The present state of Russian fascism (5)

(4) Measures to democratize authoritarian states

In order to deter the fascist state's wars of aggression and support its democratization, it is necessary to frustrate the various pretexts that fascists use to repress the people. Exclusively the basis for this pretext is the delusions of nationalism and fundamentalist religion espoused by the fascists. Through their ideals, fascists promote themselves as the national core or religious truth. And in doing so, they take control of the state by wiping out others who oppose them. However, the goal of nationalism was originally concentrated in the realization of the freedom and human rights of local residents. It is precisely because of this that nationalism emerges from among the persecuted local residents when the freedom and human rights of local residents are impeded. The significance of such nationalism is no different in the significance of religion. This is because religion is the purified lifestyle of the local population and its form. In this respect, the fascists' oppression of the people on the basis of nationalism or religion is contrary to their original goals. However, nationalism and religion can also emerge apart from freedom and human rights. Originally, the reason why they aim to realize the freedom and human rights of local residents is that the local residents are a sub-living group that is persecuted. But, if that local population is a higher living group that expropriates and dominates the sub-groups, the realization of freedom and human rights in the area under their control will be detrimental to their own lives. Therefore, the nationalism and religion of the ruling group easily move into the opposite of freedom and human rights. Moreover, they seek to realize only the traditional life of the average majority in the region. Such nationalism and religion hunt down and destroy individuals who are not in the majority, individuals who do not fit in, groups with different forms of habits, or original foreigners, in accordance with the right of the mere majority. Therefore, even in the persecuted sub-groups, nationalism and religion are often at odds with the realization of freedom and human rights. And what fascists espouse is, after all, that level of nationalism and religion. Therefore, if nationalism and religion aim at the realization of freedom and human rights, they need to abandon their own baseless formality in order to achieve that goal. What is needed here, is not the violent oppression of the minority by the majority, and not the violent suppression of freedoms and human rights, but the work of reconciling conflicts among local populations through talks. The coordination process is based on the physical facts of the real world, not on the assumptions and superstitions that underlie nationalism and religion.
Incidentally, the assumptions and superstitions on which nationalism and religion are based can be dispelled, if possible, by fanciful means, such as changing the definition of ethnicity, abolishing religion, or uniting all religions. If the borders of the whole world could be subdivided into equal sizes, democracy might be able to absorb those grievances, as wars of aggression would lose their pretext. In addition, if a large-scale sealed train can be implemented, human resources who resist the dictatorship can be transplanted into the dictatorship. Besides, in response to the outbreak of refugees, unrealistic measures are conceivable in which some areas along the borders of authoritarian states as new type of colonies are reserved for refugee camps, and internationally support the relevant settlements and establish democratization locally, in imitation of Russia's approach. However, it will take time to eradicate ethnic delusions and superstitions, and if they can be eradicated in the first place, the democratization of dictatorships will probably be completed at the same time. The equal division of global borders requires either military force or the completion of global democratization. And if a large-scale sealed train is implemented, all dissidents and pro-democracy intellectuals sent by the sealed train will be sent to prison camps or executed by the dictatorship. On the other hand, the aforementioned new type of colonies are an invasion for the fascist state. Moreover, the appearance of truth on its own territory in a fascist state is only a threat to fascist falsehoods. The fascists would relentlessly bomb refugee camps on their territory, and the war would develop into an armed confrontation between two opposing patriotic forces between the fascists and the refugees. However, no matter how much capital is invested to modernize the refugee areas, if the foreign forces stationed there are defeated, only the fact of aggression will remain, just like Japan's annexation of Korea. Perhaps 30 years from now, Afghanistan's current stagnant state of affairs may be portrayed as a world of patriotic heroism in which the Taliban drove out brutal foreign powers. Also, if the armed confrontation between the two conflicting patriotic nations leaves the internal borders through a ceasefire, it will lead to a recurrence of the division of Germany, the Korean Peninsula, or Vietnam after World War II. It inhibits domestic modernization on both sides by leaving divisions. From this point of view, it seems unreasonable to achieve democratization through military force from outside the dictatorship. Originally, democracy is the antithesis of violence. Achieving democracy through violence leaves a contradiction in any way. Rather, democracy realized through violence can easily be transformed into its opposite. In the first place, democracy is only a tool for realizing correct object recognition. Its basis is based on the method of achieving correct object recognition in the natural sciences. It is the result of criticism and verification among researchers across generations. And it is this method of criticism and verification that constitutes democracy. In other words, the academic truth is not violently determined by the researcher. Of course, even that academic work is approved with a twist in the class interests of different cognitive subjects. But the approved truth is ultimately determined by physical nature itself. And that truth exposes the falsehoods of those who have distorted the truth for their own self-interest. Therefore, if democracy is to be realized from its foundations, it is necessary to start with the circulation of facts.

(4a) Preparation of fact-based reporting

The influence of dictatorships on the internal affairs of authoritarian states is possible through the presentation of human rights ideals through culture and art, and in the reporting of facts that convey the reality of dictatorship. If it is appropriate, it will make all the people of the dictatorship, including the ruling class, aware of the need for democratization. In the long-term response to dictatorships, this non-military measure is more important than the military one of the former. Its importance follows the fact that the policy itself is nonviolent. Ideally, therefore, foreign countries would like to reform their dictatorship by presenting human rights principles and factual reporting to dictatorships without taking any military measures. For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine requires the Russian people to be aware of their role as perpetrators of the tragedy that occurred in Ukraine. What is needed here is to expose the Russian consciousness that treats Ukraine as a servant of Russia and the nationalist delusion that disguises its inhumanity as patriotism, and to force Russia to face the scourge of hell that these false consciousness has brought to Ukraine. If it succeeds, the list of facts will bring Russia into a sense of guilt as a perpetrator of the crime. Without these revelations and recognition of the facts, Russia cannot recognize itself as a perpetrator of a crime. Of course, standing in the way of this awareness is a false nationalism that prides itself on taking the property of other countries. Or it is a national temperament that does not consider such acts shameful. But such nationalism and nationality are only objects that democracy must wipe out. Authoritarian states such as Russia, China, and North Korea restrict information from other countries because their ruling class is afraid of spreading these facts and is afraid of exposing their own falsehoods. The horror they show is a direct expression of the power of factual reporting to convey the reality of dictatorship. On the other hand, the development of information with physical media is determined by the progress of the medium. In many times in the past, the medium was exclusively printed documents. Apart from its authenticity, the information there is a tradition, research, or expression of something. Since the information is represented in symbols and forms, it is possible to classify and systematize the information according to the difference in shape and content. On the one hand, the information expresses the truth of the beings of the real world, and on the other hand, the falsehood of the beings of the real world. For the time being, factual records represent the real world, and creations represent the false real world. However, the classification of truth or falsehood is limited to the presence or absence of corresponding facts. But the factual record also expresses the real world on the one hand, and the false real world on the other. And the truth or falsity corresponds to the existence or non-existence of the information in the real world. If the factual record does not exist, then the factual record is just a false record. Many of the false records are factual records of the past, or the traditions of the past that have become superstitions. In this way, the truth or falsity of information also forms a part of the classification and system of information. If the authenticity of the information can be searched at a list, the falsehoods issued by many information fabricators can be instantly denied in the judgment of authenticity. However, what is important here is not the discarding of individual false information. Disinformation itself constitutes a false record of fact. Therefore, what is necessary is to identify the source and background of the false information, and to clarify the basis for the false judgment. The steady work must be in accordance with the procedures of prosecution and adjudication in the courtroom, and all arguments of both the affirmative and the negative, both the defense and the prosecution, must be recorded.

