in the tasks being solved, fight each other in every possible way, uniting only at critical moments of existence for the sake of survival. And the place of each person in society is determined, as a rule, by the predominance of certain properties of individuality and personality, as well as their level, which was achieved by the corresponding person.
As an example, one can bring the manifestation of the antagonism of the lowest and highest consciousness, which in fact manifests itself by no means in the class struggle of the oppressed masses with their oppressors, which does not intensify the process of development of communities - in both, the lowest consciousness prevails, thereby stimulating mainly the struggle for survival and comfort, but not for the development of the community - but this antagonism is manifested in the confrontation between the informal intellectual opposition and the power elite, which, in essence, represent the confrontation between the highest and lowest consciousness.
For the representatives of power, the lowest consciousness is inevitably a dominant, that is, in their consciousness a clear lack of awareness of themselves as self-valuable personalities, and not as consumers is sensed. Power and practically unlimited access to privileges and property belittles them to such an extent that they see in the people masses only a source of well-being for themselves and a field for manifesting their own low-lying instincts. However, being afraid of anger of the people and counteraction of informal opposition, they are forced to resist to anarchy, holding, in particular, by means of reforms that order, which provides functioning and development of society, but, naturally, not from the noble motives, but only from a sense of self-preservation.
The weak development of self-consciousness and equally the weak manifestation of the lowest consciousness (low degree of manifestation of dissatisfaction of consciousness in both cases), which are in a balanced state, characterize the basic group of any communities - the philistines. All members of this group are guided generally by own mind and experience: they are occupied by themselves as well as own wellbeing, and do not aspire to either "high" or "low" goals, being limited to the desire of a hassle-free and full life, in which trouble is desirable to see only on the monitor screen. The man in the street do not feel aspiration to new due to own efforts, trying to obtain more comfortable state in life from a position of simple acquisition and consumption of benefits.
However, among the philistines there are always subjects with a somewhat higher level of the lowest consciousness, which in this case can cause them to strive not only for full, quiet and safe life, but also for domination among their own kind.
Focusing themselves mainly on such properties of individuality as a sufficient share of quick-wittedness; sociability up to servility; a tendency to deception in the form of distortion of information and dexterity in its presentation; acquired professional skills; as well as on such personality traits as a sufficiently strong will; self-confidence; unscrupulousness, expressed in cunning and treachery, as well as a significant share of irresponsibility, expressed in experiments that seem beneficial to themselves, but clearly harmful to the population, these subjects gain an advantage over the rest — the more inert members of the community in the form of ordinary people, highly moral intellectuals of any kind, and other members of the population who are sluggish or preoccupied with other matters, and who are not able to deftly push aside or slander their opponents, as well as really enjoy the humiliation of the lower ones, and at the same time endure mock from the side of own bosses.
Their personality is significantly reduced, since altruism, that is, kindness, friendliness, empathy, compassion, mercy, expressed in disinterested concern for others, is practically not characteristic of them.
They compensate a lack of mind by involvement of numerous advisers, but, because the decisions ultimately has to be made by them, so far as they, as true creators of own happiness, at first consider them from a position of the personal (corporate), but not the public good with a lurch towards retaining power, gaining a greater degree of their own domination and the acquisition of all sorts of benefits, littering, besides, the leadership of the various managing and economic structures with own mostly incompetent offspring.
Therefore, the hopes of naive masses to correct these moral monsters and cunning, hypocritical rogues, representing the power elites of various states competing with each other, have no basis, regardless of the structure of the state and its degree of development - from despotism to parliamentary democracy.
The informal intellectuals have the hope of reorganizing society in the direction of harmony, that is, equality, fraternity and at the same time liberty, without understanding that liberty always resists to equality, justice, destroying any stability. But this hope for harmonious world order can never disappear in their blissful consciousness: they as true humanists, are not capable to believe that horrors of our world cannot turn into prosperity of each person and all mankind eventually.
The informally-oppositional part of intellectuals, to which various educated people from this or that generation can be attributed, are active, honest, sincerely wishing good to the people, that is, with the dominant highest consciousness, expressed in a high degree of altruism of their personalities, - have never joined and will not join to the hypocritical and self-interested governing elite of the state, especially since they are characterized by a sense of self-esteem that does not allow them to please their superiors.
