Who hasn’t been here, didn’t take risks

The headline makes you remember Vysotsky, especially since the other day, July 25, marks the anniversary of his death. But Vysotsky has nothing to do with it, it is about something else. Although Vysotsky is very much on par with everything, with his unconditional ranking in the first place of his kind. Because no one disputes its symbolic supremacy (and those who try are shattered – again symbolic, but very painful!).

But let’s move on to the other verses. Baby.

When I was little, I had a thick book of Marshak’s poems. I loved it, especially The Story of an Unknown Hero. There was also the famous poem “False fiction”. The old man tells the pioneers what life was like under the tsar. Around private property and the oppression of the poor.

“Belonging to another plant
Any company:
People work at Kama
All income is in Germany.

And about the exemplary Russian capitalist:

“Merchant Bagrov had stagnant water
And fish factories.
He went to Astrakhan.
Steamers along the Volga.
He did not go, old Bagrov,
on these boats
And the sturgeon did not catch
in the free waters of the Volga.
Its rafts were rafted by the public,
Their barges were pulled by the people,
And counted the income
from your entire fleet
And the biggest ship
Called by his last name.

By the way, the prototype of the merchant Bagrov – namely, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Bugrov (1837 – 1911), a Nizhny Novgorod flour miller, grain merchant, shipowner and outstanding philanthropist – directed 45% of his income to the benefit of the state. The city was a truly exemplary Russian entrepreneur in scale, quality and efficiency. So exemplary that you wouldn’t believe it, Stalin urged the people’s commissars to “learn a lesson from Bugrov”. The central apparatus of the entire Bugrov empire consisted of three (3) people: himself, the clerk (in the current manager) and the accountant. They somehow coped with the purchase, processing and shipping. Bugrov’s accountant, by the way, received 30,000 rubles a year. Salary is more than ministry. It is useful to know that in Russia at the end of the 19th century, the lower limit of “lord life” was – that is, a good apartment, hiring a few servants, and wearing a fresh starched shirt every day. salary of 5,000 rubles per year. No wonder Ivan Ilyich from the story of Leo Tolstoy agreed to serve in any department, but to receive at least 5,000 per year. And Bugrov’s accountant, therefore, was six times more. It must be assumed that the Old Believer and the faster Bugrov did not pay for it in vain.

But as a child, of course, I didn’t just know it, I couldn’t even imagine it. Because I was brought up with books telling me that I lived in the best and fairest country in the world, but the tsarist rule was terrible.

Then I decided that in the USSR everything was terrible, but under the tsar it was still like that, and in comparison with the Gulag in general, it was just freedom and mercy.

But even later, I finally realized that there was darkness both under the tsar and in the USSR. But not because Russia is some kind of enchanted country, but because that’s the way the world works. The world is not divided into “good” and “bad” countries, periods or, unfortunately, socio-economic formations, but rather those who are at the top and those who cannot climb, those who do not want to climb, or those who are not allowed to climb. above.

Because “just as the very rich, in expensive clothes, were getting into sleeper cars now, then richly dressed people were getting into cars; there were people then who traveled in cheaper cars, just as now there were people who were not very wealthy but still well-dressed, who rode in the second class; just as now there are people who travel in the third class, who do not pay surcharges for speed and are doomed to suffer from the hard boards of the stagecoach, so there were then people who had neither money nor rank, therefore they were bitten by the bugs of the guard’s couch; finally, just as now there were people walking along the hungry, miserable, sleepers, then there were hungry, miserable people wandering along the postal road ”(M. Ageev,“ A Romance with Cocaine ”).

But why such a terrible, inhuman injustice?

Why are they sitting on the deck of a wealthy shipowner, pulling nets, ropes and bags somewhere below – fishermen and barge haulers and loaders? When I was ten, it seemed crazy to me. Why does the bourgeois rule and the people survive? Why do people work in Kama and earn income in Germany?

As Marshak wrote, “We must return to the late Bagrov again”. So Bugrov.
Why was it successful? Yes, he was the third in the dynasty – Bugrov-grandson. However, like his ancestors, he was a smart, resourceful and aggressive person. Not in the evil sense, but in the original sense – offensive. And of course, he took risks every day. And re-equip production, replacing wheeled watermills with turbines, and then steam mills – ensuring all-season operation. And he was taking risks every day by making deals.