(4b) Things and Ideas

The veracity of factual reports depends on the presence or absence of relevant information for the time being. To put it simply, it is the difference between the origin of consciousness in physics and ideas. However, according to idealism, it is in the field of consciousness that physics appears, and the origin of consciousness is always an idea. According to this logic, consciousness cannot directly know physics. The physics that is at best possible in this case remains a common idea shared by different consciousnesses. This logic presupposes physics as the other of consciousness. And because of this premise, consciousness cannot know physics. But for self-consciousness, the consciousness of others is also the other of consciousness. If this is the case, then self-consciousness cannot know the consciousness of others. Therefore, a common idea shared by different consciousnesses also cannot be established. However, this idealism turns a blind eye to this inconvenient circumstance. In short, this idealism is an empiricism that deals with the probability of consciousness in physics. On the other hand, the probability of consciousness contains many inconsistencies in consciousness, which need to be corrected. Behind this inconsistency is the coincidence of consciousness, and behind it is the coincidence of physics. But it is the physical truth that defines any coincidence. The physical truth appears in the form of the same law and the law of contradiction for the time being, correcting the inconsistency of phenomena and finally realizing the laws of physics. Of course, idealism does not recognize this physical truth. Exclusively idealism treats those physical provisions into the faith of materialism, replacing it with the true of consciousness. The negation of the physical truth sometimes leads to the denial of the law of sameness and contradiction. But the negation of the physical truth follows the inconvenience of consciousness that opposes the physical truth. Or rather, because of its inconvenience, consciousness repels physical truth. What this conflict expresses is the conflict between the foundation of consciousness and the physical truth. However, there is a consciousness that repels physical truth, and there is also a consciousness that accepts the physical truth. Rather, the consciousness that corresponds to the real world accepts the physical truth. Also, from the point of view of materialism, it is also the physical truth that defines the self-expediency of consciousness that is opposed to the physical truth. And the being of consciousness that denies truth in general for its own convenience is already false. Therefore, the violent elimination of the physical truth by idealism, even if left alone, will eventually be denied by the physical truth. In other words, the physics of reality overcomes that self-deception. But if we can't wait for the self-collapse of idealism through the Cold War, we need to circulate physical truth more quickly on the side of idealism. In fact, the distribution of factual reports under the dictatorship, which began with satellite broadcasting in the 80s, has led to the collapse of the dictatorship one after another. Perhaps what is needed now is the acceleration of the information revolution and the development of fact-reporting. On the other hand, factual reporting includes physical coincidences and conscious coincidences. Taking advantage of this, the self-convenience of consciousness combines its contradictory facts to fabricate false facts. But the fabricator already knows the falsity of his fabrication. Naturally, this knowledge brings the fabricator to the consciousness of a liar. The conscience that this awareness inflicts on the fabricator, makes it necessary for the fabricator to have a superior person who allows the fabricator to do so. And religion appears at the opposite end of physics according to its needs. However, if a religion also fabricates facts for its own convenience, it will naturally recognize itself as a fabricator. In each case, the fabricator departs from God's feet for his own momentary pleasure. If religion is the protector of truth, then religion cannot forgive itself as a fabricator. In the end, what this awareness fosters is the awareness of defeat in a series of fabricators.

(4c) Fascism Accreditation

Fascism violently suppresses truths that are inconvenient to itself in the name of patriotism. At this time, it plays with sweet words of individual citizens, and ultimately makes all citizens accomplices to the violence. It excludes the dissenters from the totality of popular will, so inevitably the fascists dominate the state by majority rule. Therefore, a democratic state and a fascist state cannot be distinguished by their democratic appearance alone. The distinction depends on the legitimate circulation of physical facts, and the realization of equal discussions in the State. That is, it is in accordance with the reality of freedom of speech and respect for human rights in the relevant state. And that lack of reality can be judged by the fact that people who advocate for freedom of speech and respect for human rights are detained and flee the country. In this respect, it can be asserted that Russia at present is in this fascist dictatorship, and Putin is at the top of it. On the other hand, the modernization of the state and the development of science and technology are intertwined. And in a world without discussion, science and technology will not progress. In other words, the development of science and technology and the realization of democracy are also intertwined. Therefore, the lack of democracy directly hinders the modernization of the country. In a fascist state, a fabricated ideology dominates the people, and it rises above the national debate. However, the state still tries to conceal the violent exclusion of its critical citizens and maintain a democratic appearance. Therein lies the next need in a fascist state. It is necessary to equate support for dictatorship and patriotism. Of course, as mentioned above, it is not actually patriotic. In the post-World War II world, the unpopularity of fascism is definite, and even Russia treats Ukraine as fascist in order to avoid its own recognition of fascism. As is well known, Russia is using the history of World War II, when the Ukrainian national independence movement united with Nazism. But that's just to blame Ukraine for choosing a snake over a bear when faced with a choice between a venomous snake and a man-eating bear. But with that, Russia labels the Ukrainian national movement fascist. The goal, of course, is to undermine Ukraine's national independence, which is inconvenient for Russia. In addition, from the perspective of the Russian ruling class, Ukraine's national independence is tantamount to aggressive nationalism with ethnic cleansing of Russia. Of course, the labeling is limited to self-expedient recognition of fascism. At least Ukraine as a nation has not been ethnically cleansed and has not invaded. Moreover, the inconvenience of Russia is not an inconvenience to the Russian people, but only an inconvenience to the Russian privileged class. For the time being, there is nothing wrong with this general definition of fascism as aggressive nationalism with ethnic cleansing. It should be noted that this recognition of fascism does not depend on the presence or absence of democracy in the target state. In fact, fascism is not just the antithesis of democracy. Fascism in the past emerged as populism in democracies. Fascism, however, moves to the violent elimination of dissidents after democratically seizing power with the support of the people. Therefore rather, fascism needs to be confined to the antithesis of freedom of speech and respect for human rights. In the end, it stems from the fact that aggressive nationalism, accompanied by ethnic cleansing, always requires suppression of speech and disregard for human rights. This suppression of speech and disregard for human rights is a phenomenon that can be extracted from the physical facts of the regime within the framework of the existing order. The recognition of fascism through its physical facts makes it impossible to recognize fascism against Ukraine and, conversely, allows Russia to recognize its own fascism. The establishment of such criteria is effective not only in Russia, but also in the evaluation of other existing dictatorships, as well as in all future fascisms. Naturally, a certain conscience about the proper use of expressions and the unpopularity of fascism worldwide, act to curb fascism by the international acceptance of this criterion for recognition of fascism. However, the establishment of such a certification standard is only a change in consciousness of physical facts, and does not go beyond ideological manipulation. Therefore, the change in the accreditation criteria is probably only a temporary response to awareness. Nevertheless, the change in the criteria is meaningful enough to try to curb fascism now and in the future.

