In order to deter the fascist state's wars of aggression and support its democratization, it is necessary to frustrate the various pretexts that fascists use to repress the people. Exclusively the basis for this pretext is the delusions of nationalism and fundamentalist religion espoused by the fascists. Through their ideals, fascists promote themselves as the national core or religious truth. And in doing so, they take control of the state by wiping out others who oppose them. However, the goal of nationalism was originally concentrated in the realization of the freedom and human rights of local residents. It is precisely because of this that nationalism emerges from among the persecuted local residents when the freedom and human rights of local residents are impeded. The significance of such nationalism is no different in the significance of religion. This is because religion is the purified lifestyle of the local population and its form. In this respect, the fascists' oppression of the people on the basis of nationalism or religion is contrary to their original goals. However, nationalism and religion can also emerge apart from freedom and human rights. Originally, the reason why they aim to realize the freedom and human rights of local residents is that the local residents are a sub-living group that is persecuted. But, if that local population is a higher living group that expropriates and dominates the sub-groups, the realization of freedom and human rights in the area under their control will be detrimental to their own lives. Therefore, the nationalism and religion of the ruling group easily move into the opposite of freedom and human rights. Moreover, they seek to realize only the traditional life of the average majority in the region. Such nationalism and religion hunt down and destroy individuals who are not in the majority, individuals who do not fit in, groups with different forms of habits, or original foreigners, in accordance with the right of the mere majority. Therefore, even in the persecuted sub-groups, nationalism and religion are often at odds with the realization of freedom and human rights. And what fascists espouse is, after all, that level of nationalism and religion. Therefore, if nationalism and religion aim at the realization of freedom and human rights, they need to abandon their own baseless formality in order to achieve that goal. What is needed here, is not the violent oppression of the minority by the majority, and not the violent suppression of freedoms and human rights, but the work of reconciling conflicts among local populations through talks. The coordination process is based on the physical facts of the real world, not on the assumptions and superstitions that underlie nationalism and religion.
Incidentally, the assumptions and superstitions on which nationalism and religion are based can be dispelled, if possible, by fanciful means, such as changing the definition of ethnicity, abolishing religion, or uniting all religions. If the borders of the whole world could be subdivided into equal sizes, democracy might be able to absorb those grievances, as wars of aggression would lose their pretext. In addition, if a large-scale sealed train can be implemented, human resources who resist the dictatorship can be transplanted into the dictatorship. Besides, in response to the outbreak of refugees, unrealistic measures are conceivable in which some areas along the borders of authoritarian states as new type of colonies are reserved for refugee camps, and internationally support the relevant settlements and establish democratization locally, in imitation of Russia's approach. However, it will take time to eradicate ethnic delusions and superstitions, and if they can be eradicated in the first place, the democratization of dictatorships will probably be completed at the same time. The equal division of global borders requires either military force or the completion of global democratization. And if a large-scale sealed train is implemented, all dissidents and pro-democracy intellectuals sent by the sealed train will be sent to prison camps or executed by the dictatorship. On the other hand, the aforementioned new type of colonies are an invasion for the fascist state. Moreover, the appearance of truth on its own territory in a fascist state is only a threat to fascist falsehoods. The fascists would relentlessly bomb refugee camps on their territory, and the war would develop into an armed confrontation between two opposing patriotic forces between the fascists and the refugees. However, no matter how much capital is invested to modernize the refugee areas, if the foreign forces stationed there are defeated, only the fact of aggression will remain, just like Japan's annexation of Korea. Perhaps 30 years from now, Afghanistan's current stagnant state of affairs may be portrayed as a world of patriotic heroism in which the Taliban drove out brutal foreign powers. Also, if the armed confrontation between the two conflicting patriotic nations leaves the internal borders through a ceasefire, it will lead to a recurrence of the division of Germany, the Korean Peninsula, or Vietnam after World War II. It inhibits domestic modernization on both sides by leaving divisions. From this point of view, it seems unreasonable to achieve democratization through military force from outside the dictatorship. Originally, democracy is the antithesis of violence. Achieving democracy through violence leaves a contradiction in any way. Rather, democracy realized through violence can easily be transformed into its opposite. In the first place, democracy is only a tool for realizing correct object recognition. Its basis is based on the method of achieving correct object recognition in the natural sciences. It is the result of criticism and verification among researchers across generations. And it is this method of criticism and verification that constitutes democracy. In other words, the academic truth is not violently determined by the researcher. Of course, even that academic work is approved with a twist in the class interests of different cognitive subjects. But the approved truth is ultimately determined by physical nature itself. And that truth exposes the falsehoods of those who have distorted the truth for their own self-interest. Therefore, if democracy is to be realized from its foundations, it is necessary to start with the circulation of facts.

(4a) Preparation of fact-based reporting

The influence of dictatorships on the internal affairs of authoritarian states is possible through the presentation of human rights ideals through culture and art, and in the reporting of facts that convey the reality of dictatorship. If it is appropriate, it will make all the people of the dictatorship, including the ruling class, aware of the need for democratization. In the long-term response to dictatorships, this non-military measure is more important than the military one of the former. Its importance follows the fact that the policy itself is nonviolent. Ideally, therefore, foreign countries would like to reform their dictatorship by presenting human rights principles and factual reporting to dictatorships without taking any military measures. For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine requires the Russian people to be aware of their role as perpetrators of the tragedy that occurred in Ukraine. What is needed here is to expose the Russian consciousness that treats Ukraine as a servant of Russia and the nationalist delusion that disguises its inhumanity as patriotism, and to force Russia to face the scourge of hell that these false consciousness has brought to Ukraine. If it succeeds, the list of facts will bring Russia into a sense of guilt as a perpetrator of the crime. Without these revelations and recognition of the facts, Russia cannot recognize itself as a perpetrator of a crime. Of course, standing in the way of this awareness is a false nationalism that prides itself on taking the property of other countries. Or it is a national temperament that does not consider such acts shameful. But such nationalism and nationality are only objects that democracy must wipe out. Authoritarian states such as Russia, China, and North Korea restrict information from other countries because their ruling class is afraid of spreading these facts and is afraid of exposing their own falsehoods. The horror they show is a direct expression of the power of factual reporting to convey the reality of dictatorship. On the other hand, the development of information with physical media is determined by the progress of the medium. In many times in the past, the medium was exclusively printed documents. Apart from its authenticity, the information there is a tradition, research, or expression of something. Since the information is represented in symbols and forms, it is possible to classify and systematize the information according to the difference in shape and content. On the one hand, the information expresses the truth of the beings of the real world, and on the other hand, the falsehood of the beings of the real world. For the time being, factual records represent the real world, and creations represent the false real world. However, the classification of truth or falsehood is limited to the presence or absence of corresponding facts. But the factual record also expresses the real world on the one hand, and the false real world on the other. And the truth or falsity corresponds to the existence or non-existence of the information in the real world. If the factual record does not exist, then the factual record is just a false record. Many of the false records are factual records of the past, or the traditions of the past that have become superstitions. In this way, the truth or falsity of information also forms a part of the classification and system of information. If the authenticity of the information can be searched at a list, the falsehoods issued by many information fabricators can be instantly denied in the judgment of authenticity. However, what is important here is not the discarding of individual false information. Disinformation itself constitutes a false record of fact. Therefore, what is necessary is to identify the source and background of the false information, and to clarify the basis for the false judgment. The steady work must be in accordance with the procedures of prosecution and adjudication in the courtroom, and all arguments of both the affirmative and the negative, both the defense and the prosecution, must be recorded.