In other words, the already achieved level of highest consciousness, expressed in the altruism of their personality, does not allow them to commit mean deeds, putting material goods in the last place among the values of life. Therefore, they will always expose the unscrupulous, hypocritical and thieving powers that be, fight for the rights and civil liberties of workers, involving them in this struggle as widely as possible.
Thus, informal intellectuals are characterized by such features of individuality as a high degree of sensitivity, impressiveness, the desire for communion with the masses, the ability to pry, but they are not too often decisive and quick-wittedness.
Their personality is also largely the opposite of that of those in power. They are convinced that they are right in the struggle for the people's good, but they are not always critical of their ideas, which are mostly utopian. They are ruled by altruism. Therefore, most of all, they care about the good of the people, which, however, they do not really understand, since they unite this disunited and contradictory community into a single whole, presenting this whole as the oppressed, who must defeat the oppressors and rest on this in the goodness of the earthly paradise finally achieved.
Thereby, their opposition to imperious elite does not allow society to freeze in place, being reflection of antagonism of the lowest and highest types of consciousness in each person.
The struggle between them when the passive behavior the most part of the rest of the population occurs continuously with the dominance of a more energetic governing elite, which is provoking self-hatred from everyone else, and thus forming that antagonism that does not allow society to stop in developing.
As a result of similar confrontation between the ruling elite and the informal opposition to it, the faceless mass of the people - mostly the philistines - outwardly acquires development in the struggle of their representatives in the power and in the informal intellectual opposition to the power. Informal intellectuals, pursuing mainly goals that are opposite to those of representatives of the ruling elite, are forced to appeal to the people, proving their rightness and the anti-people nature of the oppressor elite, which, in turn, must justify itself and stigmatize rotten informal dreamers who can only speak, not manage and rule.
Thereby, a people, willy-nilly, are involved by energy of this struggle into a forward motion, which can also be evolutionary at the consent of the power elite with the opposition from the nonconformists-intellectuals to certain compromises in the interests of the working masses, but it can spasmodically go over into a different course if there is no such agreement, which is reflected in the public consciousness as a clear injustice, transforming into a more or less successful attempt to remove the ruling elite from power upon the occurrence of suitable conditions.
The disbalance in this confrontation leads either to stagnation in the development of the community, or to the disorganization of the management system and the onset of chaos with unpredictable consequences.
In other words, social development, the driving force of which is the confrontation between the inherently egocentric lowest consciousness and highest consciousness with its altruistic inclination to harmonize society, manifests itself depending on the level of the collective altruistic component of the highest consciousness in the community in the following phases: a smooth (evolutionary) course of technological and cultural development of the respective community, which can be interrupted by stagnation, followed by either the disintegration of the community with its joining other communities, or a break in the stagnation, leading to a radical change in relations in this community.
Since the egocentric lowest consciousness dominates in the ruling elite, and the highest consciousness in its altruistic expression dominates in the intellectual informal opposition to power with the corresponding impact of both on the masses, in so far precisely through these social strata is manifested externally the interaction of the lowest and highest consciousness in their collective form.
Social development as a whole does not lose its smooth course, when the ruling elite agrees with the intellectual opposition to it for certain compromises in the interests of the working masses, in particular, through timely reforms.
The characteristic example of a more or less smooth social and cultural development of a community over many centuries is the Roman Empire, in which philosophers had a significant influence on power, in particular, Lucius Annaeus Seneca minor was the most significant in his influence.
A certain balance between patricians and philosophers had a rather positive effect on the position of the plebs, in which, over time, could partially include, as full citizens, the peoples of the territories conquered by Rome, excluding, of course, those, who fell into slavery, although over time many of them became freedmen.
In any case, with all the changes in the ruling elite of the Roman Empire, the free citizens of this empire throughout its existence did not express a desire to change the system, which suited these citizens quite well. On the contrary, these citizens actively participated in the wars of conquest and the suppression of slave uprisings.
Relatively recent events in Libya and Somalia have clearly shown the possibility of disorganization of the system of government of these states, which ceased to exist as a result of an irreconcilable struggle between elites o the ethnic groups, who attracted a significant part of the population to their side with various promises and took advantage of foreign aid, that, in fact, could not be prevented by the missing informal intellectual opposition - the true bearer of culture and altruism , as a result of which there was no force that could counteract the disintegration of these states.
