The following text is a partial translation of the original Russian article, performed by ChatGPT (gpt-3.5-turbo) and this Jekyll plugin:

“Четыре века якобы свободы”

For approximately the last 400 years, since the time of John Locke, we have been living under the banner of freedom, equality, and fraternity. It is now difficult to imagine a reasonable person who seriously denies the importance of personal freedom, the value of human life, the virtue of social equality, the preciousness of peace, friendship, and love. These concepts seem to be the foundation of our morality. They have always been with us and will remain forever. However, I suggest looking deeper and understanding what freedom really is and whether it is for our benefit.

In his Two Treatises of Government, English educator and philosopher John Locke formulated: “freedom is to follow my own will in all cases where it is not prohibited by law.” Armed with this obviously attractive formula and inspired by early humanists, liberal revolutionaries of all stripes have been changing the social order of European countries for all these years, along with the consciousness of its inhabitants. As a result, according to Professor Valery Kuvakin from Moscow State University, “the Constitution of the Russian Federation is an expression of victorious liberalism-capitalism in terms of its origin and content,” and we are liberals!

Vladimir Putin, during a meeting with schoolchildren, emphasized: “freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins,” echoing the thoughts of Mikhail Bakunin, one of the first theorists of anarchism and populism.

Thus, freedom is possible as long as two “free” individuals do not conflict with each other. “Is censorship permissible on the internet?” - school children asked the president. “Of course not,” - the president answered… and added that - “if it is calls for terrorism, then of course it is permissible.” Then followed a quote from Bakunin. In other words, as long as your actions do not interfere with others, we are ready to give you freedom, but as soon as they contradict our expectations, your freedom will be limited.

The key words here are “conflict” and “contradiction”. Where they are absent, there is freedom, and where they exist, freedom cannot be.

Who will control and punish those who encroach on the freedom of each of us? Roskomnadzor? Moral police? Public court? “Conscience!” - a prepared libertarian will tell you. Each of us must have a moral principle, as Immanuel Kant bequeathed, which will not allow us to encroach on the freedom of others. First, of course, while we are building the society of the future, not everyone will have it. Therefore, we will still need a court and police that act according to the motives of John Stuart Mill’s essay, recommending the use of violence against a person “only when he harms others”. Then, of course, sooner or later, people will learn to live without conflicts and contradictions, and will stop harming each other.

But is it good when society consists of those who avoid conflicts, trying not to contradict the interests of others? Can we develop constantly looking back at those whom our progress hinders? And in general, is progress possible - the “basic law of nature” as the liberal Voltaire put it - without conflict? Can a good teacher be tolerant of the mistakes of low-achieving students? Can a scientist create something new, afraid of offending colleagues? Can a new product be released, fearing to harm competitors? It sounds absurd.

However, this is exactly what liberals lead us to under the slogans of freedom. It is precisely in a conflict-free society - national, domestic, economic, cultural, and political - in a society of freedom!

Undoubtedly, none of this works in the end. In a society that has been raised for centuries in the spirit of “everyone can do whatever they want as long as they do not disturb their neighbor,” people are inherently repulsed by the very idea of violence against them. They are born, as it seems to them, free, and therefore despise both the state and the authorities that inevitably introduce violence into their lives. As a result, three times more police are needed for such citizens than if violence had been an integral part of their existence from childhood, along with its derivatives: discipline, submission, order, and control.

Violence in liberal societies is not only more than necessary, but it is also ugly and hypocritical. Bright slogans about freedom and equality hide “exploitation and alienation,” as correctly noted by Professor Boris Kashnikov. The timid “do not harm your neighbor” raises weak, indifferent, tolerant, and consenting people - those who are easily exploited.

Everything would be different if a person did not fear causing harm to their neighbor, disturbing their “freedom,” and considered conflict a norm - they would then calmly accept disciplined order, respect subordination, consider any work, whatever it may be, as the highest virtue, and of course, would not allow alienation and exploitation. This would be a person of a completely different quality: firm, uncompromising, unyielding, and consistent. They would consider submission as the highest good. Of course, not for everyone, but for “the proletariat - the armed vanguard of all exploited and working people,” as Lenin wrote.

This would be a different society and different people.

Those who have been instilling ideas of freedom in us for four centuries in a row are our enemies. We should not strive for freedom, but for order and discipline, as natural forms of natural and reasonable violence. We should not fear violence, but respect and understand it. It is a part of our nature, and we need to face this fact head-on. Otherwise, others will do it for us, and we will remain slaves to our tolerance.

Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/39 on 2023-10-02 at 17:09