(4b) Things and Ideas

The veracity of factual reports depends on the presence or absence of relevant information for the time being. To put it simply, it is the difference between the origin of consciousness in physics and ideas. However, according to idealism, it is in the field of consciousness that physics appears, and the origin of consciousness is always an idea. According to this logic, consciousness cannot directly know physics. The physics that is at best possible in this case remains a common idea shared by different consciousnesses. This logic presupposes physics as the other of consciousness. And because of this premise, consciousness cannot know physics. But for self-consciousness, the consciousness of others is also the other of consciousness. If this is the case, then self-consciousness cannot know the consciousness of others. Therefore, a common idea shared by different consciousnesses also cannot be established. However, this idealism turns a blind eye to this inconvenient circumstance. In short, this idealism is an empiricism that deals with the probability of consciousness in physics. On the other hand, the probability of consciousness contains many inconsistencies in consciousness, which need to be corrected. Behind this inconsistency is the coincidence of consciousness, and behind it is the coincidence of physics. But it is the physical truth that defines any coincidence. The physical truth appears in the form of the same law and the law of contradiction for the time being, correcting the inconsistency of phenomena and finally realizing the laws of physics. Of course, idealism does not recognize this physical truth. Exclusively idealism treats those physical provisions into the faith of materialism, replacing it with the true of consciousness. The negation of the physical truth sometimes leads to the denial of the law of sameness and contradiction. But the negation of the physical truth follows the inconvenience of consciousness that opposes the physical truth. Or rather, because of its inconvenience, consciousness repels physical truth. What this conflict expresses is the conflict between the foundation of consciousness and the physical truth. However, there is a consciousness that repels physical truth, and there is also a consciousness that accepts the physical truth. Rather, the consciousness that corresponds to the real world accepts the physical truth. Also, from the point of view of materialism, it is also the physical truth that defines the self-expediency of consciousness that is opposed to the physical truth. And the being of consciousness that denies truth in general for its own convenience is already false. Therefore, the violent elimination of the physical truth by idealism, even if left alone, will eventually be denied by the physical truth. In other words, the physics of reality overcomes that self-deception. But if we can't wait for the self-collapse of idealism through the Cold War, we need to circulate physical truth more quickly on the side of idealism. In fact, the distribution of factual reports under the dictatorship, which began with satellite broadcasting in the 80s, has led to the collapse of the dictatorship one after another. Perhaps what is needed now is the acceleration of the information revolution and the development of fact-reporting. On the other hand, factual reporting includes physical coincidences and conscious coincidences. Taking advantage of this, the self-convenience of consciousness combines its contradictory facts to fabricate false facts. But the fabricator already knows the falsity of his fabrication. Naturally, this knowledge brings the fabricator to the consciousness of a liar. The conscience that this awareness inflicts on the fabricator, makes it necessary for the fabricator to have a superior person who allows the fabricator to do so. And religion appears at the opposite end of physics according to its needs. However, if a religion also fabricates facts for its own convenience, it will naturally recognize itself as a fabricator. In each case, the fabricator departs from God's feet for his own momentary pleasure. If religion is the protector of truth, then religion cannot forgive itself as a fabricator. In the end, what this awareness fosters is the awareness of defeat in a series of fabricators.

(4c) Fascism Accreditation

Fascism violently suppresses truths that are inconvenient to itself in the name of patriotism. At this time, it plays with sweet words of individual citizens, and ultimately makes all citizens accomplices to the violence. It excludes the dissenters from the totality of popular will, so inevitably the fascists dominate the state by majority rule. Therefore, a democratic state and a fascist state cannot be distinguished by their democratic appearance alone. The distinction depends on the legitimate circulation of physical facts, and the realization of equal discussions in the State. That is, it is in accordance with the reality of freedom of speech and respect for human rights in the relevant state. And that lack of reality can be judged by the fact that people who advocate for freedom of speech and respect for human rights are detained and flee the country. In this respect, it can be asserted that Russia at present is in this fascist dictatorship, and Putin is at the top of it. On the other hand, the modernization of the state and the development of science and technology are intertwined. And in a world without discussion, science and technology will not progress. In other words, the development of science and technology and the realization of democracy are also intertwined. Therefore, the lack of democracy directly hinders the modernization of the country. In a fascist state, a fabricated ideology dominates the people, and it rises above the national debate. However, the state still tries to conceal the violent exclusion of its critical citizens and maintain a democratic appearance. Therein lies the next need in a fascist state. It is necessary to equate support for dictatorship and patriotism. Of course, as mentioned above, it is not actually patriotic. In the post-World War II world, the unpopularity of fascism is definite, and even Russia treats Ukraine as fascist in order to avoid its own recognition of fascism. As is well known, Russia is using the history of World War II, when the Ukrainian national independence movement united with Nazism. But that's just to blame Ukraine for choosing a snake over a bear when faced with a choice between a venomous snake and a man-eating bear. But with that, Russia labels the Ukrainian national movement fascist. The goal, of course, is to undermine Ukraine's national independence, which is inconvenient for Russia. In addition, from the perspective of the Russian ruling class, Ukraine's national independence is tantamount to aggressive nationalism with ethnic cleansing of Russia. Of course, the labeling is limited to self-expedient recognition of fascism. At least Ukraine as a nation has not been ethnically cleansed and has not invaded. Moreover, the inconvenience of Russia is not an inconvenience to the Russian people, but only an inconvenience to the Russian privileged class. For the time being, there is nothing wrong with this general definition of fascism as aggressive nationalism with ethnic cleansing. It should be noted that this recognition of fascism does not depend on the presence or absence of democracy in the target state. In fact, fascism is not just the antithesis of democracy. Fascism in the past emerged as populism in democracies. Fascism, however, moves to the violent elimination of dissidents after democratically seizing power with the support of the people. Therefore rather, fascism needs to be confined to the antithesis of freedom of speech and respect for human rights. In the end, it stems from the fact that aggressive nationalism, accompanied by ethnic cleansing, always requires suppression of speech and disregard for human rights. This suppression of speech and disregard for human rights is a phenomenon that can be extracted from the physical facts of the regime within the framework of the existing order. The recognition of fascism through its physical facts makes it impossible to recognize fascism against Ukraine and, conversely, allows Russia to recognize its own fascism. The establishment of such criteria is effective not only in Russia, but also in the evaluation of other existing dictatorships, as well as in all future fascisms. Naturally, a certain conscience about the proper use of expressions and the unpopularity of fascism worldwide, act to curb fascism by the international acceptance of this criterion for recognition of fascism. However, the establishment of such a certification standard is only a change in consciousness of physical facts, and does not go beyond ideological manipulation. Therefore, the change in the accreditation criteria is probably only a temporary response to awareness. Nevertheless, the change in the criteria is meaningful enough to try to curb fascism now and in the future.