The reason for the onset of such chaos, as noted above, is the extremely low level of self-awareness of both the elites and the population, caused by a significant lag in culture and the adherence of the population to many archaic traditions that are far from altruistic. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fierce, animal struggle for power, which gives all the desired material benefits to its holders - and they do not know about the rest - proudly trampling on their own peoples.
A typical example of stagnation in social development is such a large state as Pakistan. Nothing culturally and technologically interesting is happening in it, except for periodic coups d'etat, which are rather indifferently viewed by its mostly Muslim population, while rather weak opposition forces are not able to force the power elites, who are only interested in themselves, to intensify the cultural development of society.
The reason for this stagnation is the inability of power-hungry rulers with an extremely low level of altruistic self-consciousness to pay attention to the barely audible demands of the informal opposition to pay more attention to the education of the population so that it finally moves away from a passive life and started to show creativity in science, technology and culture, like the population of developed countries. countries of the world.
The turn of events in the direction of moving away from stagnation or chaos manifests itself in the form of progressive reforms or revolutions, reflecting a different - more appropriate to the realities of life - form of development of society, at this by the guiding force of the revolution, as a rule, is the informal opposition to those in power.
Therefore, the revolution is the most striking manifestation of the confrontation between the lowest consciousness, which dominates the power elite, and the highest consciousness with a predominance of altruism, which dominates the informal opposition to the authorities.
Outwardly, this confrontation manifests itself defiantly against the background of the emergence of problems in the economic sphere, provoking popular discontent, alienation and resistance of the elites, and the emergence of new forms of ideology.
Of course, revolutionary events can take place only with a sufficiently high level of self-awareness, which is present not only in the ranks of the informal opposition to the ruling elite, but also covers a significant part of society, as a result of which it becomes possible for society to understand the need to eliminate the unfair distribution of existing benefits and disproportions in society and the economy, with which the entire mass of the population cannot but agree, and this need is explained by new forms of ideology, thereby dropping the authority of the authorities, incapable of carrying out urgent reforms.
In essence, a revolution differs from a coup by the superiority of the new ideas of the informal opposition over the ideology of the ruling elite with the recognition of these ideas by the masses. Thanks to this, the highest consciousness of the informal opposition to the ruling elite in its altruistic expression finally finds agreement with the extreme degree of dissatisfaction of the lowest consciousness of the masses, outraged by the impossibility of a normal existence in the current situation, placing their hopes on the new slogans of the opposition.
In turn, a high level of self-consciousness does not appear by itself, but is a product of a sufficiently high degree of cultural and technological development of society, during which both factors mutually influence each other.
Therefore, there were no revolutionary events, for example, during the transformation of the slave-owning system into a feudal one, which corresponded to a long process of awareness by the active part of the population of the futility of slave labor, leading society into stagnation both for the slaves themselves and for the development of technologies, Therefore, in order for labor to bring more income , it had to be released to a certain extent, that is, to interest workers in the results of labor, which happened gradually over time.
As proof of the reliability of the considerations we have cited about the decisive role of these hidden root causes of any social revolution, the secondary role of known external causes can be shown by examples when the presence of known causes does not lead to a sudden radical change in the social system, that is, a revolution, namely: in the form of several historical turning points in the social movement of ancient China. These events could be regarded as revolutions, according to reasons that modern researchers have put forward as true, but which, as will be shown below, are not.
Next, consider the example of fundamental reforms in Japan, that is, without revolutionary events, although these events are considered the Meiji revolution, as well as examples of counter-revolution in Russia and France, which are still classified as revolutionary events, having noted the manifestation of the hidden root causes of the bourgeois revolution in Russia. and France, together with the external well-known causes of the revolution, which in these countries was divided by reaction for many decades.
In the III century BC, the emperor Qing Shi Huangdi conducted a series of successful wars, in particular, with the Huns, began the construction of the Great Wall of China, having pushed aside for limits of the Great Wall of Huns, removed the old nobility from power, and his officials were set at the head of the provinces.
However, the land owners have been impoverished by the gradually rising costs on the army, the bureaucratic apparatus.
