General notebook. What is liberalism and what are its features?

What do all liberals have in common? What unites them into a single whole? What ideas is liberal ideology based on?

There is something in common that merges all liberals into a single liberal stream. There are common points, common ideas and principles for the entire liberal movement. These ideas appeared during the Renaissance and were fully revealed and formed in modern times.

Let us note everything in common that unites all the liberals of the world, regardless of their views and positions, be they Democrats or Republicans, Laborites or Nationalists, Socialists or Communists, Social Democrats or Christian Democrats.

LIBERAL VALUES.

The first on this list is the idea of ​​self-sufficiency of a person who is capable of building independently, that is, without the help of God. happy life on earth, relying solely on your mind. Giving up faith in God is the first thing a person does on the path to freedom.

Only God, who stands outside the world, can somehow limit a person’s actions in the world, punishing or rewarding him during life or after death. The eternal soul residing in a material body on earth receives what it deserves after death physical body, - rejection of God means rejection of the idea of ​​​​the eternal life of the soul. In modern times, the idea of ​​the Renaissance about the ability of man to arrange his own life took shape in atheism, that is, in the complete denial of the existence of God and immortal soul, independent of the body.

Liberalism is based on the belief in the self-sufficiency of man and his power to organize his life on earth according to his own will.

From this belief flow two ideological pillars of liberalism:

1. refusal of faith in God and denial of the immortality of the soul - atheism;

2. humanism instead of religious morality - love for mankind without God.

Since the Enlightenment, new concepts have been added to these fundamental values ​​of liberalism:

3. progress - constant growth of material achievements, constant increase in the material well-being of a person as a symbol and meaning of progressive development.

4. freedom - “I do not agree with your opinion, but I am ready to give my life so that you can express it” (Voltaire).

5. human rights and the rule of law;

6. feminism.

“PROGRESS UNSTOPS!”

The ideology of liberalism postulates progress as a result of the liberation of man from God. Whatever definition of progress we take, each of them contains provisions about progress as the desire to achieve top level development of productive forces. The concept of progress is constantly associated with the development of science and technology, with achievements in production, with the achievement of higher labor productivity, with the cultural achievements of man, with his moral development.

Belief in progress, in the “progressive development of humanity” directly follows from belief in the ability of the human mind to manage in arranging its life without outside help God. Progress, progressive development is the reward of a free person for renouncing faith in God.

A person who has abandoned religion and faith in God enters the path of progress, which means a constant increase in material wealth per capita. Material scientific and technological progress ensures the satisfaction of human needs and develops new needs, the satisfaction of which requires further progressive material development on an ever-increasing scale. This is how the mechanism of progress works - launched with man’s refusal of God, through the satisfaction of “old” and the development of “new” human needs, he unlimitedly strives to expand material production, uncontrollably polluting and destroying the natural world, to which he is purely consumerist - now man is the master of nature , not God.

The socio-economic achievements of peoples and states have become a criterion for their progressive development. Liberalism explicitly uses the “achievements of progress” for its self-promotion, encouraging all countries to “embark on the path of progress and prosperity.” “Advanced” countries are presented in various ratings as role models, while “backward” countries are mercilessly ridiculed. And liberalism presents itself as a condition necessary for the transition from “backward” to “advanced”.

Historically, in a certain period, European Catholic and then Protestant countries began to develop economically, scientifically and technologically faster than other regions of the Earth. Having abandoned all Christian standards of behavior, rejected all the commandments of Christ, and robbed everyone who turned out to be weaker, the Europeans appropriated to themselves the title of “progressive part of humanity.” And in modern times, the European continent has become the focus of the highest indicators in all areas of human activity.

Progress, like freedom, cannot be stopped, since after abandoning God, nothing can limit human greed. “For children to live materially better than their parents” is the slogan of progressive development. And it doesn’t matter that this slogan is directly aimed at destroying the planet from environmental pollution and humanity from economic contradictions. And it doesn’t matter that this slogan automatically turns parents into “dark and backward”, and children into “advanced and progressive”.

To whom will a person be responsible for his deeds if “there is no God”? Before the “corrupt state”? Before a society where “no one cares about anyone” and where “everyone is for himself”? To the “distant” ones, for whom “only business and nothing personal” is important? Before our “neighbors”, whom the liberal lifestyle has raised to be insatiable consumers material goods?

To yourself? Yes, completeness! Look at yourself - there is no way that you will limit your whims voluntarily. No matter how much you draw a skull and crossbones on cigarette packs, no matter how much the Ministry of Health warns about the dangers of smoking, the problem is still there. No matter how much you talk about the dangers of alcohol, people “drank, drink, and will drink.” No matter how much you scare us with drugs, there are no fewer drug addicts. And admit it honestly to yourself: can’t you do without a personal member? Do you really need an SUV? The more powerful the engine and the more bodies, the better?

As one famous liberal said, “I want every person to have a personal car.” What! And let the whole world suffocate from exhaust gases, burn and freeze in a general environmental catastrophe - then, probably, the kingdom of slow-witted progress will come.

The idea of ​​progress does not include a person’s self-restraint in the consumption of material goods, because self-restraint presupposes a person’s awareness of his responsibility for nature, the state, society and family, presupposes a person’s responsibility for himself, and a liberal person “owes nothing to anyone.” Reasonable restrictions on one’s needs for the sake of general well-being are unknown to a liberal person, who is concerned only with his own well-being, because “we only live once.”

The result of the progressive development of humanity in modern times has become a systemic crisis of the 21st century, which threatens to destroy European liberal civilization.

Corrupted by progress and the constant growth of material consumption, the European world is faced with insoluble problems: nature can no longer tolerate the “progressive development of mankind,” nor can “backward” peoples who no longer agree to pay for the well-being of “civilized” countries at their own expense. And the economies of “progressive” countries can no longer ensure “constant growth in the well-being” of their citizens. And the depopulation of the indigenous European population in the countries of the “golden billion” has become a mystically insoluble problem, with which the “advanced” and “progressives” cannot do anything.

A person liberated by liberalism has no responsibility either to himself or to anyone. Without faith in the absolute power of God, a person becomes completely irresponsible.

“THIS SWEET WORD IS FREEDOM.”