(5) Russian fascism

The establishment of Putin's dictatorship has many similarities with the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship in Nazi Germany. Both have gained popularity for their nationalist populism through democratic elections and have been in power during a period of economic recovery in the country. However, in Putin's case, he did not implement economic policy as genius as Hitler. His economic policy is to put Russia's abundant resources on the supply line of a liberal economy and to revive the Russian economy with Western support. It only achieved a natural recovery of the economy at an early stage, and at best it mimics Deng Xiaoping's modernization of China. However, in retrospect, it may be seen as a North Korean-style measure aimed at restoring Russia's imperial power through the restored national power. On the other hand, Hitler and Putin have in common various aspects, such as the destruction of political opponents through conspiracy incidents, terrorism and information control by security organizations, and military suppression and foreign invasion of other ethnic groups. As a result, both regimes are forced to support the people in their wartime regimes, and they also receive the support of the people by bringing them into the wartime regime. In either case, critics of the regime are either imprisoned or exterminated, or they have no choice but to remain silent like stone, which purifies the speakers of domestic public opinion into supporters of the regime. And the dictatorship mistakenly believes that the domestic purification of its supporters is its own overwhelming support. However, domestic public opinion and support for the regime, which have been achieved through the suppression of criticism and the control of information, do not follow the premise of democracy in disclosing opposing opinions and verifying the facts. In short, it is simply the oppression and domination of the minority by the majority, not democracy. To put it simply, what Putin's Russia aimed at with its invasion of Ukraine, which began in earnest in February last year, is to crush democratization. What the Russian ruling class, led by Putin, fears is that democratization will spill over to Russia, and that the progress of democratization will expose their wrongdoings. Of course, such worries are not expressed as a sense of urgency about the exposure of wrongdoing. The pretext in the case of the former Soviet Union is the defense of communism, and in the case of Putin's Russia is the defense of national rights. This defense of national rights is a common pretext that appears exclusively as a lie justifying aggression, and is also used by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. However, in Putin's case, there is a high degree of conspiracy in the defense of his national rights, and the scale of the defense is large from the beginning. Putin, for example, is suspected of colluding with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to carry out five apartment bombings in order to gain an advantage in the presidential election. In response to the investigation, they first poisoned defected witnesses, and then carried out terror and the elimination of journalists seeking the truth. Of course, the execution and the removal by the authorities express a display of the conspiracy that they have committed, in short, a confession of the crime. Similarly, in the invasion of Ukraine since February last year, Putin has used the protection of ethnic Russians persecuted in Ukraine as a pretext for the invasion. Here, too, Russia has eliminated the fact of the persecution of ethnic Russians in Ukraine through the requisition of eastern Ukraine. What is needed to cover up these facts is the suppression of the press and expression by power, and the denial of democracy based on discussion. Conversely, if we eliminate the authoritative suppression of the press and expression, and realize democracy based on talks, Putin's many falsehoods will be exposed and the current war in Ukraine will come to an end. Putin's Russia, on the other hand, calls for multipolar domination of the world, which sees freedom of the press and expression and democracy as a unipolar world order in the United States, and has drawn dictatorships who hostile to democracy into its ranks. Of course, the Ukrainian regime is not included in one of the poles of the multipolarity that Russia considers. Putin's sense of crisis here is no different from the sense of crisis that the Soviet Union had, about socialism with a human face which appeared in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia after World War II. Of course, if Russia had been more free and democratic than the West, it would not have had such a sense of crisis. In that case, Ukraine would have moved away from the West and moved closer to Russia. But Russian nationalists do not see the secession of Russian rule in Ukraine as such, rather put Russia against freedom and democracy. And then and now, Russian dictators use their false nationalism to prolong their lives. In today's Russia, the act of undermining Russia's pride and authority is considered patriotic, and the act of trying to protect Russia's pride and authority is condemned as a traitor. Normally, the determination of patriotism is based on discussions that follow physical facts. In other words, science and democracy determine the truth of patriotism. And true patriots aim for a free and democratic Russia and support the democratization of Ukraine. Naturally, it completely rejects Russia's own invasion of Ukraine. But the dictator cannot tolerate this decision. The ruler then decides the truth of patriotism at his own discretion. Here he relies on a false patriotism that opposes the democratization of Ukraine. Its goal is a dictatorship that is the opposite of freedom. Therefore, the Russian dictator rejects physical facts and discussions. As a result, factual reporting and democracy in dictatorships are deprived of freedom under the control of power. On the contrary, dictators turn their unfree press and constrained democracy into an antithesis between fact-reporting and democracy. Fascism substitutes physical facts and discourse for falsehood and violence respectively, and turns the state into a rotten monster that opposes humanity.

(2024/01/14)
Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (4)
Original Japanese(3)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（３）

Materialist : List of articles

The present state of Russian fascism (4)

(3d) Historical peculiarities of the state

The realization of democracy in Russia is also hampered by the historical peculiarities of Russia as a state. Its historical peculiarity follows that many regions of Russia are the fruit of invasion and plunder. And that Russian peculiarity turns into a lack of remorse for the invasion and plunder to other countries. Historically, Russia has prioritized eastward expansion in order to counter European imperialism and to prevent the revival of the Mongol Empire. There were no Russians living in those areas originally, and the Russians were settlers and, for that matter, invaders. Its Russian historical necessity has instilled in Russians an old-fashioned sense of imperialist entitlement that glorifies their aggression and justifies looting. However, this old-fashioned sense of entitlement is not unique to Russia. In the old days, aggression and slaughter were carried out all over the world, and the invaders there had to be unrepentant of their own vices. And that unrepentant made colonization and slavery possible. Furthermore, in the invasion of developing countries by developed countries from the Age of Exploration to the present day, the aggressor had to boast of his aggression. The virtue there, is to trample on the rights of the opponent, treating more plunder as a sign of loyalty and patriotism to the Motherland. And this sense of entitlement has justified the ruthless plundering of the indigenous peoples of the areas under its control. In order for them to be treated as inhumane and atrocities, it was necessary to wait for the declaration of human rights issued by the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. Moreover, it was not until the 20th century that this awareness of human rights began to function properly. The sense of entitlement of the old era was on the same level as the competitive consciousness of the number of killings among the warlords, and as an extension of this, global imperialist wars broke out at the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, in recent developed countries, the sense of rights of the old era has been replaced by a sense of redemption for indigenous peoples, slaves, and even former colonies. This substitution is the same as the instillation of human rights awareness, and its physical substance is the realization of a non-discriminatory distribution of national assets. In other words, the eradication of extreme poverty among the people has made it possible for awareness of human rights to spread. Furthermore, it was the rapid development of production technology brought about by the Industrial Revolution that made this possible. In the end, this shows that humans need a minimum security of livelihood in order to distinguish themselves from mere animals. Conversely, unless extreme poverty among the people is eradicated, the consciousness of human rights will not permeate, and aggression and plunder will gain virtue and patriotic vanity. To put it simply, the human beings there, are still not human beings, but mere animals. Russia, on the other hand, failed to realize democracy in the revolution of the early 20th century and shifted to a dictatorship at the opposite end of the spectrum. The dictatorship, despite its communist title, also fails in the non-discriminatory distribution of national assets, and revives the old-era sense of entitlement with aggression and plunder as virtues. In that respect, the communist banner was a shackle to the dictatorship of the time. But rather its majesty was what adorned the dictatorship's sense of entitlement. However, the collapse of the communist regime in Russia deprives the Russian ruling class of the majesty of communism. It is a loss of an excuse for Russia to embellish its atrocities of aggression and plunder. Yet the Russian ruling class still believes and does not doubt that they should have the right to invade and plunder other countries. Moreover, strangely enough, this peculiar sense of entitlement is shared by many Russian citizens. For the time being, according to Putin, the sense of entitlement is that there is no distinction between self and others in Russia and Ukraine, and because of the lack of that distinction, Russia makes plundering Ukraine its right. But if there is no distinction between self and others, there is no need for plundering. Therefore, in fact, its sense of entitlement distinguishes between self and others, and according to that distinction, Russia is also plundering from Ukraine. However, if it is one's right to plunder others, then the plundering of oneself by others is also the right of others. In the end, it violates the private rights of individuals in general, including private property. In other words, what this sense of entitlement denies is basic human rights. Because of this contradiction and unreasonableness, the post-World War II empire developed a sense of atonement for the indigenous peoples, slaves, and former colonies with whom it had committed atrocities. On the contrary, this reveals the difficulty of guaranteeing basic human rights in such a country when the old-fashioned sense of rights dominates the population. It expresses the difficulties of democracy in Russia as it is. Moreover, this makes us expect that even after Putin's death, it will be difficult in Russia to achieve a democracy sufficient to end the invasion of Ukraine.