(5) Russian fascism

The establishment of Putin's dictatorship has many similarities with the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship in Nazi Germany. Both have gained popularity for their nationalist populism through democratic elections and have been in power during a period of economic recovery in the country. However, in Putin's case, he did not implement economic policy as genius as Hitler. His economic policy is to put Russia's abundant resources on the supply line of a liberal economy and to revive the Russian economy with Western support. It only achieved a natural recovery of the economy at an early stage, and at best it mimics Deng Xiaoping's modernization of China. However, in retrospect, it may be seen as a North Korean-style measure aimed at restoring Russia's imperial power through the restored national power. On the other hand, Hitler and Putin have in common various aspects, such as the destruction of political opponents through conspiracy incidents, terrorism and information control by security organizations, and military suppression and foreign invasion of other ethnic groups. As a result, both regimes are forced to support the people in their wartime regimes, and they also receive the support of the people by bringing them into the wartime regime. In either case, critics of the regime are either imprisoned or exterminated, or they have no choice but to remain silent like stone, which purifies the speakers of domestic public opinion into supporters of the regime. And the dictatorship mistakenly believes that the domestic purification of its supporters is its own overwhelming support. However, domestic public opinion and support for the regime, which have been achieved through the suppression of criticism and the control of information, do not follow the premise of democracy in disclosing opposing opinions and verifying the facts. In short, it is simply the oppression and domination of the minority by the majority, not democracy. To put it simply, what Putin's Russia aimed at with its invasion of Ukraine, which began in earnest in February last year, is to crush democratization. What the Russian ruling class, led by Putin, fears is that democratization will spill over to Russia, and that the progress of democratization will expose their wrongdoings. Of course, such worries are not expressed as a sense of urgency about the exposure of wrongdoing. The pretext in the case of the former Soviet Union is the defense of communism, and in the case of Putin's Russia is the defense of national rights. This defense of national rights is a common pretext that appears exclusively as a lie justifying aggression, and is also used by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. However, in Putin's case, there is a high degree of conspiracy in the defense of his national rights, and the scale of the defense is large from the beginning. Putin, for example, is suspected of colluding with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to carry out five apartment bombings in order to gain an advantage in the presidential election. In response to the investigation, they first poisoned defected witnesses, and then carried out terror and the elimination of journalists seeking the truth. Of course, the execution and the removal by the authorities express a display of the conspiracy that they have committed, in short, a confession of the crime. Similarly, in the invasion of Ukraine since February last year, Putin has used the protection of ethnic Russians persecuted in Ukraine as a pretext for the invasion. Here, too, Russia has eliminated the fact of the persecution of ethnic Russians in Ukraine through the requisition of eastern Ukraine. What is needed to cover up these facts is the suppression of the press and expression by power, and the denial of democracy based on discussion. Conversely, if we eliminate the authoritative suppression of the press and expression, and realize democracy based on talks, Putin's many falsehoods will be exposed and the current war in Ukraine will come to an end. Putin's Russia, on the other hand, calls for multipolar domination of the world, which sees freedom of the press and expression and democracy as a unipolar world order in the United States, and has drawn dictatorships who hostile to democracy into its ranks. Of course, the Ukrainian regime is not included in one of the poles of the multipolarity that Russia considers. Putin's sense of crisis here is no different from the sense of crisis that the Soviet Union had, about socialism with a human face which appeared in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia after World War II. Of course, if Russia had been more free and democratic than the West, it would not have had such a sense of crisis. In that case, Ukraine would have moved away from the West and moved closer to Russia. But Russian nationalists do not see the secession of Russian rule in Ukraine as such, rather put Russia against freedom and democracy. And then and now, Russian dictators use their false nationalism to prolong their lives. In today's Russia, the act of undermining Russia's pride and authority is considered patriotic, and the act of trying to protect Russia's pride and authority is condemned as a traitor. Normally, the determination of patriotism is based on discussions that follow physical facts. In other words, science and democracy determine the truth of patriotism. And true patriots aim for a free and democratic Russia and support the democratization of Ukraine. Naturally, it completely rejects Russia's own invasion of Ukraine. But the dictator cannot tolerate this decision. The ruler then decides the truth of patriotism at his own discretion. Here he relies on a false patriotism that opposes the democratization of Ukraine. Its goal is a dictatorship that is the opposite of freedom. Therefore, the Russian dictator rejects physical facts and discussions. As a result, factual reporting and democracy in dictatorships are deprived of freedom under the control of power. On the contrary, dictators turn their unfree press and constrained democracy into an antithesis between fact-reporting and democracy. Fascism substitutes physical facts and discourse for falsehood and violence respectively, and turns the state into a rotten monster that opposes humanity.

