(3) The ideal solution to the war in Ukraine and its obstacles
The current war in Ukraine, which began with Russia's invasion of Crimea, has caused enormous casualties on both sides and is expected to end quickly in order to rebuild Ukraine's lives. But in terms of moral responsibility to the aggressor, only Russia can decide the end of this war in Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine gives up the war and cedes much of its territory to Russia, the war in Ukraine will end. However, the resolution of a war that ends with the cession of its own territory by intimidation, cannot be tolerated by Ukraine or any other country. In addition, there remains the fear that a re-invasion by Russia will begin in the future. Therefore, all that is expected is the rejection of aggression by the aggressor himself. Also, basically, if a person is aware of the error of his own actions, he will stop his erroneous actions. Similarly, if Russian people realize the error of their aggression, they will also cease their aggression. But for that to happen, democracy needs to be realized in Russia. The essence of this democracy is, first and foremost, the realization of factual reporting of what Russia did in Ukraine, and the realization of factual reporting of the circumstances leading up to the invasion of Ukraine. Naturally, the realization of such factual reporting requires the elimination of those who violently suppress the reporting of facts. The goal of this elimination is a total ban on violence against speakers. And with the realization of the guarantee of the speaker's survival, it will finally be possible to have a discussion based on physical facts. In other words, the essence of democracy is, secondly, the realization of freedom of speech and expression. In the first place, the Russian establishment fears factual press and democracy because they are convinced that facutual press and democracy will not only reject the invasion of Ukraine, but will also expose the wrongdoings of the Russian establishment. This conviction of the Russian ruling class amply expresses the possibility of the refusal to invade Ukraine by fair Russia. On the other hand, this conviction is also an awareness of its own evil in the Russian ruling class. The Russian ruling class needs to dispel its own self-awareness, and in order to complete its self-deception, the Russian ruling class needs the suppression of factual reporting and democracy. In each case, the fears of Russian ruling class express their conviction of defeat in discussions based on physical facts. Therefore, if democracy is to be realized in Russia, Russia will end its invasion of Ukraine on its own. This non-military solution is an ideal way to eliminate the need for military tensions between the West and Russia, and to avoid economic turmoil and burden on the people due to unnecessary economic blockades. Next, we will review the circumstances under which this ideal solution cannot be realized. To put it simply, it is the dictatorship itself that hinders democratization in a dictatorship. But this explanation is just a tautology. Therefore, if we break down the dictatorship into individual impediments to democratization, it is as follows.
・Violent elimination of critics
・Blocking of Awareness of Facts
・Private ownership of key industries by the ruling class
・Historical peculiarities of the state
(3a) Violent elimination of critics
Violent elimination of critics in authoritarian states let the critics die physically and the remaining critics flee the country. The absence of critics in state institutions leaves the decision-making of the state to one ruling class, and in extreme cases, to one ruler. Therefore, the political system is called a dictatorship. Dictatorship is the antithesis of democracy, and as long as democracy is the right way to realize the truth, dictatorship is a falsehood that opposes the truth to be realized. Of course, if the purpose of dictatorship corresponds to the truth, then the dictatorship may make the truth come true, regardless of its methodological falsehood. And what the dictator assumes exclusively is the purification of his own dictatorship through the truth of the purpose. But the truth of the purpose needs to be verified, and that verification requires discussion. Dictatorship is the antithesis of this discussion, making the truth or falsity of the purpose undecided. After all, dictatorship does not purify the falsehood of means. If the truth of the purpose requires its own purification, then the need already reveals the falsehood of the purpose. On the other hand, the exclusion of critics ultimately leaves only the dictator and his allies as members who determine the will of the state. The discussion