Freedom has now been declared the main value of the world. The sum of views and ideas dedicated to human freedom constitutes the ideology of freedom. The economically developed countries of the planet consider freedom a condition for their further prosperity, and the liberal path of development is proclaimed the only one worthy of man. The entire policy of the countries of the “golden billion” is aimed at expanding the scope of liberal ideas. And liberalism in modern world has become a truly comprehensive ideology on the basis of which the vast majority of countries develop. Liberal ideology - the ideology of freedom - became the main ideology of human development in the twentieth century.

Freedom is an attractive candy wrapper that the average person buys into in pursuit of permissiveness. The average person does not want to do anything for others, for society, for the state, for the country, but only for himself and only for money. “Why the hell do I need this state, this country, this society!” The average person doesn’t care about anything and everything except his freedom, the freedom to live for himself and his own pleasure.

Due to his ignorance, the average person does not understand that the slogan “more freedom” means not only an increase in his opportunities to express himself, but also an increase in the opportunities of other people to carry out their activities. Including for thieves, murderers, criminals and scoundrels of all kinds. The unbridled growth of corruption in liberated godless societies is the first result of liberation; all “developed” countries are now thoroughly corrupt.

Freedom is the most speculative concept.

Generally speaking, freedom to think cannot be prohibited in principle - a person in this sense is free initially and forever. A person cannot help but think about everything in the world the way he wants. But in addition to absolute freedom to think, a person also strives to act on the basis of his free thoughts. And here important point- Are all the actions of a free-thinking person acceptable for free implementation?

Live alone on a desert island far from civilization - and then do whatever you want! That's where freedom is! But if a person wants to use the services of a person of the other sex, for example, or the achievements of other people - fire, a wheel, and so on, he needs to weigh his desires, his freedom of expression with the desires and freedom of other people. These measurements inevitably lead to restrictions on human desires and freedoms.

These restrictions are determined by the historical development of society, the level of economic development, culture, and so on. Each society, each state in its own way resolves the issues of the possibility of realizing the internal freedom of an individual in the outside world. And throughout the history of mankind, there has been a comprehension of the boundaries of freedom of human behavior.

Freedom is the first argument of a scoundrel.

When someone wants to realize their own goals with the help of other people, they always start shouting about freedom. Freedom is the “carrot” with which you can captivate any person. You just need to show an obvious or hidden “lack of freedom” and show the “enemy” who “takes away” this freedom.

When a scoundrel wants to carry out his vile deed, he begins by trying to gain supporters, luring people to him with promises of freedom. How many scoundrels in history have used the concept of freedom for their own selfish purposes! How many people died in the battles for freedom, fighting each other! Isn't the Jolly Roger a symbol of freedom, a symbol of freedom to rob and kill? For what freedom were Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II executed? For the sake of the freedom of which people was Emperor Paul the First brutally killed?

Hitler, starting his political activity, did not talk about gas chambers, about the genocide of Jews, about the massacre of the Slavs, about the enslavement of Europe. Then he spoke about freedom - about freedom for Germans to live in their own country according to their own laws.

Freedom “led people to the barricades” and freedom allowed “sheep to eat people.” Europeans in modern times proclaimed themselves a stronghold of freedom in a world for which European freedom turned into total enslavement of peoples.

Herzen’s statement about Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo is interesting: when looking at the picture depicting the meeting of Wellington and Blucher, he had a feeling of deep regret - freedom had just been trampled by these people. But this same event is presented by the British as a victory of freedom over dictatorship! And to this day, in France, Napoleon is assessed as a bearer of freedom, and in England as a representative of despotism.

The discrepancies in the understanding of freedom among European peoples indicate that freedom is understood by Europeans speculatively, from the point of view of freedom for themselves. That is why, proclaiming “free development for all peoples,” Europeans brutally dealt with all the peoples of the earth that they could reach. Freedom for everyone in fact turned into freedom to rob and kill everyone who resists European selfishness. Having conquered other nations under the banner of introducing civilization, the Europeans built a well-fed life for themselves, dooming many hundreds of millions of “backward and uncivilized” people to a hopelessly miserable existence.

The most cruel forces and thoughts still hide under the flag of freedom. It was the struggle for freedom that justified the international invasion of Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It was freedom that became there a symbol of war, devastation, disasters, disorder and hostility of peoples.

Not a single modern war “for the sake of freedom” has improved the life of the “liberated” peoples! But “fighters for your and our freedom” continue to push people into the crucible of fratricidal war.

Having finally freed themselves from the obligation to follow the moral principles of Christ, people began to intensively free themselves from each other. Over the past centuries, races, peoples, countries, classes, and groups of people have been declared to be hindering the progressive development of mankind. Even the male sex was declared “the strangler of women’s freedom”!

In France in the 16th century, for example, Catholics frantically liberated their country from the Huguenots, who obviously prevented them from living freely.

And in England in the 16th century, gallows with tens of thousands of hanged people stood on all the roads, as a symbol of the country’s freedom from beggary.

Half of the inhabitants of 17th century Germany freed themselves from the other half of the inhabitants, who, apparently, greatly interfered with their freedom.

Hundreds of millions of indigenous people in America and Africa were freed from life in order for Europeans to feel like free people bringing progress and prosperity to the world.

Tens of millions of Indians greatly interfered with the freedom of the British to bring civilization to the backward areas of India, for which they had to be severely punished.

The 18th century shocked contemporaries with the liberation of the third estate from feudal remnants and the violent terror unleashed by the liberated to establish freedom at home and throughout Europe. It took millions of European lives to calm the freedom that was raging in France.

And in the 19th century, a desperate struggle for the freedom of the oppressed classes began in the world, sweeping across all continents: the freedom of some was declared the curse of others - the multi-million masses proclaimed their goal to die for freedom and destroy the multi-million masses of enemies in battles for their freedom.

Well, the 20th century generally became the apotheosis of freedom, for the sake of whose noble goals two world wars and hundreds of small wars were fought all over the world. Defending their right to freedom, people brutally dealt with other people who defended their vision of freedom. A little more and the whole world would have burned in the final battle for freedom.

But then the 20th century ended and the 21st century began.

A TALE OF RIGHTS.

Another liberal “trick” is human rights or, even more strictly, “inalienable” human rights. Like, “all people have equal rights from birth.”

And it would be okay if this phrase - human rights - sounded in the context of “The state provides all people with equal rights from birth” - it would be understandable and acceptable. But no! Liberals are fundamentally against mentioning the state as a guarantor of human rights! From their point of view, the state is a coercive apparatus, which means it is the enemy of liberalism. Liberalism declares itself to be an implacable critic of the state.