(2024/01/14)

Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (4)

Original Japanese(3)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（３）

Materialist : List of articles

2024-03-12

The present state of Russian fascism (4)

政治時評

(3d) Historical peculiarities of the state

The realization of democracy in Russia is also hampered by the historical peculiarities of Russia as a state. Its historical peculiarity follows that many regions of Russia are the fruit of invasion and plunder. And that Russian peculiarity turns into a lack of remorse for the invasion and plunder to other countries. Historically, Russia has prioritized eastward expansion in order to counter European imperialism and to prevent the revival of the Mongol Empire. There were no Russians living in those areas originally, and the Russians were settlers and, for that matter, invaders. Its Russian historical necessity has instilled in Russians an old-fashioned sense of imperialist entitlement that glorifies their aggression and justifies looting. However, this old-fashioned sense of entitlement is not unique to Russia. In the old days, aggression and slaughter were carried out all over the world, and the invaders there had to be unrepentant of their own vices. And that unrepentant made colonization and slavery possible. Furthermore, in the invasion of developing countries by developed countries from the Age of Exploration to the present day, the aggressor had to boast of his aggression. The virtue there, is to trample on the rights of the opponent, treating more plunder as a sign of loyalty and patriotism to the Motherland. And this sense of entitlement has justified the ruthless plundering of the indigenous peoples of the areas under its control. In order for them to be treated as inhumane and atrocities, it was necessary to wait for the declaration of human rights issued by the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. Moreover, it was not until the 20th century that this awareness of human rights began to function properly. The sense of entitlement of the old era was on the same level as the competitive consciousness of the number of killings among the warlords, and as an extension of this, global imperialist wars broke out at the beginning of the 20th century. On the other hand, in recent developed countries, the sense of rights of the old era has been replaced by a sense of redemption for indigenous peoples, slaves, and even former colonies. This substitution is the same as the instillation of human rights awareness, and its physical substance is the realization of a non-discriminatory distribution of national assets. In other words, the eradication of extreme poverty among the people has made it possible for awareness of human rights to spread. Furthermore, it was the rapid development of production technology brought about by the Industrial Revolution that made this possible. In the end, this shows that humans need a minimum security of livelihood in order to distinguish themselves from mere animals. Conversely, unless extreme poverty among the people is eradicated, the consciousness of human rights will not permeate, and aggression and plunder will gain virtue and patriotic vanity. To put it simply, the human beings there, are still not human beings, but mere animals. Russia, on the other hand, failed to realize democracy in the revolution of the early 20th century and shifted to a dictatorship at the opposite end of the spectrum. The dictatorship, despite its communist title, also fails in the non-discriminatory distribution of national assets, and revives the old-era sense of entitlement with aggression and plunder as virtues. In that respect, the communist banner was a shackle to the dictatorship of the time. But rather its majesty was what adorned the dictatorship's sense of entitlement. However, the collapse of the communist regime in Russia deprives the Russian ruling class of the majesty of communism. It is a loss of an excuse for Russia to embellish its atrocities of aggression and plunder. Yet the Russian ruling class still believes and does not doubt that they should have the right to invade and plunder other countries. Moreover, strangely enough, this peculiar sense of entitlement is shared by many Russian citizens. For the time being, according to Putin, the sense of entitlement is that there is no distinction between self and others in Russia and Ukraine, and because of the lack of that distinction, Russia makes plundering Ukraine its right. But if there is no distinction between self and others, there is no need for plundering. Therefore, in fact, its sense of entitlement distinguishes between self and others, and according to that distinction, Russia is also plundering from Ukraine. However, if it is one's right to plunder others, then the plundering of oneself by others is also the right of others. In the end, it violates the private rights of individuals in general, including private property. In other words, what this sense of entitlement denies is basic human rights. Because of this contradiction and unreasonableness, the post-World War II empire developed a sense of atonement for the indigenous peoples, slaves, and former colonies with whom it had committed atrocities. On the contrary, this reveals the difficulty of guaranteeing basic human rights in such a country when the old-fashioned sense of rights dominates the population. It expresses the difficulties of democracy in Russia as it is. Moreover, this makes us expect that even after Putin's death, it will be difficult in Russia to achieve a democracy sufficient to end the invasion of Ukraine.

(3e) Failure of the democratization of authoritarian states

In practice, even if 3a) and 3b) are overcome among the above inhibition situations, it is difficult to overcome 3c) and 3d). This is shown by the experience of failed democratization in dictatorships. Moreover, the experience of failure is added as an impediment to the democratization of the dictatorship. Not only in Russia, but also in the world, there are still many dictatorships, and outrageous violence is rampant within them. The civil war against the dictatorship gave rise to many refugees, and in recent years, these refugees have begun to flow into developed countries in large numbers. In response, the West condemns the inhumanity of dictatorships and sometimes uses military measures such as air strikes. As far as Iraq and Afghanistan concerned, the West intervened militarily to topple its dictatorships. Subsequently, the international community tried to modernize Afghanistan by disseminating factual reporting necessary for democratization, enhancing democratic education among the people, and establishing the infrastructure of a democratic state, such as holding free elections. Its efforts to modernize Afghanistan lasted 20 years. However, the democratization experiment in Afghanistan failed after investing a great deal of effort and money. Much of the failure of the democratization was due to the new Afghan ruling class's embezzlement of Western support, which hindered the autonomous development of the economy. On the other hand, the discontent of the middle ruling class of the old Islamic order, which had fallen due to democratization, called for the revival of the Taliban. The revival of the dictatorship led to the exodus of many people as refugees, who had learned of freedom by the international support in a temporary democratization. Twenty years of Afghanistan's modernization have been reduced to ashes, and once again the blockade of fact-telling and the violent exclusion of critical citizens have returned to everyday life in Afghanistan. Here again, the obstacle to Afghanistan's modernization is the difficulty of democratization in authoritarian states. However, since this problem could not be solved by 20 years of efforts, the path to achieving democratization in the same way as before is already blocked, unless there are suitable conditions. Therefore, its failure is powerful enough to make attempts at post-dictatorship democratization in other country despair. This despair makes us anticipate a future in which the number of refugees in conflict areas will continue to increase and they will flow into developed countries. The first dilemma that emerges is that while the collapse of the dictatorship is necessary to prevent the emergence of refugees, the human resources necessary for the collapse of the dictatorship become refugees. And that dilemma is fused with other dilemmas. There, attempts to overthrow the dictatorship lead to social unrest, and that social unrest strengthens the dictatorship. At the root of this dilemma is the poverty of the people, and poverty is linked to the need for a violent order. On the other hand, there is no hope that the awakening of conscience in dictatorships will be realized by the enrichment of dictatorships. The enrichment of the dictatorship in North Korea merely enriched the ruling class and strengthened the dictatorship, and did not improve the welfare of the people and did not advance democratization. And even if the welfare of the people improves in dictatorships, it is likely that the enrichment will only result in modernization that pledges allegiance to the ruling class, as is the case with democratization in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East. In the end, it will only empower dictatorships and further increase the anxiety that other countries have about dictatorships. And this refugee situation also applies to Russian refugees born under Putin's dictatorship. In the current situation full of dilemmas, the only measures that foreign countries can take for the time being are limited to two things: the repeated transition to a better dictatorship and the weakening of the dictatorship. However, repeated transitions to better dictatorships have failed in the examples of Afghanistan and North Korea. And the revival of Putin's dictatorship in Russia is included in this same failure. Therefore, the only thing that can be done by foreign countries in the current situation is to weaken the dictatorship. But this measure will only deprive the people under the dictatorship of the capacity for rebellion, and will not have the effect to end the dictatorship.