there, is only a formality, not a discussion in substance. Also, if they will drive out disagreements, they don't have to discussion in the first place. The discussion is limited to coordinating decisions. However, if they take that coordination seriously, they arrive at the fallacy of the original decision. Therefore, even the coordination of decisions cannot be properly implemented under a dictatorship. There, the substantial destruction of this dialogue becomes rampant in all aspects of administration and management. But in order to deal with the difficulties it poses, they need to talk again. However, if there is no substantive discussion, the difficulties will not be resolved, and even these reality will be covered up in the first place. As a result, only the economy and disinformation that are convenient for the ruling class are circulated. And when unrealistic decision-making and false reports spread throughout society, compassion and decency disappear from society under dictatorship. There, an irreparable gap arises between the happy ideal society dreamed up by the ruling class and the unhappy real society. In this case, what is revealed before the public is the lie of the ruling class, which proclaims the unhappy real society as a happy ideal society. Therefore, even in dictatorships, there is an urgent need to lift the suppression of speech in order to deal with this difficulty. However, even if the suppression of speech is lifted, democratization will not progress if only the accomplices of the dictatorship remain in the dictatorship. The promoters of that democratization should be led by critics who have been silenced by dictatorship. Therefore, the democratization of a dictatorship requires the release of critics detained by the dictator and the return of critics who have fled the country. However, if the dictator has physically killed his critics, then there are no longer any critics to be released, or their survival is limited. In addition, critics who flee the country because they feel that they are in danger, do not return to their own countries without regard for danger. In particular, critics who have defected from developing countries to developed countries cannot give up the free and prosperous civic life they have gained in developed countries. In order for them to return to their country with peace of mind, the authoritarian ruling class, the source of their fears, needs to be purged from power. In the modern world, this mass migration of political and economic refugees is proceeding on a grand scale, and there is no prospect of their return. And they probably won't return. These circumstances deplete dictatorships of human resources who should lead the democratization of dictatorships. This dilemma of democratization of authoritarian states is occurring in dictatorships around the world, including Russia, which is currently under Putin's rule. For this reason, even if a dictatorship collapses, it is doubtful that democratization will be realized thereafter. For the time being, the collapse of the dictatorship will lead to the release of the critics detained by the dictator. However, these critical opinions are also motley, and they are mixed with anti-democrats who cover up violence with ideology. The release of these violent claims creates new tensions and confusion in the free society after liberation. The social unrest makes the people under the new regime aspire to restore a strong state order. And often the result is the revival of dictators. Of course, if the people are reluctant to resurrect the old dictator, then the new dictator will be chosen as the dictator who will be re-established. In any case, as long as dictators are re-established, the democratization of dictatorships will also be derailed.
(3b) Blocking of Awareness of Facts
When a dictator needs to kill his critics, he also kills critical speech. For a dictator, there is no difference between critical speech and critics. The suppression of speech in dictatorships is integrated with the violent elimination of critics mentioned above. But critical speech is a consciousness, and it is a reflection of the real world. However, the truth of consciousness is the real world, and the falsehood of consciousness is a misperception of the real world. The falsehood is based on a reflection error of the real world. Therefore, if the truth trumpeted by the dictatorship is actually false, the real world refutes the falsehood of consciousness. Therefore, the suppression of speech in dictatorships violently excludes the truth of the real world. The violent elimination manifests itself as a blockade of the recognition of the facts by the dictatorship. It inhibits the reporting of current or