In the Middle Ages, papal policy was aimed at the complete subordination of secular power in Europe to the dictates of the Catholic Church. There was a gradual merging catholic church with secular power. It was with the hands of secular authorities that the Catholic Church carried out its bloody deeds in Europe. Therefore, it is not surprising that the figures of the Renaissance, following the discredit of the Catholic Church, became critics of the power of the state over the individual. If Catholicism morally suppresses the individual, then the state suppresses both morally and physically.

However, the state is a creation of man. It becomes immoral only by the will of people. And the European medieval state became immoral because it was subordinated to the interests of the Catholic Church, which refused to follow the moral guidelines of Christ. The Catholic perversion of Christianity could not but disfigure both man and state. This is what the scientists of the New Age could not understand - along with the righteous criticism of the Catholic Church and the state subordinate to it, they began to criticize religion and the state in general.

A liberal cannot praise the “coercive apparatus,” therefore, when speaking about human rights, he tries not to mention the state at all. Allegedly, a person from birth has some rights - it is unknown by whom and how they were established.

Human rights cannot come from God, because for the liberal, “There is no God.”

Human rights cannot come from society, because a free person cares only about himself own rights- a free person will not take on the burden of ensuring the rights of others.

Human rights cannot come from nature - they are not written in the sky or on stones.

Liberals came up with the so-called “rule of law state,” the meaning of which is to be a guarantor of “natural human rights.” That is, it was not the state that gave rights to man, but a certain “nature”, and the role of the state was only stupidly to “ensure”. And this “theory” is presented as truth!

So, human rights can only come from the state, which means that it is necessary to improve in every possible way, to develop in every possible way the capabilities of the state so that it really serves the people. However, this sharply contradicts liberalism, which rejects any regulation of freedom.

The activities of some “human rights defenders” who sharply criticize the state, and not a specific state official, are especially disgusting. These people do not understand (or do not want to understand) that human well-being depends only on the state. That we must fight not with the state, but with the official who has appropriated the state for himself. That only a strong state can provide everyone with equally fair rights. That a weak state becomes an instrument of evil in the hands of scoundrels. Liberal human rights defenders, by belittling the state, destroy any basis for real respect for human rights.

Not to belittle the state, but to improve the management system is the only way to respect the human rights given to a person by the state.

However, criticizing a specific official, a specific person is more expensive for oneself, but criticizing “the state in general” is not so scary for a “brave” liberal. A specific person can kill a specific person, and the state, bound by laws, is forced to tolerate any lie and patiently examine every accusation.

THE EVIL CREATION OF LIBERALISM.

Feminism grew and strengthened precisely in the “struggle of women for their rights and freedoms.” Moreover, if this struggle were limited exclusively to “ civil rights“, then feminism would not become such a destroyer of society as it is now. But the fact is that godless liberalism has no internal limitations, therefore, having begun with the fight for civil rights, feminism quickly rebuilt itself into the “struggle against male chauvinism.” Feminism has made a major contribution to perversion family relations, in the destruction of the family, in reducing the birth rate to the level of depopulation.

Feminism is the ideological expression of a woman’s refusal to play the role prepared for her by nature. This is an ideological justification for a woman’s reluctance to give birth and be a mother. Not a refusal of the opportunity to communicate with children, but a woman’s refusal to give birth to children - many feminists are very child-loving, they care about children in general, they even adopt abandoned children, but they do not want to give birth themselves.

Feminism is a perversion of human nature. It arose on the basis of materialistic ideas of the 18th century, when the average person had an idea of ​​the omnipotence of science, the idea that science had already “almost discovered everything,” the idea that enough had already been known to draw the right conclusions. The conclusions about the position of women in society were made false, obscurantist, because they were based on false scientific ideas and on the rejection of faith in God.

The methods of feminism are very characteristic.

They say that a certain lady, one of the first feminists, demanded that the President of the United States important post, previously occupied only by men. The President, naturally, refused. Then this lady guessed the time of the president’s bath and came to him with her demand. The President, like a true gentleman, could not get out of the water and appear before the lady in an inappropriate manner. Therefore, he was forced to agree to accept the lady’s conditions - this is how one of the first victories of feminism was won.

What do we see in this story? Here is a direct clash of two ideologies, two faiths, two moral paradigms. The first says that a person should not, does not have the right to sink to the level of an animal - a person must, in order to be a person, adhere to certain moral standards set by God. The second behavioral paradigm directly follows from the writings of the Marquis de Sade - do whatever you want to achieve your goal, because there will be no judgment, and we only live once.

In this story, the morality of a prostitute collided with the morality of a spiritual and moral person. If the president were as libertine as the lady, he would get out of the water and send the woman to hell, that’s all. But he was a gentleman.

Feminism cannot fail to win in a liberal society, just like progress. Spiritual morality always loses in a clash with the complete immorality of an atheist - it’s “like a schoolboy fighting with selected punks.”

PRINCIPLES OF LIBERALISM.

A person lives his daily life according to some generally accepted principles in a given society. A person may be completely unaware of the content of these principles - he simply coordinates his behavior in accordance with the generally accepted norms of behavior in a given society. A person perceives the way of life in which a given society lives, rarely thinking about the principles on which this image is based.

The basis of the way of life is morality - ideas about how people should live with each other. How is morality understood in modern liberal society? European world, if the way of life of Europeans has led the world to a systemic crisis?

The ideas of the Renaissance are expressed in the principles by which modern liberalism exists:

Economism - since money has replaced God, all issues are resolved with the help of money - an “economic” approach to solving any problems;

Relativity - since there is no God, then there is no criterion of truth, there is no truth and lies, which means that everyone can interpret the truth according to their own will, which, for example, Europeans have been skillfully doing for hundreds of years, justifying their intervention in the lives of the peoples of the earth;

Tolerance (tolerance) - since there is no truth, then everything in the world is worthy of existence, therefore one should not fight any perversion;

Political correctness - since there is no truth, then keep your opinion about good and evil to yourself, no one is interested in it.

All the principles of liberalism automatically follow from the actual denial of God and His morality.

What unites all liberals, right and left, into a single whole is their “scientific” denial of religion and God and the reduction of all questions of human existence to economic development- economism. Atheism and economism are a couple of ideas on which liberalism is based in the struggle for a bright future for man and humanity. And in modern times, money has become a universal indicator of economic development, the use of which is removed from all restrictions established by religion.