(3f) Sustainability of a weakened dictatorship

When a dictatorship achieves a predetermined path of economic development, the dictatorship realizes the most advanced production process in the shortest possible way, without needy detours and coordination of departments. Therefore, communism in Eastern Europe achieved economic growth that surprised other countries during the reconstruction period after World War II. A similar situation can be seen in the economic growth of Vietnam and China through reform and opening up. However, the development of science and technology requires discussion and factual information, both of which are directly linked to democracy. And that democracy is at odds with dictatorship. To put it simply, science and technology do not develop under a dictatorship. Therefore, the economic growth of the dictatorship stalls after miraculous development and goes straight into a period of stagnation. Of course, authoritarian regimes also allow limited discussion and factual information for the development of science and technology. However, as long as there is a limitation, it will still be a hindrance to the development of science and technology. It slows down the development of the science and technology of the dictatorship in the technological competition with other democracies. In addition, more than the development of science and technology, the bureaucracy of dictatorships in economic management hinders the economic development of dictatorships. Naturally, the first prescription for this economic downturn is the realization of democracy. But dictatorships do not tolerate it. The biggest obstacle to its modernization is the dictatorship itself. The ruling class is a traitor who screams patriotism, and in the opposite direction to the beautiful words that come out of his mouth, he makes the nation obsolete and senile. This shows that if other countries distance themselves from dictatorships, dictatorships will weaken without escaping from economic stagnation. If the danger of a dictatorship lies in its invasion of another country, the weakening of the dictatorship reduces the risk of that aggression. As a result, the Cold War after World War II was a battle of patience between such democracies and dictatorships. However, it was only a battle of patience in the end, and at the beginning of the Cold War, it was still uncertain which side would eventually become a dictatorship. But the communist camp, which was already in dictatorship, did not thoroughly end Khrushchev's thaw. And that incompleteness made Russia a loser in the Cold War. In retrospect, Gorbachev's decision could only be valid during the Khrushchev era, before the Hungarian-Polish uprising of Nagy and Gomulka. No matter which Russian leader subsequently invokes perestroika, the Russian communist regime will probably collapse. But Russia is a resource-rich and self-sufficient nation, and it took half a century for its weakening to take effect. Naturally, weakening Putin's Russia will take a similar amount of time. However, Putin's life expectancy is not that long. Therefore, the West's weakening of Russia can only be seen for a short period of time before Putin's death. On the other hand, Putin's dictatorship has the background of the impediment to democratization mentioned above. This is enough to show that Russian fascism may persist regardless of Putin's death. As a result, the end of Russian fascism can only be realized gradually, by repeating the end of the Cold War in the progress of democratization and the resumption of the Cold War in the progress of dictatorship. Even so, as already mentioned, nationalist fascism begins as populism in a democracy. It may restore fascists to a more powerful and dangerous level in economically resurgent former dictatorships, ultimately destroying democracy. Lenin once described the Russian parliament as a fig leaf to color the bourgeois dictatorship. And he took the place of the Russian Soviets in opposition to the Russian parliament. However, the parliament at the time of the Russian Revolution was sufficiently democratic, unlike the previous imperial parliament, and Lenin's assessment of the parliament was false. In other words, the congressional assessment expressed the flaws of Lenin's disregard for democracy. In the end, the Russian Soviets are more like fig leaves adorning the democracy of lies. On the other hand, the violent elimination of critics by current Russian fascism has turned the Russian parliament into a real fig leaf. In light of this situation, the West's response to the Cold War, which brought Russia to the collapse of the Soviet Union, has only taken a detour and ushered in a new fascism. The consensus of the Russian people aspires to fascism, and fascism embodies the will of the Russian people. Democratization to deter fascism is still in a dilemma, even in the weakening of dictatorships.

(2024/01/14)

Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (5)　　Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (3)

Original Japanese(2)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（２）

Materialist : List of articles

2024-03-12

The present state of Russian fascism (3)

政治時評

(3) The ideal solution to the war in Ukraine and its obstacles

The current war in Ukraine, which began with Russia's invasion of Crimea, has caused enormous casualties on both sides and is expected to end quickly in order to rebuild Ukraine's lives. But in terms of moral responsibility to the aggressor, only Russia can decide the end of this war in Ukraine. Of course, if Ukraine gives up the war and cedes much of its territory to Russia, the war in Ukraine will end. However, the resolution of a war that ends with the cession of its own territory by intimidation, cannot be tolerated by Ukraine or any other country. In addition, there remains the fear that a re-invasion by Russia will begin in the future. Therefore, all that is expected is the rejection of aggression by the aggressor himself. Also, basically, if a person is aware of the error of his own actions, he will stop his erroneous actions. Similarly, if Russian people realize the error of their aggression, they will also cease their aggression. But for that to happen, democracy needs to be realized in Russia. The essence of this democracy is, first and foremost, the realization of factual reporting of what Russia did in Ukraine, and the realization of factual reporting of the circumstances leading up to the invasion of Ukraine. Naturally, the realization of such factual reporting requires the elimination of those who violently suppress the reporting of facts. The goal of this elimination is a total ban on violence against speakers. And with the realization of the guarantee of the speaker's survival, it will finally be possible to have a discussion based on physical facts. In other words, the essence of democracy is, secondly, the realization of freedom of speech and expression. In the first place, the Russian establishment fears factual press and democracy because they are convinced that facutual press and democracy will not only reject the invasion of Ukraine, but will also expose the wrongdoings of the Russian establishment. This conviction of the Russian ruling class amply expresses the possibility of the refusal to invade Ukraine by fair Russia. On the other hand, this conviction is also an awareness of its own evil in the Russian ruling class. The Russian ruling class needs to dispel its own self-awareness, and in order to complete its self-deception, the Russian ruling class needs the suppression of factual reporting and democracy. In each case, the fears of Russian ruling class express their conviction of defeat in discussions based on physical facts. Therefore, if democracy is to be realized in Russia, Russia will end its invasion of Ukraine on its own. This non-military solution is an ideal way to eliminate the need for military tensions between the West and Russia, and to avoid economic turmoil and burden on the people due to unnecessary economic blockades. Next, we will review the circumstances under which this ideal solution cannot be realized. To put it simply, it is the dictatorship itself that hinders democratization in a dictatorship. But this explanation is just a tautology. Therefore, if we break down the dictatorship into individual impediments to democratization, it is as follows.