(3e) Failure of the democratization of authoritarian states

In practice, even if 3a) and 3b) are overcome among the above inhibition situations, it is difficult to overcome 3c) and 3d). This is shown by the experience of failed democratization in dictatorships. Moreover, the experience of failure is added as an impediment to the democratization of the dictatorship. Not only in Russia, but also in the world, there are still many dictatorships, and outrageous violence is rampant within them. The civil war against the dictatorship gave rise to many refugees, and in recent years, these refugees have begun to flow into developed countries in large numbers. In response, the West condemns the inhumanity of dictatorships and sometimes uses military measures such as air strikes. As far as Iraq and Afghanistan concerned, the West intervened militarily to topple its dictatorships. Subsequently, the international community tried to modernize Afghanistan by disseminating factual reporting necessary for democratization, enhancing democratic education among the people, and establishing the infrastructure of a democratic state, such as holding free elections. Its efforts to modernize Afghanistan lasted 20 years. However, the democratization experiment in Afghanistan failed after investing a great deal of effort and money. Much of the failure of the democratization was due to the new Afghan ruling class's embezzlement of Western support, which hindered the autonomous development of the economy. On the other hand, the discontent of the middle ruling class of the old Islamic order, which had fallen due to democratization, called for the revival of the Taliban. The revival of the dictatorship led to the exodus of many people as refugees, who had learned of freedom by the international support in a temporary democratization. Twenty years of Afghanistan's modernization have been reduced to ashes, and once again the blockade of fact-telling and the violent exclusion of critical citizens have returned to everyday life in Afghanistan. Here again, the obstacle to Afghanistan's modernization is the difficulty of democratization in authoritarian states. However, since this problem could not be solved by 20 years of efforts, the path to achieving democratization in the same way as before is already blocked, unless there are suitable conditions. Therefore, its failure is powerful enough to make attempts at post-dictatorship democratization in other country despair. This despair makes us anticipate a future in which the number of refugees in conflict areas will continue to increase and they will flow into developed countries. The first dilemma that emerges is that while the collapse of the dictatorship is necessary to prevent the emergence of refugees, the human resources necessary for the collapse of the dictatorship become refugees. And that dilemma is fused with other dilemmas. There, attempts to overthrow the dictatorship lead to social unrest, and that social unrest strengthens the dictatorship. At the root of this dilemma is the poverty of the people, and poverty is linked to the need for a violent order. On the other hand, there is no hope that the awakening of conscience in dictatorships will be realized by the enrichment of dictatorships. The enrichment of the dictatorship in North Korea merely enriched the ruling class and strengthened the dictatorship, and did not improve the welfare of the people and did not advance democratization. And even if the welfare of the people improves in dictatorships, it is likely that the enrichment will only result in modernization that pledges allegiance to the ruling class, as is the case with democratization in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. In the end, it will only empower dictatorships and further increase the anxiety that other countries have about dictatorships. And this refugee situation also applies to Russian refugees born under Putin's dictatorship. In the current situation full of dilemmas, the only measures that foreign countries can take for the time being are limited to two things: the repeated transition to a better dictatorship and the weakening of the dictatorship. However, repeated transitions to better dictatorships have failed in the examples of Afghanistan and North Korea. And the revival of Putin's dictatorship in Russia is included in this same failure. Therefore, the only thing that can be done by foreign countries in the current situation is to weaken the dictatorship. But this measure will only deprive the people under the dictatorship of the capacity for rebellion, and will not have the effect to end the dictatorship.