“The modern development model, which is now called “ scientific and technological progress”, took shape in the 17th-18th centuries in Western Europe after the “value revolution” of the 16th-17th centuries, which abolished the ban on usury that had prevailed for more than a thousand years. Of course, like any biblical prohibition, it was not fully observed, but in the system of economic relations as a whole, loan interest was not used” (Mikhail Khazin).

Religion with its moral prohibitions stands in the way of human liberation, which means that the first step to freedom is renunciation of religion. The second step - the place of God is taken by money, which becomes the measure of everything. This leads to the main ideas and slogans of liberalism: “Money solves all problems”, “Time is money”, “There is no such thing as too much money”. Moreover, these ideas are recognized by both right-wing liberals in capitalist countries and left-wing liberals in communist-socialist countries. Reducing all problems to the problem of money is the essence of solving all problems in liberal countries of any type.

A striking example of this is the constant rating comparison of countries by the level of their wealth, by the level of GDP per capita, by the level of material support citizens and so on. These comparisons implicitly impose the idea that a person’s happiness directly depends on material development - they say, the higher the level of progress, that is, the more material benefits you give to people, the happier they will be. And the level of happiness is compared with the number of cars, meat, rags, and so on per person. And all countries of the world are gradually being drawn into this game, envying the “advanced and progressive” ones, and trying to bring their production up to their level.

But the fact of the matter is that a person’s happiness does not depend on the level of the number of rags per capita. And no matter how well people in any country begin to live, liberal ratings helpfully remind that “you have not yet reached the level of consumption of advanced countries,” causing eternal envy, disappointment and anger in a person’s soul. This happened in the Soviet Union in the 80s, when the people did not lift a finger to save their real well-being, believing the promises of a handful of crooks who carried out the plans of Western democracies for the collapse of the USSR.

Here's a recent example: Libya had the highest standard of living of all African countries, but what's the point? When a bunch of liberals began to demand freedom, the people did not even really realize the tragedy of the situation and allowed their real material well-being to be destroyed, which is now unlikely to ever return.

It is not the level of production and consumption that makes a people happy, courageous and persistent in the fight against enemies, which every state has, but a moral spirit that can only be associated with faith in God, and not with “material achievements.”

If the leaders Soviet Union and Libya would care more about the spiritual values ​​of its people, about truth and conscience, rather than about production and consumption; no ratings would lead the people astray from the path of building a just society.

One of the main principles of liberalism is the principle of relativity. Everything is relative - for some the truth is “white”, and for others it is “black”. The principle of relativity follows from the denial of the existence of God: since there is no God, then absolute truth does not exist in the world. If “there is no God,” then in the human understanding of the world there is no criterion of truth, according to which one could say where the truth is and where the lie is. In order to use the concepts of “truth” and “falsehood,” you must have a criterion of truth that is objective and independent of people’s opinions, and without God such a criterion simply does not exist - hence everyone has their own opinion on any issue.

Since, according to liberal ideas, every person is his own master, has every right to talk about everything in the world from birth (and it doesn’t matter that he was born a fool), then every person under liberalism acts exclusively in the interests of his own prosperous existence on earth. Satisfying your needs at any cost is the moral law of liberalism at all times. After all, you only live once!

From the principle of relativity follows the principle of tolerance (tolerance for everything), when you cannot criticize what does not coincide with your view, even if it contradicts your life, the lives of people close to you. Tolerance is not only tolerance towards cripples, for example, but also towards perversions of human flesh, towards moral deformity.

On the one hand, liberalism proclaims the freedom of a person to express his opinion, and on the other hand, it prohibits him from calling a spade a spade, for example, calling a criminal a criminal - “only the court has the right to call a person a criminal.” That is, if I know that a person is a thief, I know it one hundred percent, and everyone around me knows it, and the thief himself does not hide the fact that he is a thief, but the court cannot prove the fact of theft, due to the skillful defense of those hired stolen money from lawyers, then I have no right to call a thief a thief. I will be held accountable and imprisoned for insulting an “innocent” person.

If theft is not proven in court, then it never happened - criminals skillfully use this in a free society. Since money can buy everything, including smart lawyers, then some part of the stolen funds should be allocated to support lawyers. This is how stolen money whitens thieves in the free world.

Have your own opinion, but keep it to yourself - that’s what liberal tolerance means. Everything in liberal life must be perceived tolerantly, tolerantly - this logically follows from the relativity of good and evil in liberalism. After the abandonment of God and his absolute truth, the criterion for selecting truth and lies, virtue and villainy, ceased to exist - hence the forced tolerance to everything and everyone. After all, without the criterion of truth, it is impossible to know what is “good” and what is “bad”! We must endure and smile sweetly at a rapist, a thief, an extortionist, a sadist, a pedophile... after all, they are “free citizens like everyone else.”

Tolerance for dissent has reached such an extent that the Internet is literally bursting with pornography of all kinds. And sadists who molest and kill children are given comfortable prison terms at the expense of society. The nonentity who kills a genius writes his “memoirs and reflections,” hoping to someday be released with honor. And we endure everything, we endure...

And there is no smell of democracy here: the majority of people in all “civilized” countries, for example, are for the death penalty, but the liberal leaders of these countries directly declare that in this matter they “do not follow the lead of the base passions of the immature part of society.” That is, the people deserve to choose liberal leaders, but they do not deserve to realize their opinion on the issue of the death penalty.

What a hypocrite, this liberal democracy of yours!

Dogmatic liberalism is manifested in the so-called “political correctness,” which implies the use of “words that are not offensive to a person.” It got to the point that the words “father”, “mother”, “brother”, “sister” and so on became offensive “in developed civilized countries”. That is, the liberal world is being remade, rebuilt in the spirit of completely discrediting the entire cultural heritage of humanity.

Representatives of various minorities come to power in the Western world in the era of dogmatic liberalism and are given the opportunity to impose their opinions on the entire society. For the sake of the interests of small groups that have broken through to power on the wave of liberalism, the entire system of values ​​thanks to which humanity has existed from time immemorial is being reshaped and deformed.

In the modern free world, it is impossible to freely love your children, it is impossible to freely call evil evil, and truth the truth. It has become impossible in a free society to call mom mom and dad dad. It is now impossible in the “most child-friendly” liberal world to call children “boy” or “girl.” But now you can freely engage in pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. And soon, it will probably be possible to register there marital relations with things and animals.