・Violent elimination of critics

・Blocking of Awareness of Facts

・Private ownership of key industries by the ruling class

・Historical peculiarities of the state

(3a) Violent elimination of critics

Violent elimination of critics in authoritarian states let the critics die physically and the remaining critics flee the country. The absence of critics in state institutions leaves the decision-making of the state to one ruling class, and in extreme cases, to one ruler. Therefore, the political system is called a dictatorship. Dictatorship is the antithesis of democracy, and as long as democracy is the right way to realize the truth, dictatorship is a falsehood that opposes the truth to be realized. Of course, if the purpose of dictatorship corresponds to the truth, then the dictatorship may make the truth come true, regardless of its methodological falsehood. And what the dictator assumes exclusively is the purification of his own dictatorship through the truth of the purpose. But the truth of the purpose needs to be verified, and that verification requires discussion. Dictatorship is the antithesis of this discussion, making the truth or falsity of the purpose undecided. After all, dictatorship does not purify the falsehood of means. If the truth of the purpose requires its own purification, then the need already reveals the falsehood of the purpose. On the other hand, the exclusion of critics ultimately leaves only the dictator and his allies as members who determine the will of the state. The discussion there, is only a formality, not a discussion in substance. Also, if they will drive out disagreements, they don't have to discussion in the first place. The discussion is limited to coordinating decisions. However, if they take that coordination seriously, they arrive at the fallacy of the original decision. Therefore, even the coordination of decisions cannot be properly implemented under a dictatorship. There, the substantial destruction of this dialogue becomes rampant in all aspects of administration and management. But in order to deal with the difficulties it poses, they need to talk again. However, if there is no substantive discussion, the difficulties will not be resolved, and even these reality will be covered up in the first place. As a result, only the economy and disinformation that are convenient for the ruling class are circulated. And when unrealistic decision-making and false reports spread throughout society, compassion and decency disappear from society under dictatorship. There, an irreparable gap arises between the happy ideal society dreamed up by the ruling class and the unhappy real society. In this case, what is revealed before the public is the lie of the ruling class, which proclaims the unhappy real society as a happy ideal society. Therefore, even in dictatorships, there is an urgent need to lift the suppression of speech in order to deal with this difficulty. However, even if the suppression of speech is lifted, democratization will not progress if only the accomplices of the dictatorship remain in the dictatorship. The promoters of that democratization should be led by critics who have been silenced by dictatorship. Therefore, the democratization of a dictatorship requires the release of critics detained by the dictator and the return of critics who have fled the country. However, if the dictator has physically killed his critics, then there are no longer any critics to be released, or their survival is limited. In addition, critics who flee the country because they feel that they are in danger, do not return to their own countries without regard for danger. In particular, critics who have defected from developing countries to developed countries cannot give up the free and prosperous civic life they have gained in developed countries. In order for them to return to their country with peace of mind, the authoritarian ruling class, the source of their fears, needs to be purged from power. In the modern world, this mass migration of political and economic refugees is proceeding on a grand scale, and there is no prospect of their return. And they probably won't return. These circumstances deplete dictatorships of human resources who should lead the democratization of dictatorships. This dilemma of democratization of authoritarian states is occurring in dictatorships around the world, including Russia, which is currently under Putin's rule. For this reason, even if a dictatorship collapses, it is doubtful that democratization will be realized thereafter. For the time being, the collapse of the dictatorship will lead to the release of the critics detained by the dictator. However, these critical opinions are also motley, and they are mixed with anti-democrats who cover up violence with ideology. The release of these violent claims creates new tensions and confusion in the free society after liberation. The social unrest makes the people under the new regime aspire to restore a strong state order. And often the result is the revival of dictators. Of course, if the people are reluctant to resurrect the old dictator, then the new dictator will be chosen as the dictator who will be re-established. In any case, as long as dictators are re-established, the democratization of dictatorships will also be derailed.

(3b) Blocking of Awareness of Facts

When a dictator needs to kill his critics, he also kills critical speech. For a dictator, there is no difference between critical speech and critics. The suppression of speech in dictatorships is integrated with the violent elimination of critics mentioned above. But critical speech is a consciousness, and it is a reflection of the real world. However, the truth of consciousness is the real world, and the falsehood of consciousness is a misperception of the real world. The falsehood is based on a reflection error of the real world. Therefore, if the truth trumpeted by the dictatorship is actually false, the real world refutes the falsehood of consciousness. Therefore, the suppression of speech in dictatorships violently excludes the truth of the real world. The violent elimination manifests itself as a blockade of the recognition of the facts by the dictatorship. It inhibits the reporting of current or past facts in the country and makes the reporting of facts invisible to the public. On the other hand, dictators also hate real-world rebuttals, so he himself does not want to see factual reports as much as possible. In extreme cases, not only the people but also the dictator will not be able to see the facts. However, in modern society, international reporting is well developed, and both the public and dictators receive a certain amount of factual reporting through the medium of international reporting. Therefore, the blockade of factual recognition proceeds exclusively in the form of compiling current or past facts and fabricating them into other facts. As a result, in Russia, the bombing of apartment buildings and civilian infrastructure carried out by Russia in Ukraine will be the work of Ukrainians. Similarly, in Russia, Russian war crimes such as the Bucha massacre and child abduction are allegedly fabricated by Ukraine and the West. From the perspective of other countries, reports of Ukrainians bombing their own country are bizarre and clearly suspected of fabrication. So we expect that even Russians would likewise suspect the fabrication of such reports. But in a society where critical speech has died out, people can't even bother to voice their doubts. On the contrary, if the people want to live peacefully under a dictatorship, it is not enough to seal the doubts. In that case, the people are only pretending to believe the lie, and their unenthusiastic behavior puts their lives at risk. At this time, the people become take the initiative to believe the lies propagated by the dictatorship in order to protect their lives. In other words, people become patriots who are convenient for the fascists. Of course, the true nature of this patriotism is exile, not patriotism or anything. But if people convince everyone around them, including themselves, that they are patriot, they are guaranteed a peaceful life under the dictatorship. And in order to protect their peaceful life, the people begin to kick down the people around them. Then he becomes a patriot in comparison to others he has kicked down. The living conditions of the people in general in such a dictatorship lead to the uncritical circulation of lies and falsehoods in the country. There, legitimate logical judgments are eliminated, and false patriotism that speaks violently about patriotism leads to the collapse of national reason and the total dementification of the people. On the other hand, the guarantee of speech in a democratic world guarantees the exact opposite of speech on all sides. Simply put, it is a guarantee of survival against lies and falsehoods. To put it more simply, freedom of speech in a democratic world is the freedom to lies and falsehoods. Naturally, the factual reporting that is propagated in the democratic world also contains lies and falsehoods. However, since the lies and falsehoods are denied by diametrically opposed speeches on various quarters, they are eliminated and disappear due to inconsistency with the real world. In any case, speech that is aware of its own lies and falsehoods will shorten its lifeline as long as it aims for its own truth. Perhaps such propaganda is based on a different kind of falsehood, namely false beliefs and convictions. However, that false belief or convicton is not consistent with the real world. These false statements eventually self-destruct due to their contradiction with the real world, including themselves. On the other hand, the diversity of speech in the democratic world includes speech that is convenient for dictators outside of it. Dictatorships actively incorporate such speech into their own countries and embellish their own countries with freedom of speech. However, the selection and compilation of the work exposes the person in charge of doing so to the real world. In this case, he is forced to be aware of his lies and falsehoods, and in order to justify his lies and falsehoods, he becomes completely addicted to even more false beliefs and convictions. The process is the same as the self-indoctrination process carried out by the people under the dictatorship. However, in order to know which facts are favorable to the regime and which are not convenient for the regime, it is still necessary to know the facts. When the obstruction of the perception of the facts arises, the people are no longer able to determine the truth for themselves and fall into agnosticism. Agnosticism here is the last bastion of the shielding of factual perception in dictatorships. If the facts under the dictatorship are necrotic, then the criticism based on the facts is also necrotic. And the impossibility of such criticism also derails the democratization of dictatorships.

