Dearest fathers! Why serfdom became the main state bond

Dmitry Luchikhin, philosopher

School knowledge creates the illusion that before the beginning of the humanistic era, a person was driven exclusively by selfish motives. Well, with the exception of a few "precursors".

In fact, humanistic and selfish motives have always coexisted in the social space. How long is there a reasonable form of being. But they were less differentiated, and were not yet opposed to each other: the attitude to the other as to a domestic cat, which needs to be cared for and cherished, and only purring of him is expected; or right away, as an object and useful thing: the aborigines of a pig farm there, or a poultry farm. To the point and without sentimentality.

When we turn to the history of serfdom, thanks to the school curriculum, we see in it only a desire to fix the right to use others to our advantage. Own them for your own good. From this infantile "knowledge", rooted in school years even in the later developed consciousness, such gems as religions, invented to fool the masses and state institutions, invented for ease of use, originate. But in reality, serfdom was no less a manifestation of concern for the natives. Condescension to their wretchedness in the light of the models used by the elite, owning and organizing part of society. A way to impute to its representatives responsibility for the savages. So today, an entrepreneur, without at all giving up personal benefit, means that he not only exploits his employees, but also gives them work, provides a standard of living inaccessible to them individually.

Serfdom tells us better than any reasoning and research about the prevailing mutual perception of each other by the population and its power. This objectively formed stratification, not only allowing unlimited use of the population for the benefit of the elect, but also experiencing the noble sacrifice of responsibility in an integral act of relations with the “people” is the generic curse of Russia. Its characteristic feature, showing through all, the most diverse, most ideologically irreconcilable versions of power in history.

Even more: this situationally natural moral responsibility for the little ones, experienced by representatives of the authorities and the dominant elite, is the moral justification of the right to rule over the people.

In fact, the directly experienced moral justification of the authorities is Russia. And this is exactly the Russia, the loss of which the most radical liberals and opponents of the regime are not ready to accept.

That "bright" experience of Russia, which they cherish in their souls, is the experience of the moral justification of paternalism in relations with society. Naturally, their own paternalism. Enlightened and humane.