(3f) Sustainability of a weakened dictatorship

When a dictatorship achieves a predetermined path of economic development, the dictatorship realizes the most advanced production process in the shortest possible way, without needy detours and coordination of departments. Therefore, communism in Eastern Europe achieved economic growth that surprised other countries during the reconstruction period after World War II. A similar situation can be seen in the economic growth of Vietnam and China through reform and opening up. However, the development of science and technology requires discussion and factual information, both of which are directly linked to democracy. And that democracy is at odds with dictatorship. To put it simply, science and technology do not develop under a dictatorship. Therefore, the economic growth of the dictatorship stalls after miraculous development and goes straight into a period of stagnation. Of course, authoritarian regimes also allow limited discussion and factual information for the development of science and technology. However, as long as there is a limitation, it will still be a hindrance to the development of science and technology. It slows down the development of the science and technology of the dictatorship in the technological competition with other democracies. In addition, more than the development of science and technology, the bureaucracy of dictatorships in economic management hinders the economic development of dictatorships. Naturally, the first prescription for this economic downturn is the realization of democracy. But dictatorships do not tolerate it. The biggest obstacle to its modernization is the dictatorship itself. The ruling class is a traitor who screams patriotism, and in the opposite direction to the beautiful words that come out of his mouth, he makes the nation obsolete and senile. This shows that if other countries distance themselves from dictatorships, dictatorships will weaken without escaping from economic stagnation. If the danger of a dictatorship lies in its invasion of another country, the weakening of the dictatorship reduces the risk of that aggression. As a result, the Cold War after World War II was a battle of patience between such democracies and dictatorships. However, it was only a battle of patience in the end, and at the beginning of the Cold War, it was still uncertain which side would eventually become a dictatorship. But the communist camp, which was already in dictatorship, did not thoroughly end Khrushchev's thaw. And that incompleteness made Russia a loser in the Cold War. In retrospect, Gorbachev's decision could only be valid during the Khrushchev era, before the Hungarian-Polish uprising of Nagy and Gomulka. No matter which Russian leader subsequently invokes perestroika, the Russian communist regime will probably collapse. But Russia is a resource-rich and self-sufficient nation, and it took half a century for its weakening to take effect. Naturally, weakening Putin's Russia will take a similar amount of time. However, Putin's life expectancy is not that long. Therefore, the West's weakening of Russia can only be seen for a short period of time before Putin's death. On the other hand, Putin's dictatorship has the background of the impediment to democratization mentioned above. This is enough to show that Russian fascism may persist regardless of Putin's death. As a result, the end of Russian fascism can only be realized gradually, by repeating the end of the Cold War in the progress of democratization and the resumption of the Cold War in the progress of dictatorship. Even so, as already mentioned, nationalist fascism begins as populism in a democracy. It may restore fascists to a more powerful and dangerous level in economically resurgent former dictatorships, ultimately destroying democracy. Lenin once described the Russian parliament as a fig leaf to color the bourgeois dictatorship. And he took the place of the Russian Soviets in opposition to the Russian parliament. However, the parliament at the time of the Russian Revolution was sufficiently democratic, unlike the previous imperial parliament, and Lenin's assessment of the parliament was false. In other words, the congressional assessment expressed the flaws of Lenin's disregard for democracy. In the end, the Russian Soviets are more like fig leaves adorning the democracy of lies. On the other hand, the violent elimination of critics by current Russian fascism has turned the Russian parliament into a real fig leaf. In light of this situation, the West's response to the Cold War, which brought Russia to the collapse of the Soviet Union, has only taken a detour and ushered in a new fascism. The consensus of the Russian people aspires to fascism, and fascism embodies the will of the Russian people. Democratization to deter fascism is still in a dilemma, even in the weakening of dictatorships.

(2024/01/14)
Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (5)　　Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (3)
Original Japanese(2)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（２）

Materialist : List of articles

The present state of Russian fascism (3)

(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）

Materialist : List of articles

The present state of Russian fascism (2)

(2)Idealism in fascism

Fascism aims at the spiritual control of the people and places the ruling class at the top of that spiritual control. The injustice of that rule lies in the absence of democracy. And the needs of democracy follow the need to expose the injustices of the economic privileges of the dictatorship. In addition, it is the free press that makes it possible to expose the unfairness. The goal of a free press is to report facts, not falsehoods of assumptions. What is simply required is a physical perception of the object, not an excuse for it. Fascism, on the other hand, conspires to conceal the physical aspect of the object itself through excuses. And in doing so, the fascists shield the factual press and stifle the free press. This lack of a free press makes democracy impossible. What awaits us here is the cognitive difficulty in which the class conflict makes object recognition impossible. Marx's awareness of the problem as a philosopher is also here, and his proposal for a communist revolution follows its guideline. The obstruction of object recognition in fascism is linked to its growth process. The following is a review of its growth process.

(2a) Fascism and democracy

Nationalist fascism arises from democratic populism. Even though they have not been suppressed, they are oppressed by repeated their own provocative violence, and they resist the oppression by considering it as political suppression. For them, criticism in general is a threat to their beliefs, and use violence to silence the criticism. The suppression of speech becomes more radical as the fascists get closer to power, and eventually they regard their critics as foreigners of other races or agents of foreign nations and imprison them in camps and execute them. This nationalist fascism seeks to reconstruct an ideal past that never existed. Of course, this unrealistic restorationism is no different in religious fundamentalism. The ideal past, like the national glory in nationalist fascism, is in fact an illusion created by the reverse glorification of the villainous past. Therefore, both of them aim at the revival of the traditional authoritarian patriarchal order. To put it simply, the goal is the domination of the weak by the strong. In each case, the background is a grudge against one's own decline and an impulse to dominate with no direction. Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, like red fascism, does not arise from democratic populism, but solely from the demand for the overthrow of the existing authoritarian order. And in the background of all of this is the underdeveloped social state of democracy. However, if the goal of the revolutionary group is to overthrow the dictatorial order, then the social order after the overthrow should be a democratic order, which is the antithesis of dictatorship. At this time, if a revolutionary group allows criticism from outside of the group, it is absurd not to allow criticism from within its own group. Therefore, if a revolutionary group aims for a democratic order, it needs to be democratic in its own right. In this case, whether it is religious fundamentalism or red fascism, it must be democratic at the beginning. That said, suppressing criticism in an organization gives it quick action. On the other hand, the suppression of criticism deprives the organization of flexibility in its actions. This makes it difficult to examine problems inside and outside of the organization and to deal with them. Therefore, even in dictatorships, the ruling class needs intellectuals around them. Of course, this free communication is even more necessary in democratic organizations. Ideally, all members would be experts individually. But these democratic needs also lead to delays in decision-making. And that delay is fatal in the revolutionary group's quick response to the situation. However, the general movement policy does not necessarily require such a quick breakthrough in the situation. It is necessary to deal with the dictatorship's repression to the revolutionary groups. The need for organizational defense in revolutionary groups constrains democracy within revolutionary groups. It forces revolutionary groups to choose an organizational form that localizes the damage at the time of detection by restricting free communication among its members and dividing the chain of command. In this case, in order to defend the superior organization, the chain of command will also be top-down in the old military style. However, to put it simply, there is no room for organizational policy discussion in this organizational structure, and it is therefore undemocratic. It is a contradiction that a revolutionary group that aims for democracy becomes undemocratic. And this dilemma degenerates the revolutionary group into an undemocratic one. Behind this deterioration lies the unjust economic privileges of the ruling class within the revolutionary group. Incidentally, at least after the revolutionary group seizes power, the constraints of democracy that were necessary for the defense of the organization become unnecessary. Therefore, after a revolutionary group has seized power, to impose constraints on democracy expresses the falsity of the revolutionary group itself.