(3c) Private ownership of key industries by the ruling class

Elimination of critics and Blocking of awareness of the facts both require violence. The basis of the violence is the destruction of the livelihood of the critics. That destruction, of course, includes physical destruction of the critics. On the other hand, the ruling class cannot destroy all the livelihoods of the ruled. If that happens, the ruling class will have no one to rule, and the life of the ruling class will be uncertain. The ruling class guarantees the livelihoods of its submissive ruled and destroys the livelihoods of the rest of its critics. This makes it necessary for the ruling class to manage the lives of all the ruled. The basis of their livelihood management is to protect the jobs of the ruling class who are obedient to them, and to deprive their critics of their livelihoods. In the old era, the life and death of the ruling class formed a status system and divided the ruling class into multiple hereditary classes. The owner of the products there, is the ruling class, and the substance of the ruled class is the status that receives the spills. But it is blatantly unreasonable for producers to not be able to privately own their own products. Therefore, in the relationship between the ruling class and the producers, the form is taken in which the producer dedicates the product to the ruling class. The owner of the product here appears as the owner of the means of production, such as land or houses. They complement the dominance of the upper ruling class as the middle ruling class. Thus the labourers, the poor peasants, and the proletarians, who are employed by the owners of the means of production, are further limited to the status of receiving a few spills of the product. However, in terms of numbers, the proletariat is the largest, followed by the middle ruling class, and the upper final ruling class with the fewest numbers. What is expected of the final ruling class is to maintain control of the entire ruling class, including the middle ruling class. Therefore, the final ruling class will specialize itself in security and military specialization. As a result, the middle ruling class also takes over the management of the lives of all the ruled, and the division of ruling labour is completed. However, this division of labour completely exposes the absurdity of the inability of producers, including the owners of the means of production, to privately own their own products. Therefore, the modern history from the Warring States period to the abolition of the monarchy turns into a history in which the middle ruling class reigns on the new throne. In its history, the middle ruling class drives out the traditional final ruling class and replaces positions. Here, Napoleon became emperor after the abolition of the monarchy, Stalin and Mao Zedong took the de facto throne, and if we ignore the details, the restoration of the monarchy occurred in a similar way. And one of the patterns of the restoration of the monarchy includes the Putin dictatorship in modern Russia. In addition, dictatorships such as Islamic fundamentalist countries, the Myanmar military junta, and the North Korean dynasty are all established by the ruling class controlling the lives of all the ruled. Incidentaly the rule of the royal family in the Middle East is a pre-modern monarchy, but it is also established by the ruling class controlling the lives of all the ruled. In both cases, the root of the dictatorship is the private ownership of the livelihood of the ruled class by the ruling class. However, it is not necessary to formally declare private ownership. Therefore, the private ownership can be expressed in another way, and it can be described as the privatization of the infrastructure of life by the ruling class. In such a dictatorship, the public ownership of the means of production is merely a facade, and the actual state of the means of production is the private property of the privileged class. On the other hand, many of the livelihoods have been granted private ownership to the proletarian one after another in modern times. Otherwise, the lives of the proletarians will not be able to escape from extreme poverty. In addition, in the development of industry, the monopoly of the means of production by specific individuals appears as an impediment, hindering the growth of the wealth of the nation as a whole. And because of this hindrance, many of the former communist blocs collapsed in poverty. The introduction of market economies in Vietnam and China has eliminated the state's monopoly of the means of production, thereby escaping the crisis of the collapse of the system. Therefore, the modern dictatorship manifests itself as the privatization of the country's core industries, rather than the privatization of all the foundations of the ruled's life by the ruling class. In addition, if a country has a limited number of core industries, it is possible to maintain its dictatorship by realizing the privatization of core industries. Industry, on the other hand, has an aptitude for the privatization of products and means of production. In industries where much of the realized production value requires skill, workers occupy the skill. Therefore, the decision to own products must also depend on the skill level of the workers. On the other hand, when much of the realized production value is attributable to natural resources, the private ownership of the products in the industry is distributed to the owners of the means of production, such as land. For example, industries that extract natural resources, such as oil, are ideal for the privatization of products by the owners of the means of production. And its industrial aptitude makes it possible for the owners of the means of production to control the livelihoods of the proletarians engaged in the relevant industries. On the other hand, the essence of the value of natural resources is the Extraordinary Surplus Value brought about by the monopoly of the means of production such as land. That monopoly requires violence, and a monopoly cannot be maintained without violence. Therefore, a country whose core industry is the extraction of natural resources is inclined to a dictatorship, and the dictatorship enables the violent control of the people through its core industry. Russia, which is rich in natural resources and has difficulty developing other industries, has a favorable location for the establishment of such a dictatorship, and such a location promotes the establishment of a dictatorship. And the private ownership of these key industries makes democratization difficult in Russia, as is the case in the Middle Eastern monarchies.

