From birth, I was directly or indirectly told that life matters. By her own. In this global pseudo-humanistic paradigm, the catch, which I had already understood at the age of 6, was the obvious - "Not life for me, but I for life". And it categorically did not suit me. The fact that metaphysically globally can be extended to being as such, obviously works only in totalitarian and authoritarian (i.e. in any socialist) communities.
I do not intentionally extend my conclusions to the level of Schopenhauer pessimism and the concepts of antinatalism. And that's why. At one fine moment, I realized that the situation is not only and not so much in the completely incorrect structure of the world, but in the structure of certain communities. That is, the global suffering of the individual can be compensated. Not until the end. But quite significantly. The only trouble is that authoritarian communities do not do this. And not just the communities themselves. But also individual individuals within them. Even humanists and intellectuals try to offer us various forms of psychological compensation, instead of political rights and economic guarantees, thus being hostages of the genre.
However, I do not share and not only do not share such methods and other "Buddhism for the poor." I fundamentally deny them. All my experience, which led me to the absolute neoliberal materialism, tells me that life is certainly important, but Watching What Life is. Life is for the individual, not the individual for life!
Can life in a purely biological sense be considered a value? Popular literature, including those adopted by the socialist agitprop, postulated the will to live primarily as a desire for physical survival. From the works of Jack London, for example, “Love of Life” to the story of James Aldridge “The Last Inch” (the film of the same name is known to all readers), the desire to survive at any cost was heroized. This type of behavior has become a kind of imprint for a socialist, special Soviet man.
Only a socialist person, unlike the heroes of world literature, was in extreme conditions almost daily. Not that he was threatened with death every second. Although this often happened. The Soviet army, the Soviet prison, where anyone could go at any time, the wars - the Afghan and Chechen, and other classified military conflicts around the globe - did not contribute to any relaxation. But even more painful was daily existential stress, as well as the psychophysiological discomfort caused by poverty and lack of rights.
This practice of daily survival reduces a person to the state of an animal. Not allowing him to talk about high matters, including art, literature, politics, philosophy. Even a physically healthy person, living in a state of permanent need, inevitably begins to strive for self-destruction. Alcoholism and drug addiction, so common in the USSR, were essentially just a way of social and physical suicide stretched out over time. By the way, the story with Mikhail Yefremov is a classic story of a creative Soviet man. Yefremov by himself is a child of stagnation, and the present times, completely coinciding in some way with Brezhnev’s internal energetics, have returned his personality, his inner essence to that very destructive autonomy that, like a mental parasite, directs the consciousness of every alcoholic.
Talking about a person, even relatively wealthy and healthy, but at the same time existing within the framework of a hopeless (socialist) society, we inevitably come to understand the basic fears as limiters and regulators of his consciousness. The mere fact of the lack of effective civilized medicine in society can drive anyone into deep frustration. The COVID-19 pandemic only outlined the magnitude of this problem, not only in Russia but throughout the world. But what is potentially a solvable problem for the world is, as a rule, fatal for Russia.
When the material and political are completely exhausted, devalued, not in essence, but by the mere fact of the impossibility of its implementation, regular and freelance, matrix and systemic propagandists try to return us to "scrapbooks", to supposedly saving unshakable values, such as a family. On this occasion, I really want to quote the French psychoanalyst and philosopher Jacques Lacan:
“As regards such a truly“ sacred cow ”as family values. It’s true that I’m not sentimental, but this is not about me: the family serves the existence of a kind, which, as a result, does not know death, “germinal substance” according to Virchow, for which there is no and cannot be an individual, since the individual is already dead, being only a transitory shell for generic false and meaningless immortality. ”
Therefore, the family fled, and I realized its monstrous essence almost from infancy. Parents seemed to me "dangerous, hostile creatures." It was already 5-6 years old. And I was ontologically right. Of course, I am not trying to extend my experience to others, but I consider it to be metaphysically and socially significant.
They are also still trying to return us to the simplest psychoanalytic bosom, falsely formulated by the numbed popularizer of the mass unconscious Sigmund Freud. They want to put us in a cradle between Eros and Thanatos to rock it to death. However, my consciousness of a materialist and rationalist, my common sense tells me that Thanatos is not opposed by Eros, Thanatos is opposed by Resource. Namely - a civilized world, a normal education and economic benefits.