Reconstruction of paradigms

West, East and Russia

In our world is happening a fundamental breakdown of the paradigm, comparable to those that occurred in the New Age. New Age (Modern) has been the replacement of «traditional society» (premodern) dome of its total destruction program and began to implement it. It was a real revolution paradigm. Today, we seemingly created a new paradigm which usually called «postmodernism». The sense of the term is tantamount to marking a new state of civilization, culture, ideology, politics, the economy in a situation where the basic strategy of energy and modern, New Age, are or exhausted, or changed to non-recognition.

The prefix «post» we refer to the condition that follows the respective. Postmodern occurs after the end of Modernism.

Modernism is as a paradigm that spawned Western Europe in the new era, represented a rejection of traditional society: it is as an alternative concept and spawned post-traditional antitraditional society that has developed a system of criteria in which science, experience, technical development, rationalism, criticism and individualism replaced theology, collectivity, faith, dogmatics, psychotic, intuition, ontology traditional world the program is fed modern energy rejection, destroying the principles of what is thousands of years it seemed undeniably the Absolute.

Western modern spread, created and strengthened through a fight with non-modern, non-modernity, premodern, and also by fighting with the non-West ( East or Third World). A. Toynbee has this process developed in the thesis «The West and the Rest» which has been S. Hantigton turned into «West against the Rest». Program and main floor of the modern was also destruction of evidence of traditional society, liberalisation and freeing man from all that he have dogmatic aspired in his role of collective identification. Liberalism is the beginning of the embodiment of a modern, consistent and balanced rejecting premodern ontology. In the beginning liberalism (bourgeois democracy) have in a row won the monarchy and feudal society. In the process bourgeois reform and revolution is essentially a program established modern Francis Bacon and Adam Smith still sounds absolutely contemporary. Step by step, rejecting the foundation of traditional society «liberating» Europe of its norms liberalism went wide through nihilism. The first chord of the exemption is obvious: destruction of the formal structure of traditional society, explicitly presented. This stage ends at the end of the 19th century, when formal feudal regime in the West no more exist. From now on, the non-liberal ideology is forced to accept the terminology of modern, to hide they ideas in a formal language of modernity. That way with liberals who are modern in form and content, become currents of conservative revolutionaries and communists.

Conservative revolutionaries, representatives of the ideology of «third way», tried - quite transparent and deliberately - to turn fundamental conservative (values of traditional society) into the cover of modern, not simply reject modern, as a classic conservative, but trying to interpret in their own way. The classic example is the Louis de Bonald who argued that, as the «French Revolution» in the company affirmed «human rights», the conservatives have to affirm it «God's law». He made that like he was not aware of an apparent atheistic modern... Of course ruse («now we have») had give an effect, and many European regimes of 20's and 30's years have succumbed to conservative-revolutionary strategy.

However, in the mid-19th century, has become another movement which has temporarily taken as the most advanced form, of modern like something as «the most modern» in modern. that is, one would say nihilism (the rejection of traditional society) was more evident than in liberalism, and many have sincerely believed that will be the future direction of bourgeois-democratic period. For a while the two tendencies of modern (liberalism and socialism) went side by side, at least as far as the struggle with tradition in its obvious (conservative) or blurred (conservative-revolutionary) form. Proportionally achieving success in the common struggle, the contradictions and tensions between these two forms have become more and more larger.

That is until the 20th century, modernization has proceeded on three channels simultaneously, here are three ideology aspired to the orthodox expression of this process: the modernization of the national ideology (fascism and its analogues), modernization of socialist ideology (Marxism) and the ideology of liberal modernization (Anglo-Saxon capitalism). All suggested his way and in their own way interpret the initial momentum of New Age, all of them were oriented to achieve a certain final state of the process of modernization, when its processes would reached the top stage. In other words, the horizon of all three versions of the modern sow three utopia, three versions of «end of history» as the end of the process of modernization.

Fascist project (especially the extensive mythology incarnate in National-Socialism) assumed the creation of a «planetary Reich», where the racially-Germanic element was the crown and the subject of technical evolution. It is important that here appeals on subject of «Reich» that is «Empire», was imminent, and in fact revealed the existence of not quite conscious goal - restoration of conditions in the global regime of premodern with the odds of Germanic racial element. Modernization in Nazism was a dialectic means of practical realization of «eternal return», which was preached in Nazi myths.

Germanic «planetary Reich» is the first that have collapsed. That plan «of Modernization for archaic» was broken.

