Coup D'etat and Electoral Idiocy

By Sergey Lukin

On Facebook, a fierce debate broke out over the vote against amendments to the Constitution of Russia and generally about participation in the elections.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Sergey Lukin
• Release date: May 22, 2020
• ISBN: 9780463138830

Sergey Lukin

I was born in 1968 in Siberia in the city of Kolpashevo, Tomsk Region. When I was one year old, they brought me to Beliy Yar, Tomsk Region. Here I graduated from high school. Then he entered the Research Tomsk State University. I studied the history of philosophy. My scientific specialization is psychological topology and open non-equilibrium processes during social changes. This can also be called the methodology of dissipative structures in social processes. Favorite Russian author - Ivan Bunin, favorite world author - Marcel Proust. I began to make small sketches twenty years ago. But I began to publish his works now.I still live in Siberia. There is wonderful nature, good ecology. But inappropriate governance, incubation of an incumbent, weak legal institutions pose unacceptable risks. Therefore, I think to move to live in a country with normal democratic and legal institutions.

Book preview

Coup d'etat and electoral idiocy

Annotation: On Facebook, a fierce debate broke out over the vote against amendments to the Constitution of Russia and generally about participation in the elections. Boycotters call for ignoring any measures of the undemocratic regime. Anti-boycotters believe that it is imperative to participate in all elections to counter the regime. In this article I will give the arguments of the parties so that everyone who reads can develop their own position on the issue.

Content:

Legitimation of the regime

Active and smart boycott

Thimblerig

The feathered argument of the boycotters

An undemocratic leader needs a turnout

Voting is illegal

The atomization of society is the legacy of a totalitarian regime

Dissidents and dissidentism

Political evidence of the need for civil interaction

Topological proof

Proof based on quantum entanglement

Antique evidence

Theological evidence

Metaphysical evidence

Conclusion Justification of evil

Legitimation of the regime

Legitimacy - traditional legitimacy - Charles 1 - cutting off the head - Leviathan - revolutionary legitimacy - agreement with the king - procedural legitimacy - competitive authoritarianism - overturning vote - incumbent.

Patience in vegetables ends only in fairy tales.

The wisdom of social networks.

The arguments of the boycotters began with vivid statements about the fact that citizens who came to the polls recognize the undemocratic regime as legitimate. Citizens generally constantly use public services, pay taxes, many of which are indirect and are collected at every purchase in the store, and all this, according to the boycotters, does not legitimize the authorities. But the election, where you can say - NO! - legitimize!

Legitimacy is a term from sociology, it is on the verge of mysticism and science. Every irremovable non-democratic leader lives in fear, waiting for the fate of Gaddafi, Hussein, Ceausescu or, if very lucky, Milosevic.

Вот ожидание расправы и есть легитимность. Вы, мои хорошие и нехорошие, не являетесь недемократическими лидерами. Так что вам беспокоится?

The term legitimacy was introduced by Max Weber into a scientific study. Types of legitimacy: traditional, revolutionary charismatic, procedural.

Traditional legitimacy drew its strength from religion. The subjects believed that all power from God and the king - the viceroy of God on earth. Therefore, one must obey him and sacrifice his life in the name of his greatness and prosperity.

So it was before the case of Charles 1 (1625-1649). Charles 1 became famous for robbing his subjects, disagreeing, imprisoned without trial on the basis of his traditional legitimacy. Since my power is from God, it means that I can dispose of the filed at my discretion. Filed against arbitrariness and through parliament filed a petition with claims to the king.

Traditional legitimacy has cracked. Charles 1, instead of tempering his temper and making an agreement with the opposition, burst into the parliament with armed guards, trying to arrest five oppositionists, accusing them of high treason. In the midst of dead silence, Charles 1 entered the meeting room and said sarcastically: I see that the birds have gone. I hope you will send them to me, otherwise I will find a way to find them myself. Kind people helped opposition parliamentarians take refuge.

Charles 1 declared war on parliament. But the middle class in England at that time was quite wealthy and gathered more troops than the royalists. Charles 1 was defeated, but again tried to rebel against parliament, and was beheaded.

The Civil War was seriously sunk into the soul of Thomas Hobbes, he lived his whole life in fear. And, with a fright, he wrote the outstanding work Leviathan, an ode to all undemocratic leaders. In his opinion, respectable citizens are not capable of self-organization (which is completely wrong) and are waging a war to annihilate each other. So that murder was not necessary to renounce freedom and surrender your will to the undemocratic leader to restore order and distribute earrings to all sisters.

Thus, revolutionary legitimacy knocked on the door of traditional legitimacy along with future bloody dictatorships, authoritarianism, and other self-organizing slaves.

At this time, Louis 14 - the King of the Sun - incited Jacob 2 to repeat his feat, to ban Protestantism in England with the Protestants. Jacob 2 only a long time after the coronation gave birth to a son, who was rumored to have no traditional legitimacy. Accordingly, the heir on the male side was Heinrich of Orange from the Netherlands. Sensible respectable citizens of England, sensing trouble, called on Henry of Orange to the throne, having previously signed an agreement with him. Thus ended the traditional legitimacy in England, quite safely passing into procedural legitimacy.

Procedural legitimacy consists of democratic procedures when citizens choose power through competitive elections.

Another thing is revolutionary charismatic legitimacy. It is created by people when they sacrifice freedom for the sake of security. True, then they do not gain security, but they are deprived of their freedom, of course. It is enough to start blowing up houses, as people give their will to a leader who, with fear, rightly according to Hobbes, becomes a carrier of order, stability and security. His charisma is inflated by the hopes of citizens.

Only now, in order to stay in revolutionary legitimacy, a charismatic leader must always organize wars so that citizens live in a ring of enemies. Otherwise, how will they rally near the charismatic leader?

The first charismatic leader was, of course, Napoleon. He needed a savior from the Jacobin terror, and he came. True, Napoleon laid the entire male population of France in revolutionary wars. The last call was for 14-year-olds. But he saved France from the Jacobin terror! And only after several decades the French achieved procedural legitimacy.

The unfortunate long-suffering people of the Russian Empire said goodbye to the traditional legitimacy in the Ipatiev house in 1918. The era of revolutionary legitimacy ended in 1988. Food has run out. Low oil prices, huge budget expenditures for the war in Afghanistan, US sanctions led to empty store shelves, coupons, a shortage of all goods and a black market, as in Venezuela now.

To free himself from American sanctions, Gorbachev released political prisoners, withdrew troops from Afghanistan and began to borrow from the United States. But it was not successful. As soon as any product got into warehouses, it was immediately pulled away according to the criminal schemes from which modern Russia grew up and ended up on the black market at unapproachable prices for most citizens. The revolutionary legitimacy of the Communists spread like a trishkin caftan.

Since the citizens had nothing to offer, but it was necessary to somehow increase the social support base. The communists decided to imitate democracy and share power with citizens. In 1989, for the first time in history, the Communists held competitive elections in the Soviet Union to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. They already had not one candidate, as usual, but two. Of course, the elections were rigged, because the candidates were approved by the regional committee of the CPSU, as now municipal deputies with the permission of the governor and / or the Kremlin. A specially weak opponent was selected for the main candidate. But these were already competitive elections.

Since then, competitive authoritarianism has appeared in Russia, which to this day relies on a combination of revolutionary charismatic legitimacy and procedural, without disdaining the traditional.

If you want to dive into the traditional legitimacy,