Cruelty of these measures has caused discontent of impoverished community members, as well as the nobility, removed from the governing of the country.
To this was added discontent with the barracks discipline, cruel punishments of the guilty, executions of Confucians who have opposed the oppression created.
Immediately after the death of Qing Shi Huangdi (end of III century BC), a mass uprising of the land owners began, to which the slaves also joined.
The most successful of the leaders of the uprising - the rural head Liu Bang - in 207 BC overthrew the last representative of the Qing dynasty, and the following year proclaimed himself Emperor, having founded a new dynasty Hang (the Old Hang Dynasty).
Under this dynasty, successful aggressive actions were widely deployed. However, the aggressive policy required enormous resources. Taxes began to be collected even from children and the elderly, prices grew. Population towards the end of I century BC more and more convinced of the inability of the bureaucracy to change the situation for the better.
General discontent caused the revolt in several provinces.
The rebels dyed their eyebrows in red as a distinctive sign (the "Red Eyebrows" revolt). They captured the capital, killed the emperor-usurper, who removed from the power of the heirs of the Hang dynasty, and in the 25th AD to power came again representatives of the Han dynasty (the Junior Hang dynasty).
Both of these cases of turning events in China could well be considered revolutions, since they corresponded to the reasons that modern researchers have put forward as true for the occurrence of revolutions.
Indeed, it is impossible to deny the aggravation of problems in the economic sphere, the alienation and resistance of the elites, popular discontent. External influences in favor of one or the other opposing parties were also absent. Confucianism was widely spread, which does not encourage open violence and cruel robbed of the population by the rulers, which can be considered an ideological influence on the population that counteracts the official ideology of the ruling dynasty. It is also impossible to deny the fall in the authority of power in both cases.
Nevertheless, the consequences of these seemingly turning points in the form of the victory of the insurgent people did not bring any radical transformation of social relations - the administrative and social structures did not change in any way - only a new emperor appeared, founding his own dynasty, and the bureaucracy was updated.
However, the absence of a transition from one qualitative state to another in the social sphere finds a completely reliable explanation by considering the problem of turning points in the history of the development of society from the standpoint of determining the state of the collectivist lowest and highest forms of consciousness, as mentioned above.
In this case, the accumulated dissatisfaction of the lowest consciousness of all sections of the working people with the situation, which found themselves in a hopeless situation physically destroyed due to the cruel actions of the ruling bureaucracy, and the extremely low level of self-consciousness of the ruling elites, who, as a result, did not have access to a view of a more democratic organization of society, could only lead to a change in the ruling regime, but not to a radical reorganization of public life, which no one had any idea about.
Indeed, revolutions or constructive reforms are possible only at that level of social development, when the masses of the people are associated to the heights of culture, and the always primitive power elite in its closure to its own privileges should be noticeably counteracted by an informal opposition with a high level of altruism in its own self-consciousness and broad views on democratization society. Only under these conditions is it possible for a revolutionary situation to arise, while in ancient China these conditions were absent: the masses were completely illiterate, and if there was informal opposition to the ruling elite, then in a hidden form of more or less progressive bureaucracy, usually afraid to manifest itself in an open struggle with the imperial power.
In turn, the example of Japan shows that talking about the indigenous changes in the system of government and economy that took place in the second half of the 19th century as a revolution in this feudal country with a medieval way of life, the policy of isolation from the rest of the world does not make sense even for formal reasons: there were no until the middle of the 19th century contradictions tearing the country , there were no problems in the economic sphere, popular discontent was at the usual level, new forms of ideology did not appear, but the international situation turned out to be very unfavorable due to the actual invasion of some coastal areas of Japan by foreign powers - under pressure from the US Navy squadron in 1854, Japan was forced to conclude an unequal trade agreement, in 1863 one of the southern Japanese cities, and later another city in Japan was fired upon by the combined fleet of Great Britain, the USA, the Netherlands and France.
This shows that the isolationist policy of the Japanese leadership failed, and Japan was forced to rebuild its politics and economy in order not to become a colony of the West.
It was this external reason for external influence on Japan that led to the rejection of the policy of isolationism, and the subsequent restructuring of the country's administration, effective reforms in the economy and politics for almost half a century, that is, to the reform of the foundations on the part of the authorities.