Other project – Soviet - was a subtle and chose to operate only in category of modern, with no direct calls to the «empire». Soviet Union empire (Red Empire) - was use only in the polemical purposes and calling in a pejorative sense only by its enemies. But, here modernization also should reach its peak with the transition to a qualitatively new level. The ultimate achievement was supposed to be communism. History of modernization, understood in Hegelian-Marxist terms, had to ended with communism. Exploring the Soviet experience of 30s of the 20th century, many astute liberals (Karl Popper, Norman Cohn, Friedrich August von Hayek, Raymond Aron) came to the conclusion that communism and socialism - are subspecies of the conservative revolution. However, it is archaic, sacral, and traditionally here was very specific, deep and sometimes incomprehensible blurred and sometimes incomprehensible to communists and most socialists. In their opinion, that was, the eschatology version of tradition which absolutes ontology of future.

Communism is basically a post-modern in the Soviet version of modernization, such as was the «planetary Reich - Nazi project. But, even that model has not become reality.

The third project of modernization - the liberal-democratic - was only one which have left and it was only to reach the finish and thus won the award for the whole of modern heritage. After World War II has began the latest phase of the cleaning of modern from tradition, but from those of its elements which have made deep penetration into a modern and not quite obviously. That was the meaning in paradigmatic sense of geopolitical and ideological struggle between Soviet and capitalist stock in the postwar period (cold war). Post-industrial (information) society is the only model of successful completion of the program of modernization and transition to its new stage of development.

Hegelian philosophy of history, which is determined by the logic of modernization in all variants, in theory, could lead to one of three alternate versions of «end of history, postmodern. About that was very much debated in the 19th and 20th century. A. Kozhev was among the first to put forward the hypothesis that the «end of history» will not become a communist, and especially not a planetary Nazi Reich, but just liberal-capitalist paradigm. Postmodern in theory could be the Nazi, Communist and Liberal. It has become only liberal, and only liberal paradigm should be taken for an example of postmodernism. The transition from the modern to the next stage of history is achieved only in a liberal context, and we do not known a different format of post-industrial society than the liberal. Everything else is -conditional. Surely F. Fukuyama has declared the end of the history to soon. But as a whole was right. Having won the competition with fascism and communism, and first made the transition from the modern and industrial organization to the next, post-industrial era, liberalism was left alone with himself.

Francis Fukuyama now corrected his thesis about the «end of history» as it is realization of «Empire of the postmodern» faces with new difficulties-for example, emergence of submerged and earlier ignored philosophical and psychological «continents» of premodern in the Third World, Asia, etc. - but American futurologist settings are theoretically flawless. As soon as an alternative modernization project failed and did not get to the next stage (N. Khrushchev did not accidentally set to communism to 1980s - delay terms of realization «of the Soviet postmodern» created a real fear for victory of the West, which is what is happened), which means that the «end of history» in planetary globalism proved.

The victory of liberalism erases differences between the earlier projects that long sought an alternative to it: it means that before the start of the 21st century, the differences between traditional conservatism, the Third way and communism are practically deleted, and the next stage will be to concern and social democracy. All for what turned out to be «non-modern» - in shape or even the deep and uncertain content - classified in the class of politically incorrect, «the eternal yesterday», «outdated».

Postmodern : West, East and Russia

Described scheme (premodern-modern-postmodern) is, however, taken as a precedent (in the legal sense): so either so things stood with that part of humanity that in the past 2, 000 years, were residents of Western Europe and or were genetically related to it (colonial culture of both Americas, to a lesser extent, Africa and the Pacific basin). Although in itself in Western Europe that model had a lot of variations and contradictions, but it can be argued that the «Telos» of Western European history, is just that way it is: from traditional society to modern, from premodern to postmodern. However, European or Eurocentric conscious is characterized by « philosophical racism and permanent identification of «western», «European» and « universal. «Western «Telos» of history is taken for universal «Telos» the history of mankind, on the basis of which is made «universal» system of evaluation, criteria and templates. The journey from a traditional society to modern (and post-modern), which have West past still it goes on, as a universal way for all countries, cultures and peoples. Their history is considered only as a process of «modernization» and «Westernization».

«Westernization» and «modernization» are not identical concepts, but they are conceptually closely related to each other. «Modernity» is evaluated plus sign only in progressive Western paradigm, and therefore the term is undoubted on its own characteristics. «Modernization» in the broad sense implied postulates the universality of «historical Telos» is essentially copied from the «Telos» just of European history.