(2b) Fascism and goodness

The irrational poverty and discrimination brought about by the dictatorial order merge with the resentment of one's own decline and the impulse to dominate with no direction, giving birth to a new form of fascism. One purifies into patriotism that complements the existing order, and the other purifies into anti-establishment passions that destroy the existing order. But in any passion, the legitimate part does not proceed to fascism, but to the realization of democracy. What they both have in common is their own emptiness in response to their unfortunate circumstances, and their thirst to compensate for that emptiness. If that craving is limited to the simple realization of self-enrichment, then there is no need for any particular good. However, those who are in irrational poverty and discrimination cannot even live a normal life in the first place. At this time, people who have been abandoned from physical wealth, aim for spiritual wealth. What appears there is not physical value, but spiritual value, that is, goodness. Therefore, even in the midst of unreasonable poverty and discrimination, man does not surrender himself to vices, but on the contrary avoids vices. But the more a person tries to gain goodness at the cost of emptiness, the purity of that goodness drives him into self-denial. And that self-denial manifests itself as selfless submission to the good in the individual. Especially for individuals in unfortunate circumstances, the self that should be denied is already equal to nothing in the first place. Rather, the proletarian, who has nothing to lose, easily gains greater value through goodness. On the contrary, the proletarian, who has nothing to lose, despairs of his own life and even seeks a place to die. If the price of his death is good, he easily desires death. Of course, a typical example of this is suicide bombing in fundamentalism, as well as the self-sacrificing acts of nationalism and communism that fundamentalism modeled in the first place. In both cases, despair invites people to sacrifice themselves at the risk of their lives. However, whether the good obtained by risking one's life is genuine good, is another matter. If the action realizes genuine good, then the death may not be in vain. But if not, then its death is in vain, and in some cases exactly the opposite, it makes evil come true. What is troubling is when an individual who risks its life simply wants to die and uses an existing unidentified goodness as an excuse to die. In that case, the truth or falsity of the goodness does not matter to him. At this time, his exstence for the other becomes a saint in an organization that espouses its false goodness, regardless of the outcome, life or death. But whether he is a real saint remains a separate problem. What is needed here is no longer goodness, but truth. It is not fabricated by consciousness, but is constructed by physics. Its physics requires the immediacy and quantity of information. The amount of information is a spatial quantity on the one hand and a temporal quantity on the other, and at the same time it needs to be consistent with the chain of facts that spreads out in time and the course of time. Only such a whole system of information comes close to physical truth through the confirmation of the consistency between its individual information.

(2c) Fascism and Truth

The good that fascism believes in is in conflict with the physical truth. To put it simply, the good of fascism is a fabrication of consciousness, or simply a lie that is only assumed. That is not consistent with direct information and its quantity. And conversely, direct information and its quantity exposes that lies. Therefore, fascism is hostile to general information, and circulates the lies it believes in to the outside world under the guise of correct information. At this time, the leaders of the fascist organization silence information that is not convenient for them in the organization. However, the same information also comes from outside of the organization. Therefore, if fascists take control of the state, they violently suppress all information in the country that is inconvenient for fascist organizations. In addition, they shield information from outside of the country and treat domestic critics who sympathize with foreign news reports as agents of foreign intelligence agencies and make them traitors. On the other hand, a free press is free expression, and free expression includes false expression. Originally, physical truth often manifests itself in the exact opposite of its reality. Therefore, even direct information is often false on its own. For this reason, direct information needs to be consistent with the chain of facts and the course of time. This indicates a general possibility that the representation will be false. So, to put it simply, freedom of expression is even the freedom to say falsehoods. But the misrepresentation needs to be corrected. However, the negation is not done through physical violence, but through counter-regular expressions and discussions. The correction of false representations here also follows the chain of facts and consistency in the course of time. What it expects is the self-condemnation of false expressions by the self-convincing, and the natural death. Otherwise, the violent denial of false expression goes hand in hand with the denial of freedom of expression. However, the fascists take advantage of the need to correct this false expression and suppress all free expression that is not convenient for the fascists. That self-deception seeks its place in false sayings, such as that "The winner can make anything true.", or that "The lies you continue to believe will turn into the truth.". What it expresses is the royal road of idealism, which holds that truth is consciousness and that consciousness determines truth. However, even if you change the way you look at things, the physical truth does not change. It is Russia that invaded a sovereign state, Russia is the perpetrator and Ukraine is the victim. Physical truth does not allow lies that replace the reality of unhappiness with happiness that is only assumed. It is also because of this awareness that Russian fascists need to rid the truth of the war in Ukraine from within Russia's own country. Perhaps the right way to deal with modern warfare is to disseminate such a reality in the fascist state without hesitation. And the modern world has created the Internet as a powerful weapon to realize this strategy. However, even on the Internet, fascist information defense networks are still being built there. In addition, information that purports to be general views or academic views is actually full of diversity and conflicts in the first place. Moreover, under a dictatorship where poverty is rampant, not only is it difficult to translate into foreign languages, but the Internet itself is not fully equipped in the first place. And the fact that the war has not ended also expresses a fundamental lack of factual information in this world.

(2d) Truth and Conscience

In a country where it is impossible to criticize and point out to the upper echelons, such an act of disseminating imfomation can be fatal to the sender. There is no remedy for the problems of the upper echelons, and no one takes responsibility for the chain of command that ignores the field. Naturally, in such a state, corruption and depravity are also left uncriticized and rampant. And since that corruption accumulates at the top, even the central leaders at the top are eliminated in their conflicts of interest. This situation occurs not only at the national level, but also among professional revolutionaries within non-democratic revolutionary groups. However, corruption and depravity in revolutionary groups does not simply arise from the livelihood interests of the upper echelons of the organization. Such a revolutionary group that only pursues the livelihood interests of the upper echelons is no different from an illegal economic exploitation group, similar to a gangster or a Ponzi scheme. What members of revolutionary groups originally expect is good to counter evil. And the dictatorial system embodies the evil that is the opposite of this good. Therefore, the unique corruption and depravity of undemocratic revolutionary groups become more acute in the confrontation with the dictatorial system that is their slogan. At first glance, it is not corruption and depravity in institutions, but rather a deepening of self-sacrificing devotion in nationalism, communism or religion. In the begining, the corruption and depravity do not lead to the acquisition of physical private assets in the collective leadership. But in return, the collective leadership acquires spiritual assets. Its spiritual asset is a self-serving interpretation of nationalism, communism, or religion. However, it turns into the privatization of power within the organization through the thoroughness of that interpretation. In the end, the privatization of mental assets also turns into the privatization of physical living assets. Normally, the self-sacrificing devotion of the revolutionary group is good, and the leadership of the group embodies that goodness. However, if the group leadership is not criticized and pointed out, it is doubtful that the group leadership embodies goodness. And if the collective leadership is riddled with corruption and depravity, then its self-sacrificing devotion only realizes the good that the collective leadership advocates. And if the good advocated by the collective leadership is actually evil, then that self-sacrificing devotion also realizes evil rather than good. At this point, the revolutionary group, contrary to its radical slogans, turns into an economic exploitation group similar to gangsters and Ponzi schemes, or even more illegal. In this case, the terminal members who believe that good will be realized, practice evil. The embellishment of goodness carried out by the collective leadership here, exposes the terminal members to a divergence from reality. But exclusively the terminal members ignore the discrepancy with reality in accordance with the organizational policy set forth by the group leadership. At this time, his mind is supported by a lack of remorse for the repainting of evil with good. In there he has a false idealism that mistakes the repainting of phisics as a triumph of consciousness. But conscience stands on the side of truth, and only truth appears as the voice of conscience. Of course, the fascists would also think that their actions were in accordance with their conscience. But if this is the case, then the fascists cannot explain their own behavior which conceals the truth. The physical truths that are concealed at this time appear as the voice of conscience to the fascists. Therefore, fascism, which conceals the truth, stands on the opposite side of the voice of conscience, contrary to its own intentions. What constitutes the abyss separating the two sides of the river from falsehood and truth is also the difference between economic classes.