Thus, the explanation for the absence of the possibility of a revolution in Japan, although these events are called the Meiji revolution, in our opinion, is that in a feudal country, with a population enslaved by the masters, the absence of at least some opposition to the ruling clan, the level of self-consciousness of the enslaved the population is insufficient for the rapid formation of an independent desire for new forms of beingness, as a result of which it clings tightly to the way of life and traditions obtained by means of many efforts, without striving for a new one.
Therefore, no struggle between the informal opposition and the power elite took place due to the absence of the first, the own time of such a community proceeded slowly and life in it did not particularly change. And only the external impact that has taken place has set this frozen gloomy colossus in motion - but, of course, not in the form of a revolution, but the gradual reforms that the proud ruling elite was forced to carry out after the infighting expressed in military clashes, in order to avoid turning the same elite into pathetic satellites of the developed countries of the West.
By 1917, it became clear to everyone that the ruling elite of Russia, which had dragged the country into the war as a kind of payment in kind for Russia's huge debts to the Entente countries, was absolutely indifferent to people's sacrifices and hardships, completely decomposed and incapable of governing the state. In other words, the level of its self-consciousness fell to the lowest possible level, and the altruistic component of self-consciousness of this elite was practically absent.
At the same time, the intellectual opposition to the ruling elite considered it possible to democratize society by removing the aristocracy from power and electing a Constituent Assembly in the conditions of hostilities, followed by the establishment of a democratic republic, the main levers of government of which, with the passage of appropriate laws, should be in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and not the aristocracy.
It would seem that in the current conditions of the decomposition of the royal regime, all these considerations are not far from the truth, however, the altruistic component of the self-awareness of the bourgeois opposition to the authorities, which make good money in the war, was focused only on the segments of the population close to it, and not on the masses suffering from war, who, naturally, could not treat this policy with approval, moreover, peasants dressed in soldier's overcoats, who have long passed through patriotic ecstasy, despite rampant illiteracy, came to understand the pointlessness of participating in the war for the Dardanelles, that is, for interests alien to them, in the absence of the opportunity to run their own economy, which gradually fell apart without warring masters.
They wanted the end of the war and land reform in their favor. In other words, the accumulated dissatisfaction of their lowest consciousness with the disastrous situation and the self-consciousness naturally demanding justice wanted an immediate resolution of the situation, especially since this seemed possible due to the presence of rifles in their hands.
It was this demand of the peasants that was not taken into account by the bourgeois opposition, which quite successfully carried out its bourgeois revolution in February 1917, and considered it expedient to wage the war to a victorious end, postponing progressive reforms until its completion.
But this demand of the peasants was understood and adopted by the radical part of the informal opposition of the Marxist persuasion - the Bolsheviks, who dreamed of seizing power in Russia for the sake of putting Marx's ideas into practice.
The slogans of the Bolsheviks: the end of the war, freedom for the peoples, land for the peasants, factories for the workers, could not help but attract to their side the masses of working people of different nationalities, and therefore they - almost bloodlessly - have seized power in the country in October 1917.
However, the October change of power in Russia in 1917, which for a long time was recognized as a progressive revolution in comparison with the February revolution of 1917 in Russia, on the contrary, essentially lowered the social status of the state, turning it over time into a typical Asian-type satrapy with a mania for world domination under deceptive slogans of world brotherhood and communist consumer happiness, which quite naturally fell apart quite quickly due to the unattainability of the goals set by the Communist Party, giving rise to the devastated Russia of the present time instead of the USSR. The natural wealth of this Russia is being pumped out by its former rivals, the greedy and stupid Russian elite, consisting of former leading party members, is choking on money that they are not able to attach anywhere except for palaces and yachts, and the humiliated and still impoverished people are only able to watch this action, which is a typical sign of social stagnation.
Therefore, the October attempt to change social relations in favor of the working people should be recognized not as a revolution, but as a counter-revolution, which was inspired by the dissatisfaction of their lowest consciousness caused by a significant decrease in the standard of living of the population and its destruction (war) that dominated in the masses of the people at their extremely weak self-consciousness. Thus, the general illiteracy of the people, the lack of sufficient education and culture in it, and, consequently, the extremely low level of self-consciousness, contributed to the belief of the masses in the false slogans of the Bolsheviks to end the war, which immediately flowed into a bloody civil war. In reality, the land was mostly transferred to collectives – first to communes, and then to collective farms. Instead of the promised transition of factories to the management and use of workers, they became the property of the state., The freedom promised by the Bolsheviks to the peoples in one year turned into a one-party totalitarian regime that suppresses any dissent. The result of this deception was the transformation of the new state not into a popular one, but into a state-bureaucratic one.