And as for the topic “Kama factory and income in Germany” – it’s not just about finding an investment object and money for investment. First of all, this is a huge risk – investing three thousand miles from the homeland, entrusting funds to local experts, concluding contracts, creating supply chains.

Risk is a condition of social mountaineering. you can break it. Many are broken. Of the 100 small businesses that started in January, 10 end up in December, but the share of entrepreneurs among people who somehow make a living is only around 5%.
Everyone, everyone, starting with the banker-oligarch and ending with a cold shoemaker and a free artist. The remaining 95% consists of employees. However, even among them there are very rich people – like the same accountant in Bugrov’s office.

And there are even fewer people in power. And to come to power you also need intelligence, calculation, aggression (I repeat in a good sense) – and, of course, a tendency to take risks. It is probably more powerful than business, because falling from even a small hill (from a hill, a mound, a power stroke) is much more painful than the heights and skyscrapers of business.

Aggression in the simplest, most vulgar sense doesn’t hurt either. Mao Zedong’s thesis that “a rifle breeds power” has been tested thousands of times over thousands of years of historical experience. A presentation of the “fixed bandit” theory as the basis for statehood in the early Middle Ages is not worth boring enlightened readers – I think the gist is clear from the title.

Power is a great temptation, and as ridiculous as it may seem at first glance, it is not only sadistic but primarily mental. Power is an opportunity to realize almost any of your ideas, to test the coolest social hypotheses. And most importantly, power is a tool to reveal the truth. Sometimes even in the natural sciences and even in the social sciences, and especially in detecting and evaluating socially significant events – all the time.

Was it Gagarin’s flight or not? We weren’t there, and we didn’t see anything in reality, nor in documentary footage and photography. There are no such shots. As confirmation of the fact, they show a photo of the cosmodrome mission log page. Yes. A handwritten line is proof (“Do you not believe the authorities?”) We believe, of course we do! And, for example, the schedules and posters of the performance are not proof that it really took place, played, rolled (“yes, we will slap as many programs and posters as you want”).

Doubt, as ordered.

So Pilate’s “What is truth?” How to answer the question? It’s simple: truth is a function of power. Power establishes reality as an institution of domination (any power – from family to state). Only the authorities have the right to say “it was, but it wasn’t”. Disagreements about truth are disputes about power (who controls the facts). And vice versa – the competition for power is a competition for the right to determine the truth, to say “this is a fact, but this is a fake”.

The vertical structure of society is not pleasant. There is always the danger of being at the bottom, either a player (in the power projection) or an exploited hired worker (in the money projection). But where is the alternative? The reinterpreted gospel that “the last shall be first” (Matthew 20:12-16) is often understood as a political slogan: “All that is will be.” But we are not talking here about the abolition of the vertical, but about its revolt – which is even more absurd, because there is very little room “above” and only a few of those who are “nothing” can be “everything”. . Yes, there is more Soviet bureaucracy (that is, people invested in power) than under the tsar, but not enough to seriously say that all the exploited and subjugated have become rich and authoritarian. Where there!

Let’s go back to Marshak for a moment. The Tale of an Unknown Hero shaped my moral ideal as a child: There is nothing more beautiful than a brave act without victory and reward. But now I understand that a society cannot consist of completely unknown heroes who serve each other selflessly. The management of mass service to the good becomes a profession, and rulers become more important than “unknown heroes.” They manage the heroes and get power and money for it.

There are always active and aggressive people and passive and soft-hearted people.
Risk people and peace people.
The second is ten times more than the first.

A fabricated conversation between a banker and a revolutionary (I think during the French Revolution of 1789-1794): “If you take my millions and give them to the people, then it’s fifty cents each, but that’s not the point. “And what’s the point?” “The important thing is that in a few days, this money will be back in my bank. And if you guillotine me, then to another bank.”

All this, of course, is not good, and sometimes just terrible. The social, economic and cultural vertical connects the free creative energy of people. Therefore, it is not only unfair, but also unreasonable.

Here I want to correct Hegel. He smugly told the students, “Kant was wrong, Hegel was wrong, Feuerbach couldn’t handle it…” etc. to play the role of a kind of Soviet associate professor of philosophy who says.

Hegel believed that everything real is reasonable.

Sometimes I feel the opposite. Anything illogical or even crazy is real. And what is reasonable remains in the realm of projections and fantasies.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.