(2024/01/14)
Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (3)　　Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (1)
Original Japanese(1)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（１）

Materialist : List of articles

The present state of Russian fascism (1)

(1) Forms of fascism

The pre-modern authoritarian order has emerged as a feudal order. And this caste system is the distinction between this dictatorship and the modern dictatorship. However, the caste-based feudal order imposes the will of the ruler against the will of the people. That coercion is already a dictatorship, and the degree of concentration of power within the ruling class and the divergence from the will of the people had raised and lowered the degree of dictatorship. On the other hand, fascism as a modern dictatorship begins as a seemingly democratic national movement. However, it has come to fruition as a totalitarian state in which the people monitor each other in order to support the ruling class. Historically, it has manifested itself in the following three forms.
　　・Nationalist fascism
　　・Red fascism
　　・Religious fundamentalism
These three types of fascism form national movements from different directions. But they all end up with similar dictatorships. All of them aim at the spiritual control of the people, and the ruling class sits at the top of that spiritual control. Of course, if the content of the mental control is legitimate, then the control may also be valid. However, its legitimacy needs to be understood by the public. And the process of understanding is democratic, which is opposed to the autocratic order. And the spiritual domination in the dictatorship is already unjust in itself. Moreover, the content of their mental control is often unjustified. Naturally, dictatorships alienate from the people. If the dictatorship wants to dispel its injustice, it needs to stop being a dictatorship itself. But the reason why a dictatorship is a dictatorship is that the dictatorship insists on being a dictatorship itself. Behind this adherence is the basis of the economic privilege of the dictatorial ruling class. In the following, this article confirms the establishment and correlation of these three forms.

(1a) Fascism and nationalism

The keynote of fascism manifests itself in the violent extermination of foreign peoples at home and the violent suppression of its own opposing forces, as well as the violent maintenance of one's own interests abroad and external military advances for that purpose. In other words, its external characteristics are ethnic cleansing and aggressive nationalism. It began in Italy, became more radical, spread to German Nazism, and took a different form as nationalism and totalitarianism, sweeping the world. Its mother ideology is fundamentally nationalistic. But not all nationalism aims at this fascist keynote. Nationalism in fascism unites a particular class and its supporters as an ethnic group, and aims at the violent realization of its interests. To put it simply, nationalism is an economic class consciousness that represents the interests of a particular class. Therefore, its nationalism does not need to be confined to ethnic boundaries, and its scope can be arbitrary. Incidentally, many of these obscure ethnic boundaries are based on religious differences. This is because many of the unclear ethnic boundaries overlap with sectarian boundaries. Conversely, ethnic differences are only such differences. In other words, these differences are not issues that deserve to be opposed to each other in the first place. For this reason, much of the nationalism of the modern world is represented by Islamic sects. Of course, in conflicts between Islam, the Islamic sect at the center of domestic interests occupies the xenophobic center and suppresses other Islamic sects. Conversely, religion can form ethnic boundaries, such as Judaism. Therefore, the ethnic boundaries only express certain common interests in the region, and are not actual ethnic boundaries. It is also because of this that nationalists can label their fellow nationals as traitors and non-nationals. At this time, the nationalist believes himself a patriot and does not suspect that he may be a traitor to the state. However, the nationalism, through its violent rule, degrades its own people to inhuman tribes. And such inhuman tribes are not respected, but rather despised. Moreover, that contempt comes not only from other nations and peoples, but also from one's own people. In addition, the violent rule of the people by the fascists is a hindrance to economic and cultural development. Thus, while talking about patriotism, fascists impede the economic and cultural development of their country. Fascists do not love the country at all in their actions, they only love the interest groups to which they belong.

(1b) Fascism and communism

The fascist movement in Italy was under the influence of the communist movement, which was on the rise at the same time, and they imitated many forms of communist activity. In fact, in the case of Nazism, there were socialists in the party who were later purged by the right wing of the party. However, the similarity of their activities is not merely due to the fascists' imitation of the communist movement, but also to the commonality of their supporters. In both communism and fascism, the leaders and supporters of the movements were the social classes that were oppressed and disadvantaged at home. However, while the Communist support base was the proletariat, the fascist support base was the small capitalists with their own capital. But petty capitalists can also be exploiters of the proletarian. And the communist movement at that time was mercilessly attacking the exploiting small capitalists, no matter how big or small they were. Therefore, regardless of their similarities, they hated each other as enemies and confronted each other. Fascism, on the other hand, does not have a vision of a future for an egalitarian society like communism, and it has no faith in scientific rationality. At the root of this movement is a grudge against one's own decline and an impulse to dominate with no direction. Its irrational passions are incompatible with the ideals of human rights and equality. In fact, fascism attacked the idea of equality and advocated the domination of the weak by the strong. Socialism and communism are essentially internationalism rooted in equal human rights. On the other hand, the foreign policy of fascism converges with imperialism, which aims at the domination of other peoples. Fascism, therefore, leans toward nationalism because it represents an idea that can compete with human rights and equality. Fascists are convinced of their own ethnic superiority in their nationalism. However, there is no particular basis for this conviction. Much of their ethnic advantage is based on their own infrastructural superiority and affluence over other peoples. That is, the conviction simply follows the indigenous privileges of the region. However, nationalism on its own is not enough ground for dictatorship. It is also irrational for fascism to oppress its fellow citizens under the pretext of nationalism alone. Therefore, fascism puts socialism on its banner. But the socialism that fascism speaks of here is not about realizing human rights and equality. The goal of their socialism is the realization of the national interests that they consider. Of course, the interests of the state are actually the interests of a particular interest group, not the interests of the people as a whole. For this reason, the socialism advocated by fascism violates many human rights that are outside of a particular interest group as a matter of course. As a result, this contradiction leads to a bizarre situation in which socialism, which is supposed to aim for the realization of human rights, constantly violates human rights. Because of this gap, fascism distinguished its own socialism from the original socialism and called itself National Socialism. The designation now expresses the inferior ideology of xenophobic nationalism. However, when it first appeared, National Socialism was touted as a superhuman idea that could compete with communism.

(1c) Stalinism

　Fascism's resentment of its own decline and the impulse to dominate without direction are no stranger to communism. It is the class rage of the working class in communism, and its understanding justifies the relentless assault on the exploiting capitalists. It was also believed that if the goal was to achieve human rights and equal life, then the end would purify the means. And when Lenin staged the Red Coup in Russia, Russian Bolshevism came to embody communism. However, the leftward tilt of communism further enforced Lenin's disregard for democracy within the communist camp. As a result, Lenin's fatal flaw, far from realizing human rights and equal life in Russia, created a world of opposites. That was Stalin's communist dictatorship in Soviet Russia. Communism was hostile to the fascist dictatorship. The communist dictatorship, however, was no different from its hostile regimes, but rather more outrageous. The dictatorship violently annihilated not only other partisans in the country, but also all the factions within the party that could become its own opponents. In addition, it has destroyed religion, culture, art, social sciences, and all other ideas that could become the seeds of its own opposing forces in the country. And abroad, the dictatorship violently restored Russia's interests in the old era and pursued military advances to that end. In the logic of external expansion, Russian nationalism was openly proclaimed. But it had nothing to do with communism as a theory. In the end, the communist dictatorship became a mere communist version of nationalist fascism. But its communist color, even if it is false, still constrains Russia's nationalist dictatorship. In addition, the process of establishment of the communist dictatorship is different from nationalist fascism, which arises from nationalist populism. Thus, the difference distinguishes communist fascism from nationalist fascism and treats it as red fascism. But the majesty of communism obscured the truth that the regime was simply red fascism. Many left-wing activists, including communists, understood that red fascism was necessary for the survival of Russian communism. Even in the silence of these left-wing activists, the majesty of communism played a major role. As a result, while left-wing activists around the world denounced fascism, much of the humanitarian calamity of Russian communism was ignored. The truth of the Russian communist dictatorship finally becomes a universal public fact when the Russian communist dictatorship could not bear the burden inflicted by itself and screamed at itself. However, Russia's national strength was restored to a certain extent by the postwar reconstruction after World War II. Once again, the Russian communist dictatorship sinks all of Russia into a state of oxygen deprivation of Stalinist dictatorship. It would not be until 30 years later that Russian communism itself would once again raise its voice against the shackles brought about by the dictatorship. However, by this time, it was too late for Russian communism to change direction, and the Russian communist system itself collapsed.