As you know, the revolution is characterized by a progressive jump-like transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, which happened in Russia in February 1917, despite its outward form of a coup and an unfinished look, wherea after October of that year, there was only the appearance of the people coming to power, since the levers of government eventually turned out to be at a retrograde pseudo-socialist bureaucracy that retained the imperial consciousness of tsarist Russia with a claim to world domination under the Marxist slogan of achieving communism by all peoples of the planet. To achieve these goals, labor in the country was intensified, the peoples of Russia were transferred into a semi-serf state, and the state itself - into a military mechanism.
Thus, the state that appeared in the place of Russia after the October Revolution, in essence, became the same authoritarian and bureaucratic as the tsarist regime, but hiding behind a fig leaf of public property, behind which was hidden the ownership of everything and all of the Soviet bureaucracy, which could dispose of this property. practically uncontrollably.
The territory, natural resources, high people's potential and the initial enthusiasm of the population, who believed in the justice of the supposedly people's system, made it possible to create a superpower with nuclear weapons due to its super-exploitation and incredible sacrifices. However, the sluggishness of the Soviet bureaucratic machine, the uncompetitiveness of the economy in comparison with the leading capitalist countries, its ambitions of a superpower requiring excessive investments, and the gradually fading enthusiasm of the population, whose standard of living remained extremely low, led this state to collapse in 1991 and the beginning of revolutionary events, which served as a kind of continuation of the bourgeois-democratic February revolution, interrupted by the Bolshevik counter-revolution in October 1917.
The main reason for the collapse of the Soviet empire was that the idea gradually took root in the self-consciousness of the population and the ruling strata of the state that the transfer of management to the rails of a competitive economy, similar to the Western one, and this would be enough to improve the standard of living and gain universal happiness.
In addition, the proclamation of the Soviet person as the best example of such in the world turned out to be a fiction. The absence of real changes in his self-consciousness led him in the result of the lose the goal by the community (building communism) to a throwback - to capitalism so condemned in the USSR (and correctly condemned), where, naturally, he found only mockery at himself.
Along with this reason of the collapse of the USSR, there was also another reason: there was no possibility of reach in this artificial community of a common self-consciousness for all its nationalities which were at various stages of development of self-consciousness that clearly after the collapse of the USSR showed the descent of the republics of Central Asia to feudalism or even to Asian satrapies, and the republics of the Baltics, on the contrary, have directed towards the European Union.
The arrogance of the ruling elite of the country with an extremely low level of self-consciousness, the predominance of aspirations in it for their own material enrichment, and not for the good of the country and the people, led to Russia's rollback to the level of a secondary state, up to turning it into a raw material appendage of the West.
The Russian elite did not take into account that the world had long been divided up by Western monopolies, as a result of which Russia, which until recently was a world superpower, was left out of work. Besides, its supposedly inefficient economy was quickly destroyed in it on Western advice.
As a result, Russia, with its large reserves of raw materials, has actually become a semi-colony of the West, having lost both sales markets and products for sale, except for some types of raw materials, and is still in state of stagnation.
Thus, this communist satrapy, unlike ancient China, did not last long, culminating in a qualitative transformation in 1991 of feudal-despotic methods of ruling the Communist Party for a capitalist way, but again unsuccessfully. As a result, Russia lost the status of a great power. The reason for these failures is the low level of self-awareness of the population of Russia due to its long cultural and technological backwardness and, therefore, the lack of sufficient time for its rise.
Since there is no understanding of such a situation in the sphere of consciousness of the population of Russia, a reliable explanation for such a situation in Russia has not yet been found, as evidenced by the recognition by one scientific school by the October events of 1917 by the great progressive people's revolution, and by another - the adventurous Bolshevik coup that ended in the collapse of the state in 1991.