The truth of life goes even further into the shadows, hiding even more from persecution. But she is! It lives and sooner or later it will sweep away everything superficial, like the wind carries away husks. Well, you may now forbid calling your mother mom, but this does not mean that people will forget this word. People’s anger at this verbiage will simply accumulate for some time - “parent No. 1” and “parent No. 2”, and then an explosion of hatred will follow, sweeping away everything in its path.

Liberals are intensively preparing the world for carnage with their progressive innovations. But they cannot do otherwise - the concept of progress requires constant changes in the spirit of further liberation of man, now from himself. There is very little time left for the sadistic ideas of the Marquis de Sade to finally end the existence of progressive peoples.

LIBERAL DEFINITION OF LIBERALISM.

“Liberals (French lib;ralisme) is a philosophical, political and economic ideology based on the fact that the rights and freedoms of the individual are the legal basis of the social and economic order. This trend is characterized by tolerance towards any legal means dispose of yourself and your property. The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, the free exchange of politically relevant information, limited power of the state and church, the rule of law, private property and freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the principles that had been the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to power and the role of religion as the only source of knowledge. The fundamental principles of liberalism include the recognition of: natural rights (including the rights to life, personal liberty and property), as well as other civil rights; equality and equality before the law; market economy; government accountability and transparency state power».

In this definition, every position confuses a normal person.

“The rights and freedoms of the individual are the legal basis of social and economic order.” - How can the rights and freedoms of an individual be combined with social order if a person’s desires are not limited by any norms, since “There is no God,” and whenever possible a person takes upon himself the maximum possible rights and freedoms at the expense of the rights and freedoms of other people?

“This movement is characterized by tolerance towards any legal means of disposing of oneself and one’s property.” - So laws are made by people, and what was once illegal can become legal over time, and vice versa. The law, as we know from history, favors those in power and the rich. They make laws for themselves, using their capabilities. They change laws as they please, and tolerate the fact that one person legally owns billions of dollars in property, while another legally vegetates in poverty. And this must be endured, this must be put up with?

The ideal of liberalism is a society “with freedom of action for everyone.” One person has the freedom to act for 100 bucks, and another for 100 thousand bucks - well, whose actions will be more effective? The “freedom of action for everyone” proclaimed by liberalism is completely absent without material equality - this was clearly shown by thinkers of the 19th century.

“Limiting the power of the state and the church” directly leads to depopulation of the population, because the lack of faith in God corrupts society, and a weak state cannot curb either crime or depravity.

The “rule of law” means the creation of a huge mass of legal officials trying to describe human life in words - these people do not even understand that it is, in principle, impossible to give an exact definition of any phenomenon, and attempts to “legally describe” something are simply speculations on people’s ignorance. Armies of lawyers in “free” countries are vitally important - in a godless society, only they are able to somehow resist atheistic lawlessness. But no matter how hard lawyers try, the truth remains unchanged: “He who has more rights is right.”

And here, finally, is an example of liberal casuistry: recognition of “natural rights given by nature (including the right to life, personal freedom and property).” Only crazy people would say that! Where, pray tell, on what mountain or in what desert, on what leaves of what tree are these “rights given by nature” inscribed?

To say that nature gives a person some rights means to deify nature, and this is a direct path to paganism. In fact, liberalism cannot do without the exploitation of human religious feelings, without the exploitation of mysticism, speaking of “ natural rights ah man." This opens the door into which paganism penetrates, corrupting a person for future wars.

And what's interesting. On the one hand, there is a deification of nature. On the other hand, there is the deification of private property. And now “divine” private property is killing nature all over the earth with industrial waste, and the state, which has limited power, is unable to stop the progressive movement of humanity into a man-made hell.

The state, according to liberals, plays only the role of a silent “servant of nature”, necessary only for the implementation of “natural human rights”. It turns out that it is not the state that gives rights, but nature - and we are invited to believe in this liberal nonsense without question!

By belittling the role of the state, liberalism itself deprives the state of the opportunity to stop the depopulation of the indigenous European population, for example. And for more than 200 years, liberals in all countries have been talking about depopulation, but no one has been able to even slow down its pace, and now depopulation threatens to completely change the national composition of all European countries in 10-20 years.

Nature does not give anyone any rights! Nature is completely indifferent to any creature on earth, including humans.

Rights can only be given to a person by another person - there are no “natural rights” for a person. Only a person endowed with the power of the state can give rights to a person and guarantee the implementation of these rights by the power of the state. Therefore, the role of the state in human life cannot be overestimated. All the forces of society should be directed towards improving the state, for the sake of a decent life for any person.

By belittling the role of the state and making it unable to cope with crime, liberals criticize it for this inability, declaring the state and politics to be an inherently “dirty business.” But this dirty people who have penetrated into power make the state dirty. By thoughtlessly criticizing any steps of the state, liberals make it an easy prey for political crooks who walk over people’s heads. “Transparency,” which liberals supposedly care so much about, does not save the liberal state from corruption and dirt, which the Western “free” media are full of stories about. By belittling the state, liberals thereby close the way to its improvement, dooming themselves and the whole world to “state filth.”

The rejection of God in modern times leads to the inevitability of steps towards the secularization of all life. A person who “lives only once,” who “owes nothing to anyone” and for whom there is no responsibility for his lifetime actions after death, begins to rebuild all public and state institutions to suit his selfish interests.

The “separation of church and state” has become a death sentence for the state - it becomes a prize for everyone who wants power to realize their interests. First of all, those people who want to solve their problems at the expense of society are rushing to the state feeding trough. Corruption is becoming an inevitable quality of government officials in all liberal countries. And how can one not consider politics a “dirty business” after this?

Liberalism proposes to “accept people as they are” without trying to educate them, since it cannot provide a consistent system moral values. Therefore, a person in liberalism, in principle, is a potential criminal, since nothing restrains him from violating any human prohibitions.

“Separation of powers” ​​becomes a necessary condition in order to somehow restrain human greed. By dividing the branches of government and forcing them to monitor each other, liberalism creates a system of supervision over the criminal thoughts of atheists.

Liberalism does not strive to improve the moral state of man, because it does not know at all what morality is, having abandoned God.

Therefore, the penitentiary system, for example, is not aimed at “re-education”, but exclusively at “restricting human freedom”, therefore places of detention are turning into places for comfortable imprisonment, acquisition and further improvement of criminal skills.

That's why high school in a liberal state, for example, it is not aimed at the “education” of a young man, but exclusively at his “education.” The “separation of school and church” ultimately led to a decline in the level of public education in all liberal countries, when children, untouchable by the teacher, only “spend time” mastering their “human rights of a consumer society”, and not mastering the knowledge necessary for the life of society.