1d) Red fascism and Putin's dictatorship

The majesty of communism in Soviet Russia played a major role in the survival of red fascism in Russia. On the other hand, the majesty is also a shackle for red fascism in Russia. It demands communist equality on the Russian red aristocracy and constrains the privileges of the red nobility. In its appearance, the hierarchy of the Russian red aristocracy is closer to the chain of command in the military than to the hierarchy of positions in the enterprise. The direction of its decision-making was not focused on the realization of the national interests of the fascist groups, but on the maintenance of order and its external expansion of the Russian communist system. The realization of the former national interests and the maintenance of order in the communist regime were in many ways identical in Soviet Russia at the time of the founding of the country. But the chain of command in the army was at odds with the realization of the personal interests of the fascist group, and it suffocated themselves. In addition, in a gigantic system with no free press, there is a limit to the military-style top-down. On the one hand, the rigid command system of ignoring the field leads to the accumulation of laziness and disregard of orders as it progresses to the terminal part of the system. And on the other hand, it produces corruption and depravity in the intermediate command system. In addition, the distribution of Russian interests to the local peoples and the Communist bloc of Eastern Europe was a heavy burden on Soviet Russia. Therefore, when Soviet Russia aims to correct this, the maintenance of order and external expansion of the communist system on the contrary affect the independence of each peoples under the regime and the communist bloc of Eastern Europe. However, it could also be seen as detrimental to the national interests of Russia at the time. Moreover, the cacophony was increased by the steady stabilization of people's lives in Russia and the exposure of relative poverty compared to the West through Western media. And it led to a confrontation between the Russian leadership and the military, which ultimately led to the collapse of Soviet Russia. Incidentally, what made the survival of the ultra-Stalinist regime in North Korea possible was the delay in the stability of the people's lives in the country and the prevention of the intrusion of the Western press that exposed its absolute poverty. Whichever of them collapses, it will probably be difficult for North Korea's dictatorship to survive. Compared to the previous Soviet Union and North Korea, the fate of red fascism in China is still in flux. The control of information in China has been looser than that of the previous Soviet Union, and there have always been people within the Communist Party who understand the need, including democratization, for China's modernization. This historical background supports China's liquidity. Therefore, also about the current response to the dictatorship of the Communist Party in China, it is necessary to determine whether China goes to the direction of nationalism or internationalism, in the form of a post-Xi Jinping era. On the other hand, Russia, by losing the majesty of communism, gained a domestic base to purify its red fascism into nationalist fascism. Russia's privileged groups no longer have to worry about communist missions such as equality and revolution. They profess purely Russian nationalism and allow them to concentrate their own interests. In fact, Putin's aim is not the restoration of communism, but the revival of purely Russian national glory. In the first place, Putin hates communism and denies revolution in general by the poor who resist dictatorship. His interest in Stalin follows the mere reason for his respect for Stalin's red fascism.

(1e) Religious fundamentalism

What is necessary for the overthrow of the authoritarian order is the establishment, maintenance and expansion of revolutionary groups against the dictatorial order. Once a revolutionary group is established, the irrational poverty and discrimination under the authoritarian order will rather affect the growth of the revolutionary group. But those people suffering from poverty and discrimination join the revolutionary group, only if they find the cause of their suffering in the authoritarian order. However, they are the uneducated and violent inhabitants of the underworld who suffer from irrational poverty and discrimination. And their ignorance and cruelty often keep them in the bottom world. On the contrary, their resentment of their own decline and their impulse to dominate with no direction rather invite them to fascism. At this time, if the ruling class of the authoritarian order actively supports them and merges with them, the uneducated and violent inhabitants of the underworld will join the ruling class of the autocratic order and reinforce the dictatorial order. Revolutions in developing countries, therefore, require a simple explanation that rightly directs the class grudges of the poor to the side of the privileged establishment. And communism has been chosen as the ideology suitable for this simple explanation. However, the erosion of communism's majesty has alienated the people of the world from communism. Still, what is needed here is a democratic revolution and the realization of a republican system. But what is necessary for the overthrow of the authoritarian order, as indicated earlier, is the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of revolutionary groups that oppose the dictatorial order. However, the part of the people who should be the subject of the democratic is suppressed, and the other part turns to patriotic fascists and supports the dictatorial order. Consequently, the absence of that revolutionary agent and the historical backwardness of communism lead to the establishment of an undemocratic, unpatriotic and irrational revolutionary agent among the people suffering from irrational poverty and discrimination. And exclusively religion appears there. It manifests itself as a traditional patriarchal social order that follows exclusively religious conventions. Its undemocratic nature is underpinned by rigid and stylized social principles. The principle is formulaic and does not require discussion. And because there is no need for discussion, individual members are expendable in the revolutionary group. The core of the revolutionary group is the idea of a fundamental social order. On the other hand, the unpatriotism of this revolutionary group places God's trust group in place of the existing ruling class. That is, the revolutionary group, in rebellion against the existing state, gives a new state to each member. In the end, the revolutionary entity is just another kind of patriotic fascism that has only established a different ruling group in place of the ruling group supported by the existing patriotic fascism. It is also immediately apparent that the revolutionary group's form of activity and organizational policy is Lenin-type Bolshevism. In other words, that other kind of fascism is also a different kind of red fascism that has only placed religious principles in revolutionary ideas instead of the fallen communism. However, unlike red fascism, fundamentalist fascism does not have a vision of the future of an egalitarian society more than nationalist fascism, and it lacks faith in scientific rationality. Perhaps the image of the future society it advocates is a religious despotic state of the group of fundamentalist clerics in Iran style, or same of the religious monarch in Saudi Arabia style. And that lack of scientific rationality justifies the killing of other sects, other peoples, and democrats within the regime in a self-destructive cult-style zeal. Of course, the denial of that talk not only denies talks with other democracies, but also denies talks between religious fundamentalists. Therefore, they do not know where the conflict will end. In other words, the historical retreat of communism has revived the demons of the old era in the present day.

(2024/01/14)
Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (2)
Original Japanese(1)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（１）

Materialist : List of articles