past facts in the country and makes the reporting of facts invisible to the public. On the other hand, dictators also hate real-world rebuttals, so he himself does not want to see factual reports as much as possible. In extreme cases, not only the people but also the dictator will not be able to see the facts. However, in modern society, international reporting is well developed, and both the public and dictators receive a certain amount of factual reporting through the medium of international reporting. Therefore, the blockade of factual recognition proceeds exclusively in the form of compiling current or past facts and fabricating them into other facts. As a result, in Russia, the bombing of apartment buildings and civilian infrastructure carried out by Russia in Ukraine will be the work of Ukrainians. Similarly, in Russia, Russian war crimes such as the Bucha massacre and child abduction are allegedly fabricated by Ukraine and the West. From the perspective of other countries, reports of Ukrainians bombing their own country are bizarre and clearly suspected of fabrication. So we expect that even Russians would likewise suspect the fabrication of such reports. But in a society where critical speech has died out, people can't even bother to voice their doubts. On the contrary, if the people want to live peacefully under a dictatorship, it is not enough to seal the doubts. In that case, the people are only pretending to believe the lie, and their unenthusiastic behavior puts their lives at risk. At this time, the people become take the initiative to believe the lies propagated by the dictatorship in order to protect their lives. In other words, people become patriots who are convenient for the fascists. Of course, the true nature of this patriotism is exile, not patriotism or anything. But if people convince everyone around them, including themselves, that they are patriot, they are guaranteed a peaceful life under the dictatorship. And in order to protect their peaceful life, the people begin to kick down the people around them. Then he becomes a patriot in comparison to others he has kicked down. The living conditions of the people in general in such a dictatorship lead to the uncritical circulation of lies and falsehoods in the country. There, legitimate logical judgments are eliminated, and false patriotism that speaks violently about patriotism leads to the collapse of national reason and the total dementification of the people. On the other hand, the guarantee of speech in a democratic world guarantees the exact opposite of speech on all sides. Simply put, it is a guarantee of survival against lies and falsehoods. To put it more simply, freedom of speech in a democratic world is the freedom to lies and falsehoods. Naturally, the factual reporting that is propagated in the democratic world also contains lies and falsehoods. However, since the lies and falsehoods are denied by diametrically opposed speeches on various quarters, they are eliminated and disappear due to inconsistency with the real world. In any case, speech that is aware of its own lies and falsehoods will shorten its lifeline as long as it aims for its own truth. Perhaps such propaganda is based on a different kind of falsehood, namely false beliefs and convictions. However, that false belief or convicton is not consistent with the real world. These false statements eventually self-destruct due to their contradiction with the real world, including themselves. On the other hand, the diversity of speech in the democratic world includes speech that is convenient for dictators outside of it. Dictatorships actively incorporate such speech into their own countries and embellish their own countries with freedom of speech. However, the selection and compilation of the work exposes the person in charge of doing so to the real world. In this case, he is forced to be aware of his lies and falsehoods, and in order to justify his lies and falsehoods, he becomes completely addicted to even more false beliefs and convictions. The process is the same as the self-indoctrination process carried out by the people under the dictatorship. However, in order to know which facts are favorable to the regime and which are not convenient for the regime, it is still necessary to know the facts. When the obstruction of the perception of the facts arises, the people are no longer able to determine the truth for themselves and fall into agnosticism. Agnosticism here is the last bastion of the shielding of factual perception in dictatorships. If the facts under the dictatorship are necrotic, then the criticism based on the facts is also necrotic. And the impossibility of such criticism also derails the democratization of dictatorships.