And the only philosophy possible to substantiate the ideology of liberalism becomes rationalism - the philosophy of the godless existence of the world. A rational, that is, a godless vision of the world, frees a person from any moral problems, since morality and godless rationalism are two incompatible things. This precisely follows from the impossibility of rational proof of the existence or non-existence of God, because rationalism operates only in the material (substantial) world, without being able to go beyond its framework.

The world in its simultaneous materiality and ideality can be successfully understood exclusively within the framework of the philosophy of realism, which cannot do without God, who is necessary for human existence.

ID: 2017-01-27-A-11951

Original article (loose structure)

Yurkova I.V.

Summary

Keywords

Liberalism values ​​youth state freedom

Article

The values ​​of liberalism and the attitude of modern youth towards them

Yurkova I.

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Saratov State Medical University named after. IN AND. Razumovsky

Department of Philosophy, humanities and psychology

Scientific supervisor - Associate Professor A.A. Zhivaikina

Liberalism is an ideological and political movement, which is based on the principle of gradual transformation of society, aimed at the realization of individual values ​​and individual freedom. For the era of liberal civilization, it is necessary that the standard of freedom, independence, and dignity have worthy veneration, be more and more deeply mastered and supported by theory, various branches of knowledge, and appear in the life of every person and the entire society as the highest values. Among the constituent concepts of liberalism are: individualism and universalism, market economy, freedom within the law, as well as reason and progress.

In the modern world, liberalism is one of the fundamental and leading worldviews in the world. Its values, such as personal freedom, self-respect, freedom of speech, privacy, equality, universal human rights, private property, limits on government power, the sovereignty of the people, self-determination of the nation, enlightened and reasonable public policy are widely accepted .

The main aspect of liberal theory is the question of the relationship between the individual and the state. For supporters of liberalism, the concept of personal freedom and limitation of state power have the following solution: the state does not have the right to interfere in business activities and, especially, in a person’s personal life. Power is perceived by liberals as a necessary evil that should be limited. The only reason for government intervention can be to protect the property and freedom of some from encroachment by others. The main function of the state is to protect against injustice and violence in all spheres of human life, but going beyond these limits, it loses its meaning. Among supporters of liberalism there is an ambivalent opinion regarding the implementation of the principle of the rule of law. On the one hand, to implement it, the state must have sufficient power, on the other, ensuring the rule of law must be carried out by public and private organizations.

Opponents of liberalism argue that only state supervision over the distribution of income can ensure justice and general material well-being. In their opinion, the main flaw of liberalism is the uneven distribution of benefits. Power in a liberal society, opponents believe, lies with a small group of people who control financial flows. At the same time, the desire to be equal before the law and to have equal opportunities in conditions of economic inequality is nothing more than a fantasy. In response to this position, F. Hayek stated that tough government regulation requires restrictions on salary, choice of profession and place of residence, and ultimately leads to the destruction of personal freedom and totalitarianism.

An integral part and, at the same time, the value of liberalism is the broad freedom of the individual in all spheres public life. J. Locke already put forward the idea that free individuals can become the basis of a stable society. He put forward two fundamental principles: economic freedom, which implies the right to own and use property, and intellectual freedom, which includes freedom of conscience. In the theory of liberalism, the right and responsibility for all decisions and actions belongs to the individual. Individuals based on their natural law can dispose of themselves, their property and abilities, no one has the right to impose well-being on a person, each person chooses for himself whether to be happy or not, he has the right to seek his own happiness, while he should not create obstacles to the achievement of the same freedom for another.

A. Smith developed the theory that moral life and economic activity are possible without directives from the state, that the strongest nations are those in which citizens are free to exercise their own initiative. In his work "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" he argued that the right conditions a free market is capable of natural self-regulation and could achieve best performance than a market with many prohibitions and restrictions. The role of the state, in his opinion, is to prevent fraud and the unlawful use of force. Liberalism considers tolerance and pluralism as the most important foundations of socio-political interaction in society.

In Russia, liberalism arose much later than in Europe. This happened in the 1830-1840s along with the formation of the university education system. The peculiarity of Russian liberals was that they were supporters of strong state power. For example, the most famous liberals of the 19th century in Russia - B.N. Chicherin and K.D. Kavelin - were staunch supporters of the preservation of autocracy.

In the context of consideration of this topic, a sociological study was conducted of attitudes towards the values ​​of liberalism among modern youth. The survey was attended by students of the Saratov State Medical University named after. IN AND. Razumovsky at the age of 18. Students were asked to answer the following questions: 1. Is your freedom important to you? 2. How does your freedom manifest itself? 3. What role do you assign to the state? 4. Do you think that the state can interfere in a person’s personal life? If yes, then in what case? 5. What do you think might result from strict government regulation? The data obtained is shown in the following table.

Based on the survey results, it can be argued that most of the students surveyed should be classified as supporters of liberalism. Modern youth value their freedom, which is manifested in freedom of choice, freedom of speech and thought. The image of the state in the mass consciousness of young people is expressed in the activities of state and civil institutions designed to create favorable conditions to realize the life aspirations of citizens, including young people. Government intervention is permissible when human life is at risk. It can be assumed that the relatively low interest of young people in the role of the state is due to the fact that the range of vital interests, especially of adolescents and young people, is limited by the problem of entering into adult life, and social experience is still limited to interpersonal and intrafamily communications. But as social connections increase (university, army, work, etc.), there is a redistribution of life interests towards participation in public and political life.

We can say that liberalism is the idea of ​​powerful, purposeful development of a country as a result of the free choice of its people. Liberal ideas can only be realized with a strong state capable of protecting freedoms from external and internal threats.

Literature

1. Alekseev S.S. Fundamental liberal values: modernity and law // Izvestia Uralskogo state university. - 1999. - No. 12. - P. 30-45.

2. Vashchenko I.S., Rykalina E.B., Fakhrudinova E.R. Individualism in modern society / Current issues in scientific work and educational activities: a collection of scientific papers based on materials from the International scientific-practical conference: in 13 parts. - Tambov, 2013. - pp. 29-32.

3. Zhivaikina A.A. K.D. Kavelin: experience philosophical analysis culture // News of Saratov University. New episode. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. - 2009. - T. 9. - No. 4. - P. 8-12.