It is obvious that the history of traditional societies (and in that category until now is one overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the Earth!) drops out of such a teleological paradigm, it moves quite different trajectory. So by this, «history» of the majority of mankind in the eyes of the West ignores in her content dimension, and the attention is focused only on those fragments where the exhibit features «European Telos», i. e. «Elements of modernization».

Such an approach is very suitable for writing general textbooks of history: all societies, cultures and countries are ranked from the simplistic historical scheme, built by a priori given teleology. Further a given task acquires a technical character - depending on the levels of textbooks, more or less the shading illustrations (interesting Marxism have largely inherited Western «philosophical racism»).

Outside these historical paradigm is pointless to talk about «post modern» (as well as modern). Outside of Western civilization there is a «modern» there issued from the West (by the logic of the colonial paradigm), and in some time rooted phenomenon that goes (it can move, move will) into a new stage - one that only gradually western society, following their own «Telos». If you consider the cultural and civilizational context, different from the West, then the so-called quality, obviously non-Western modern express their ambiguity.

«Modernization» of Russia in the 20th century, ran a highly original (Marxist-Leninist way, and yet to clarify what was essentially «Soviet aeon». In what way sovetism was a «modernization», in which - «pseudomodernization», in which - «anti modernization»?

In other words, the «Soviet modern» - this is an open issue. But if it is in Russia formed suspicious «modern», «postmodern» will surely be even stranger.

Postmodernism is based on the assumption that the modernization of traditional societies is successfully completed, and that the religious dimension in the social-political and economic sphere is gone. That way or nearly so are things in the West (at least, such are the basic declaration of Western governments and intellectual elite, such are the predominant features of the style of the civilization). Control of the West of the planet is now as big as never before, and there is a complete illusion of a successful introduction in the context of «modern» all regional elites of no Western humanity. In these circumstances we can note an interesting phenomenon: the news of «postmodern» West delegate to non-Western elites gradually. This marks a new paradigmatic territory that has been invited to gradually replace the «modernist» policies, when the lack of modern society effectively and ultimately deprive the last of the traditional line. «Postmodern» - that is a kind of «freemasonry» of the 21st century, which in the middle of semi-closed ambience operate on pure political-civilization guidelines and measured transferred them (in adapted forms) to non-Western elites.

Projecting these trends on our country, it is easy to notice that the 1990s our country, found itself in the second round of the spiral of colonization. Obviously not «modernized» to the end our society has given an imperative not just the conquest of the liberal model, but the liberal model in its most sophisticated, crystal form. In Russia even more with modern it was not clear to the end, and then performed post modern: It has led to a serious conceptual confusion.

The Russian «postmodern» can be distinguished in two main lines. First is purely «colonial». Western, «postmodern», applied through the «compradore» intellectual elite in Russia, was to create a clear vector for the process of modernization-violent that the rapid pace dismantle what was essentially a «non modern» in Russian «pseudo modern». Thus, the «postmodern» was an indicator of the correctness of the course of modernization. The traditional psychology of the Russians, the whole 20th century «modernization» interpreted in archaic key (for example turning Marxism in eschatology ). And naturally, the tendency is hardly any current to stop. Because that the «post modern», but rather «post modernism» played an important role in this stage of liberal modernization. The reforms of the economy in the spirit of classic (industrial, and sometimes before the industrial) capitalism accompanied by reforms in the spirit of consciousness post classic, post-industrial, capitalist, post capitalism ). Post modernism in Russia 1990s in was in its function ultra-colonialism. He have cruelly spread «earned Telos» of the West in the country whose entire history was intended to avoid this logic (or even deny her). Therefore, natural and completely justified in post-modern distrust of the conservative minded intelligence. But, the function of post modernism in Russia, is far from to been completed.

We should bear in mind another circumstance. Post modern in the western context reduces destructive pathos of «modern» to «remnants» of traditional society, since these are considered qualitatively remains of society. In post modern traditions is no longer cause for hate, or even indifferent ridiculously, but ephemeral desemental entertainment (pseudo) interest. Third Reich and Stalin (exhibition of totalitarian art «Moscow-Berlin») sit down in one breath, all together with the story about the first top-model Twiggy, problems of the film career of Marilyn Monroe, or Madonna (post modern already in the «peak») who plays Evita Peron (wife of Latino - American dictator, national-socialist) in the big budget popular musical. In post-modern modern is wining to that point pre modern (Tradition), and more in the Tradition does not see any content, having fun with it along with everyone else. Tradition from now on is no longer enemy, but the spectacle element on an equal basis with all-modern rest. To post modern-is now all the same. Finally all the same. She is now ready to recycle everything: the new conditions nothing can act as its antagonist-nor economically or social, or psychological either, and neither civilization. Even «criminal» as Bin Laden is integrated into a spectacle: his niece is a potential pop star with a guaranteed career.