(3c) Private ownership of key industries by the ruling class
Elimination of critics and Blocking of awareness of the facts both require violence. The basis of the violence is the destruction of the livelihood of the critics. That destruction, of course, includes physical destruction of the critics. On the other hand, the ruling class cannot destroy all the livelihoods of the ruled. If that happens, the ruling class will have no one to rule, and the life of the ruling class will be uncertain. The ruling class guarantees the livelihoods of its submissive ruled and destroys the livelihoods of the rest of its critics. This makes it necessary for the ruling class to manage the lives of all the ruled. The basis of their livelihood management is to protect the jobs of the ruling class who are obedient to them, and to deprive their critics of their livelihoods. In the old era, the life and death of the ruling class formed a status system and divided the ruling class into multiple hereditary classes. The owner of the products there, is the ruling class, and the substance of the ruled class is the status that receives the spills. But it is blatantly unreasonable for producers to not be able to privately own their own products. Therefore, in the relationship between the ruling class and the producers, the form is taken in which the producer dedicates the product to the ruling class. The owner of the product here appears as the owner of the means of production, such as land or houses. They complement the dominance of the upper ruling class as the middle ruling class. Thus the labourers, the poor peasants, and the proletarians, who are employed by the owners of the means of production, are further limited to the status of receiving a few spills of the product. However, in terms of numbers, the proletariat is the largest, followed by the middle ruling class, and the upper final ruling class with the fewest numbers. What is expected of the final ruling class is to maintain control of the entire ruling class, including the middle ruling class. Therefore, the final ruling class will specialize itself in security and military specialization. As a result, the middle ruling class also takes over the management of the lives of all the ruled, and the division of ruling labour is completed. However, this division of labour completely exposes the absurdity of the inability of producers, including the owners of the means of production, to privately own their own products. Therefore, the modern history from the Warring States period to the abolition of the monarchy turns into a history in which the middle ruling class reigns on the new throne. In its history, the middle ruling class drives out the traditional final ruling class and replaces positions. Here, Napoleon became emperor after the abolition of the monarchy, Stalin and Mao Zedong took the de facto throne, and if we ignore the details, the restoration of the monarchy occurred in a similar way. And one of the patterns of the restoration of the monarchy includes the Putin dictatorship in modern Russia. In addition, dictatorships such as Islamic fundamentalist countries, the Myanmar military junta, and the North Korean dynasty are all established by the ruling class controlling the lives of all the ruled. Incidentaly the rule of the royal family in the Middle East is a pre-modern monarchy, but it is also established by the ruling class controlling the lives of all the ruled. In both cases, the root of the dictatorship is the private ownership of the livelihood of the ruled class by the ruling class. However, it is not necessary to formally declare private ownership. Therefore, the private ownership can be expressed in another way, and it can be described as the privatization of the infrastructure of life by the ruling class. In such a dictatorship, the public ownership of the means of production is merely a facade, and the actual state of the means of production is the private property of the privileged class. On the other hand, many of the livelihoods have been granted private ownership to the proletarian one after another in modern times. Otherwise, the lives of the proletarians will not be able to escape from extreme poverty. In addition, in the development of industry, the monopoly of the means of production by specific individuals appears as an impediment, hindering the growth of the wealth of the nation as a whole. And because of this hindrance, many of the former communist blocs collapsed in poverty. The introduction of market economies in Vietnam and China has eliminated the state's monopoly of the means of production, thereby escaping the crisis of the collapse of the system. Therefore, the modern dictatorship manifests itself as the privatization of the country's core industries, rather than the privatization of all the foundations of the ruled's life by the ruling class. In addition, if a country has a limited number of core industries, it is possible to maintain its dictatorship by realizing the privatization of core industries. Industry, on the other hand, has an aptitude for the privatization of products and means of production. In industries where much of the realized production value requires skill, workers occupy the skill. Therefore, the decision to own products must also depend on the skill level of the workers. On the other hand, when much of the realized production value is attributable to natural resources, the private ownership of the products in the industry is distributed to the owners of the means of production, such as land. For example, industries that extract natural resources, such as oil, are ideal for the privatization of products by the owners of the means of production. And its industrial aptitude makes it possible for the owners of the means of production to control the livelihoods of the proletarians engaged in the relevant industries. On the other hand, the essence of the value of natural resources is the Extraordinary Surplus Value brought about by the monopoly of the means of production such as land. That monopoly requires violence, and a monopoly cannot be maintained without violence. Therefore, a country whose core industry is the extraction of natural resources is inclined to a dictatorship, and the dictatorship enables the violent control of the people through its core industry. Russia, which is rich in natural resources and has difficulty developing other industries, has a favorable location for the establishment of such a dictatorship, and such a location promotes the establishment of a dictatorship. And the private ownership of these key industries makes democratization difficult in Russia, as is the case in the Middle Eastern monarchies.
(2024/01/14)Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (4) Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (2)
Original Japanese(2)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（２）