4. Zhivaikina A.A. System of philosophical views of K.D. Kavelina / abstract of the dissertation for competition scientific degree candidate philosophical sciences/ Saratov State University named after. N.G. Chernyshevsky. Saratov, 2010.

5. Katrunov V.A., Zasypkina E.V., Kuznetsova M.N., Pavlova L.A. Personality in the political life of modern Russian society // Dylnovsky readings “Russian identity: state and prospects”: Materials of a scientific and practical conference. - Saratov, 2015. - pp. 291-296.

6. Kremplevskaya S.P., Zhivaikina A.A. The fate of man and his freedom. the problem of personal self-determination // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2014. - T. 4. - No. 5. - P. 801.

7. Makarova M.V., Ermolaeva E.V. Economic growth in Russia: problems and prospects // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2015. - T. 5. - No. 12. - P. 1502.

8. Nazarova Yu.V. Philosophy of political tolerance in liberalism // Scientific bulletins of Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Right. - 2013. - No. 9. - P. 312-320.

9. Soloviev K. Features of liberalism in Russia / Electronic resource: https://postnauka.ru/video/26242

10. Philosophy: encyclopedic Dictionary. Edited by A.A. Ivina. - M.: Gardariki, 2004.

11. Kharitonova M.A., Kalinina K.Yu., Ermolaeva E.V. Problems of formation of the middle class in Russia // Bulletin of medical Internet conferences. - 2015. - T. 5. - No. 12. - P. 1488.

Your rating: No

Liberal values. In modern theories, liberalism is rarely associated with the name of Kant. Meanwhile, it was Kant who developed starting points, characterizing the principles of freedom of people in society and the inseparability of freedom and law. A provision indicating the essence of the concept of human freedom, which has become a classic formula of liberalism: “no one can force me to be happy the way he wants (as he imagines the well-being of other people); everyone has the right to seek his own happiness on the path that he himself imagines good, unless by doing so he damages the freedom of another to strive for a similar goal - a freedom compatible, according to some possible universal law, with the freedom of every other..." The principle of "the right of oneself", which gives priority to the right and responsibility for one's own destiny to the "one" person , - is fundamental in the theory of liberalism. “He himself has the right” or “only the free-thinking fighter for his own happiness”, that’s ideological values capitalism. During the formation of capitalism, these values ​​played their revolutionary function and ensured that the production group was staffed with a new predominant type of worker (at that time) - a manual worker. Millions of people, in pursuit of personal happiness, left their “homes” and burned in the furnace of the industrial revolution. Nowadays, these are conservative values ​​that have lost their attractiveness for citizens. Liberal is a beautiful wrapper and disgusting filling, sausage without meat, for example. Go to any store where liberals dominate and choose for yourself. Individualist and egoist are synonyms. Maximum freedom implies freedom from duty, honor, law and conscience. Freethinking makes it possible to justify betrayal, theft, murder, etc. The beautiful cover of a liberal is a free-thinking person, a political freethinker. A liberal without a beautiful wrapper is an egoist who despises any moral and ethical values ​​other than money and property, who does not care about the people, the country of residence and the development of the individual and society. Capitalist ideological values ​​are constantly increasing the percentage of liberals in society. During the Napoleonic invasion, almost every Russian was considered an enemy of the French. During the First World War, cases of voluntary cooperation with aggressors were rare. During the Second World War, cooperation was massive, regardless of nationality (French, Germans, Russians, Poles, etc.), as well as partisan movement. In our time, in the event of military aggression, cooperation will be universal, and attempts at partisanship will be isolated. Modern society is a society of (in overwhelming numbers) egoists, where everyone fights against everyone else for their personal happiness, which is determined by the amount of property and money - the dominant norms of a liberal. If he can steal, he will steal; if he betrays, deceives, kills, he will do it.

“Nothing personal, just business”, “to betray in time, to foresee”, “you are worth as much as the money you have” - are common phrases of our reality. This is the reality of any modern liberal society, regardless of region, religion, etc. A hurricane passed through the United States, a short period of anarchy, and murderers, rapists, looters and robbers emerged. A liberal is comfortable living among those whom he despises, deceives and teaches. But a society in which the overwhelming majority of citizens are bearers of the liberal mentality is a society of self-destruction. Liberal values ​​have fulfilled their evolutionary function and are already destroying society.

Report by an expert from the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology, Ph.D. in Sociology. Nadezhda Khvylya-Olinter at the scientific expert session "".

If something foreign gets into the body, it will somehow react to the external influence. Liberalism is an ideology that came to us from the West with the goal of “improving” post-Soviet society. Will the social organism accept the “medicine” given to it or will it reject it, and it will become not a means of salvation, but poison, and for what reason may society not accept the ideas proposed to it? Obviously, due to the fact that they are alien to his value system. In this case, two scenarios are possible: if the social organism is strong and healthy, then it will naturally reject them, but if the country is experiencing a crisis, the society is fragmented and disoriented, then its gradual degradation and death begins.

Culture and values ​​make a people unique and strong, providing them with immunity from external influence. Therefore, one of the objectives of the undertaken research is to find out whether there are contradictions between the Western value system and the Russian one. How unique is the cultural profile of Russians and unlike the profile of those countries that seek to influence the way of life in Russia, and in such a way that by imposing a liberal ideology, they actually undermine its sovereignty.

Let us turn to the results of representative all-Russian and expert surveys.

The Pew Research Center conducted a worldwide study, during which 40,117 respondents from 40 countries were surveyed. Its purpose was to identify the opinions of the population different countries on some moral issues. How acceptable are extramarital affairs, homosexuality, gambling, etc. in modern society? Are there national differences in the perception of these phenomena, and what is the moral state of Russians? It turned out that the most “civilized countries” by European standards treat moral deviations with the greatest tolerance. In Europe and America, the proportion of the population that perceives deviations as something immoral is significantly lower than in the countries of Asia, the Middle East and Russia.

The results obtained by Pew Research were recalculated to obtain the average percentage of citizens who consider the phenomenon immoral for Europe as a whole, according to North America and across Russia. It turned out that the differences in the moral principles of Russians and residents Western countries almost all points are statistically significant. For example, the number of people who consider homosexuality immoral in Russia is more than three times higher than Western figures. Proportion of those who condemn gambling business– more than twice. Those who condemn alcohol consumption - more than doubled, divorces - 1.5-2 times.

But the most interesting thing is that if we compare the results for Russia and the West with global indicators, it turns out that Western countries seeking to impose their dominance on the world community themselves look like deviants, allowing in their society such phenomena that are viewed negatively almost throughout the world (see . Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Average indicators of negative perception of deviations, in %.