Adolf Hitler is the ideal Dr. Goebbels - host of talk show. Stalin is wonderful brand for the sale of tobacco or of Georgian wines. Che Guevara advertise mobile phones. And Tradition and Revolution are no particular problems involved in post-modernist spectacle. They, virtually exist because they can not exist no longer in reality. After all everything possible in the post-modern is virtually : money, satisfaction, cult, work, society, government...

When such a paradigm is transferred to the «lack of modern» Russia, it mobilizes pro colonial elite, giving her the keys and paradigmatic stylistic codes of control. But, Russia's post-modern has a completely different aspect. On the level of political unconsciousness Russian society is not accepted western «telos», each time trying to imposed paradigm of «modern» interpret in the pre-modernist «key». That wafer-thin process is related to the structure of the collective unconscious of Russians. It is complex to describe in detail that process, because he obviously avoid outdoor rationalization, escapes to her. That layer is a giant collective unconscious mental potential, certain active disposition of strategies reinterpretation, resentimentalisation disposition by his own interpretation.

Disposition of Russian interpretations are significantly different from similar instances of traditional culture (e. g., Asian) in that it is located much closer to the surface of consciousness, knocking at the door of intellect, trying to reach the surface. Asian cultures modernizing them self, ignore the root paradigm of that process, hiding archetypes in the depths of the psyche: Japanese Kant-philosopher easily remains complete and perfect Buddhist, who even does not know that Kant had in mind something else. Layers of archaic disposition of a Japanese are fundamental, as well as granite. Asians, submitting to the «modern» from the out side, in fact it does not pay any attention to her, remaining what they are. Russians however, vaguely and from around are aiming for conceptualizing of their internal position. That translates disposition into a basis of national Messiahship.

Eurasian Petr Savitsky in the review of the book of N. Trubetzkoy «Europe and the humanity», has noted that only the Russians are able to archaic potential of traditionalist societies of Asia in general turn in the active anti-ideology, an alternative paradigm. Euroasians have in the Russians recognized the possibility of actively confronting modern, modernization as westernization. Just is an active anti-modern, in turn, led to «modernization» without the «Westernization», i. e. such a modernization that would be focused on confrontation with the paradigm of the West, and its «telos». As a historical illustration of this phenomenon can serve the entire period of Soviet history (taken, after M. Agursky, in the spirit of «National Bolshevism»), and its maximum rationalization reveals in intuitions of euroasians. It is in a fact that in Russia was (and still remains partially) not just archaic disposition of the collective unconscious, but the vector to the rationalization of the «anti-modern» or «otherwise modern».

That's what is the most interesting. Artificial colonization have insert a paradigm of post modernism in modern Russia, on account of indifference and playful, theatrical (Pseudo) occupation of the West for the taboo, it opens for the Russians new possibilities: post-modern can not see the danger before the modern, since it is «realized» (i. e. no longer it is not any more in realization) «telos» of modern, which occurs only when all alternatives to the modern truly abolished. Applied in a different contextual environment, it can give unpredictable results...

In the western context of post-modern corrodes flexible strategy of modernization, since nothing more is threaten to «Telos». In Asia they will not understand post modern anyway, as they did not understand modern, or they will somehow interpret her in their own way (but entirely safe). And in Russia postmodernist esoteric, coming out on the streets, threatening to become danger in elements of Western «Telos», its «antithesis» his «dark copy». While the pro-Western, compradore elite sees in Che Guevara brand for mobile phone - anti-Western, Eurasian mass, ironically finding Thread games, mobile phone can turn into assets of the Revolution (because, according to post modernism, there is no more, no this or that which means not any more the one that marks and marked, there only exist signs. In the same way for the masses, unlike the elites, Stalin do not brand «red wine», but after the «black wines» is born a great nostalgia for Stalin. National post modernism mass in Russia in a sense can give birth to «antitelos», become fuel for a new breakthrough and Eurasian messiahship recycling aleatory codes of snake controlled systems into the practice of ecstatic imperial practice of Eternal Return...