The above brief analysis of the events in Russia in 1917, in our opinion, showed that the October Revolution of 1917 was a typical counter-revolution in favor of the false Marxist theory, which relatively quickly showed its complete incapacity, contributing, contrary to expectations, to the transformation of the country instead of a communist paradise into a state-bureaucratic monster with anti-democratic methods of government, the introduction of like-mindedness and a gradual lag in the pace of development from the developed countries of the world.
Be that as it may, but along with the negative features of certain events, for the most part, positive ones also coexist.
In particular, China and Russia did not disintegrate either due to internal reasons or due to external pressure of powers competing with them, retaining their original culture and self-consciousness of the collectivist type, as opposed to a culture based on an egocentric type of self-consciousness that produces a society with purely individualistic aspirations, which , to a large extent, as a result of this, in the person of its elites, it seeks to isolate itself from the rest of the countries of the world, believing itself to be superior to them in terms of culture and technological equipment, and not considering it shameful to rob the rest, as they consider, underdeveloped countries, and at the same time destroy their culture and national characteristics .
The revolutionary and anti-revolutionary events in Russia lasted for more than 70 years. Similar events lasted almost as long in France, starting from 1789 and ending in 1870, having a similar character.
Let's try to show it.
The indignation of the Parisian people in 1789, culminating in the storming of the Bastille, marked the beginning of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in France under the slogan "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity", the causes of which are quite consistent with the external causes of any progressive revolution: problems in the economic sphere, alienation and resistance of the elites, popular discontent, the emergence of new forms of ideology, a favorable international situation.
Indeed, the inability of the authorities to carry out urgent reforms in accordance with the socio-political changes in the country, the financial crisis, the unwillingness of the upper classes to give up at least part of their privileges, the increased wealth of the bourgeoisie, who demanded an increase in their status, the emergence of a new ideology of the Enlightenment, squeezing all the juice out of the people for the sake of a luxurious life of the decaying upper strata of power could not but lead to the overthrow of the unfit regime of absolutism.
As a result of the revolution, the legislative branch, the central administration, the courts, and the church were reformed. All privileges were abolished, and then the monarchy was abolished.
However, the economic situation continued to deteriorate, from all sides there was an offensive by the troops of the monarchies surrounding France. The bourgeois government could not cope with the onslaught of unfavorable circumstances.
And then, as well as more than a hundred years later - in Russia, the most radical group of revolutionaries, the Jacobins, set to work. They, like the Bolsheviks at one time, appealed to the peasants for support, carrying out for their sake an additional division of land and a law abolishing seigneurial duties and feudal rights without any compensation.
Such measures allowed them to seize and consolidate their power, which quickly turned into a dictatorship with a policy of reducing large fortunes and terror for the sake of universal obedience.
Thus, democratic initiatives were destroyed and regression began, the next form of which was the policy of the Thermidorians, who preached enrichment by any means.
In the end, the move to the right led to the establishment of Napoleon's empire, and then to the restoration of the power of the Bourbons, which, after many upheavals, was replaced by the power of Napoleon III, who was overthrown by the bourgeois revolution of 1870, similar to the 1991 revolution in Russia.
The reason for such a long and with many victims of the establishment of bourgeois-democratic rule in France, in our opinion, is, first of all, the mood of the self-consciousness of the informal opposition to the ruling elite on utopian ideas, that consider it possible to form a fair people's state, which contradict the very logic of the development of civilization in the course of the struggle collectivist lowest and highest forms of consciousness of any community, expressed in confrontation of the power elite and the opposition to it, the result of which is the accelerated development of the community.
This development can be both evolutionary in the case of compromises between these two forces, and revolutionary, if none is observed, with the involvement of the masses in this confrontation.
Just as the false ideas of communist equality, contrary to the idea of liberty, led to terror and civil war in Russia, the consequence of which was the establishment of a despotic regime for 70 years, the idea of introducing wholesale equality led the Jacobins to terror, which in turn caused the rise to power retrogrades with the rollback of the state to authoritarian methods of government for more than a hundred years.
With equally unusual and even paradoxical views not only on the revolution, but also on a person, state, beingness, civilization, dream visions, etc., you can find in my articles and essays posted on Amazon, litres.ru website, as well as some other sites by typing in the search engine of the corresponding site my data - Yury Nizovtsev.