This is far from the only study from which we can conclude that many Western values ​​are unacceptable for residents of other countries, including Russia. The moral foundations characteristic of Russian society are being actively torpedoed, but it is they (“foundations” from the word “stability”) that are a significant guarantor of the stability of the state. Deformation of moral character and liberalization of the value system entails the loss of state sovereignty.

Russia, in terms of its cultural characteristics, is practically at the opposite pole from the USA, Great Britain, and France. That is, from those countries that are actively trying to impose on us their ideas about how the Russian statehood. Below are the data obtained as a result of cross-cultural mapping (see Fig. 2). The methodology is such that various indicators are compared, and the comparison results are plotted on two-dimensional diagrams.

Rice. 2. Mental map of the world.

Scientific association The World Value Survey developed a cultural map of the world based on research conducted from 1999 to 2004. The study examined such characteristics of human life as religion, politics, economic and social aspects(see Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Cultural map of the world (based on research conducted from 1999 to 2004).

Despite the differences mental maps, the conclusion based on the presented options can be made unambiguous - the combination of various cultural characteristics allows us to speak about the specificity of the system of values ​​and norms characteristic of Russia and its incomparability with the Western one.

This postulate is confirmed by a study that showed how the axiological profile of Russia correlates with the value characteristics of the population of other states. Seven countries were chosen for comparison with Russia: Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Iran, China and the USA. It turned out that, in terms of one parameter or another, proximity to Russia is detected quite often, but in terms of the totality of parameters, none of the above countries comes close to the maximum possible proximity. The United States and Germany have the lowest indicators of closeness to Russia, which means that there are fundamental differences in the value systems of these nations (see Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Range of civilizational distance from Russia, in % significance.

Let us trace the dynamics of the value system of society under the influence of Western liberal ideology brought into the country after the collapse of the USSR.

The Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted expert survey, during which the task was to identify changes psychological state Russian society in the period from 1981 to 2011. The experts were asked to rate the strength of expression of 70 parameters (35 positive and 35 negative) on a 10-point scale. The results of the study turned out to be sensational - scientists recorded an increase in all negative parameters without exception and a decrease in the vast majority of positive ones (see Fig. 5).

Rice. 5. Total dynamics of positive and negative psychological characteristics of Russian society (in points).

It should be noted that the characteristics that were initially among the positive and have significantly increased their presence in society are only rationalism and freedom, that is, precisely the values ​​​​that liberalism proclaims.

One could doubt the experts’ assessments and try to accuse them of subjectivity. But expert results are confirmed by data from sociological surveys conducted among the Russian population. Three quarters Russian citizens believe that the moral state of society began to deteriorate in 1990, half of the respondents are confident that this process continued in the 2000s (see Fig. 6). Moreover, Russians’ opinions regarding morality are much more pessimistic than, for example, regarding the economy, the spread of corruption and international politics.

Rice. 6. Russians’ assessment of the moral state of society, in%.

Respondents also reported changes in social and psychological well-being during a survey conducted in 2012. In their opinion, over the past 15-20 years, aggressiveness and cynicism have increased significantly in society, and such qualities as patriotism, loyalty, goodwill and warmth, on the contrary, are becoming scarce (see Fig. 7).

Rice. 7. Russians’ opinions on how people and their relationships have changed over the past 15–20 years, in%.

In addition to the fact that the changes have affected the value system of Russians, the worldview of the ruling elite is gradually changing. There is a clear trend towards a decrease in the number of elite representatives who share the concept of Russia's broad national interest. The geopolitical ambitions of the Russian elite are gradually disappearing, and the confidence that the sphere of interests of the Russian Federation lies exclusively within its borders is growing (see Fig. 8 and 9). The national elite is losing the idea of ​​Russia as a world power, which is obviously at odds with the connotations of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict and with the presidential rhetoric of the last two years.

Rice. 8. Russia’s sphere of interests, according to the domestic elite, in%.

Rice. 9. The share of representatives of the domestic elite who support the idea of ​​Russia’s broad national interest, in%.

It is obvious that the value system of Russian society differs from the profile of Western countries. The Western liberal model, which contradicts our values, is ineffective for Russia and does not contribute to its success. The key to Russia's success lies in the development of its unique civilizational characteristics, and not in copying those that arise in the experience of other civilizations. In such conditions, any measures aimed at developing the country, economic, foreign policy, social in nature, are not effective, they are like drawings on the coastal sand - a new wave will roll in (of fashion, the liberal lobby, cosmopolitanism) and all traces of efforts will disappear. The imposition of liberal values ​​at the expense of identity means the path towards weakening the state and degradation of society.

It is obvious that since the late 90s the country has been systematically plunged into a state of value disorientation. Attempts to explain this process by the “transition period” of Russia’s development are untenable, since the notorious transition period has clearly dragged on and there are no positive dynamics that would suggest its end. On the contrary, degradation is intensifying, and not only in the area of ​​morality and values. Experts record similar processes in the economic sphere, in the humanitarian sphere, and in other important areas of the life of the state and society. One of the global reasons is that liberal paradigms have been imposed on the country and ideology is constitutionally prohibited. “If you don’t know where you are going, then any road will lead you there” - this statement well characterizes the state of Russian society. In the absence of a state nationally oriented ideology, the question of what will happen at the end of the road is not raised.

Tikhonova N.E. Dynamics of normative and value systems of Russians and prospects for the modernization project. // Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2011. - No. 3. - pp. 10-27

See: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

Highest values Russian state. Materials of the scientific seminar. Issue No. 6. M.: Scientific expert, 2010.

See: A.V. Yurevich, M.A. Yurevich. Dynamics of psychological state of Russian society: expert review// Morality of modern Russian society: psychological analysis / Rep. ed. A. L. Zhuravlev, A. V. Yurevich. – M.: Publishing house “Institute of Psychology RAS”, 2012. P. 21-41

Data from an all-Russian survey conducted in 2012. See: Gorshkov M.K., Tikhonova N.E. Sociocultural factors of consolidation of Russian society - M.: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013. P. 25.

Russian elite - 2020. Analytical report of grantees of the Valdai International Discussion Club. Moscow, 2013. pp. 22-24. Shown are the results of six waves of surveys of Russian elites, which were conducted in 1993, 1995, 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2012; In total, more than 1,400 people were surveyed between 1993 and 2012.