(2024/01/14)

Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (4)　　Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (2)

Original Japanese(2)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（２）

Materialist : List of articles

2024-02-08

The present state of Russian fascism (2)

政治時評

(2)Idealism in fascism

Fascism aims at the spiritual control of the people and places the ruling class at the top of that spiritual control. The injustice of that rule lies in the absence of democracy. And the needs of democracy follow the need to expose the injustices of the economic privileges of the dictatorship. In addition, it is the free press that makes it possible to expose the unfairness. The goal of a free press is to report facts, not falsehoods of assumptions. What is simply required is a physical perception of the object, not an excuse for it. Fascism, on the other hand, conspires to conceal the physical aspect of the object itself through excuses. And in doing so, the fascists shield the factual press and stifle the free press. This lack of a free press makes democracy impossible. What awaits us here is the cognitive difficulty in which the class conflict makes object recognition impossible. Marx's awareness of the problem as a philosopher is also here, and his proposal for a communist revolution follows its guideline. The obstruction of object recognition in fascism is linked to its growth process. The following is a review of its growth process.

(2a) Fascism and democracy

Nationalist fascism arises from democratic populism. Even though they have not been suppressed, they are oppressed by repeated their own provocative violence, and they resist the oppression by considering it as political suppression. For them, criticism in general is a threat to their beliefs, and use violence to silence the criticism. The suppression of speech becomes more radical as the fascists get closer to power, and eventually they regard their critics as foreigners of other races or agents of foreign nations and imprison them in camps and execute them. This nationalist fascism seeks to reconstruct an ideal past that never existed. Of course, this unrealistic restorationism is no different in religious fundamentalism. The ideal past, like the national glory in nationalist fascism, is in fact an illusion created by the reverse glorification of the villainous past. Therefore, both of them aim at the revival of the traditional authoritarian patriarchal order. To put it simply, the goal is the domination of the weak by the strong. In each case, the background is a grudge against one's own decline and an impulse to dominate with no direction. Religious fundamentalism, on the other hand, like red fascism, does not arise from democratic populism, but solely from the demand for the overthrow of the existing authoritarian order. And in the background of all of this is the underdeveloped social state of democracy. However, if the goal of the revolutionary group is to overthrow the dictatorial order, then the social order after the overthrow should be a democratic order, which is the antithesis of dictatorship. At this time, if a revolutionary group allows criticism from outside of the group, it is absurd not to allow criticism from within its own group. Therefore, if a revolutionary group aims for a democratic order, it needs to be democratic in its own right. In this case, whether it is religious fundamentalism or red fascism, it must be democratic at the beginning. That said, suppressing criticism in an organization gives it quick action. On the other hand, the suppression of criticism deprives the organization of flexibility in its actions. This makes it difficult to examine problems inside and outside of the organization and to deal with them. Therefore, even in dictatorships, the ruling class needs intellectuals around them. Of course, this free communication is even more necessary in democratic organizations. Ideally, all members would be experts individually. But these democratic needs also lead to delays in decision-making. And that delay is fatal in the revolutionary group's quick response to the situation. However, the general movement policy does not necessarily require such a quick breakthrough in the situation. It is necessary to deal with the dictatorship's repression to the revolutionary groups. The need for organizational defense in revolutionary groups constrains democracy within revolutionary groups. It forces revolutionary groups to choose an organizational form that localizes the damage at the time of detection by restricting free communication among its members and dividing the chain of command. In this case, in order to defend the superior organization, the chain of command will also be top-down in the old military style. However, to put it simply, there is no room for organizational policy discussion in this organizational structure, and it is therefore undemocratic. It is a contradiction that a revolutionary group that aims for democracy becomes undemocratic. And this dilemma degenerates the revolutionary group into an undemocratic one. Behind this deterioration lies the unjust economic privileges of the ruling class within the revolutionary group. Incidentally, at least after the revolutionary group seizes power, the constraints of democracy that were necessary for the defense of the organization become unnecessary. Therefore, after a revolutionary group has seized power, to impose constraints on democracy expresses the falsity of the revolutionary group itself.

(2b) Fascism and goodness

The irrational poverty and discrimination brought about by the dictatorial order merge with the resentment of one's own decline and the impulse to dominate with no direction, giving birth to a new form of fascism. One purifies into patriotism that complements the existing order, and the other purifies into anti-establishment passions that destroy the existing order. But in any passion, the legitimate part does not proceed to fascism, but to the realization of democracy. What they both have in common is their own emptiness in response to their unfortunate circumstances, and their thirst to compensate for that emptiness. If that craving is limited to the simple realization of self-enrichment, then there is no need for any particular good. However, those who are in irrational poverty and discrimination cannot even live a normal life in the first place. At this time, people who have been abandoned from physical wealth, aim for spiritual wealth. What appears there is not physical value, but spiritual value, that is, goodness. Therefore, even in the midst of unreasonable poverty and discrimination, man does not surrender himself to vices, but on the contrary avoids vices. But the more a person tries to gain goodness at the cost of emptiness, the purity of that goodness drives him into self-denial. And that self-denial manifests itself as selfless submission to the good in the individual. Especially for individuals in unfortunate circumstances, the self that should be denied is already equal to nothing in the first place. Rather, the proletarian, who has nothing to lose, easily gains greater value through goodness. On the contrary, the proletarian, who has nothing to lose, despairs of his own life and even seeks a place to die. If the price of his death is good, he easily desires death. Of course, a typical example of this is suicide bombing in fundamentalism, as well as the self-sacrificing acts of nationalism and communism that fundamentalism modeled in the first place. In both cases, despair invites people to sacrifice themselves at the risk of their lives. However, whether the good obtained by risking one's life is genuine good, is another matter. If the action realizes genuine good, then the death may not be in vain. But if not, then its death is in vain, and in some cases exactly the opposite, it makes evil come true. What is troubling is when an individual who risks its life simply wants to die and uses an existing unidentified goodness as an excuse to die. In that case, the truth or falsity of the goodness does not matter to him. At this time, his exstence for the other becomes a saint in an organization that espouses its false goodness, regardless of the outcome, life or death. But whether he is a real saint remains a separate problem. What is needed here is no longer goodness, but truth. It is not fabricated by consciousness, but is constructed by physics. Its physics requires the immediacy and quantity of information. The amount of information is a spatial quantity on the one hand and a temporal quantity on the other, and at the same time it needs to be consistent with the chain of facts that spreads out in time and the course of time. Only such a whole system of information comes close to physical truth through the confirmation of the consistency between its individual information.

(2c) Fascism and Truth

The good that fascism believes in is in conflict with the physical truth. To put it simply, the good of fascism is a fabrication of consciousness, or simply a lie that is only assumed. That is not consistent with direct information and its quantity. And conversely, direct information and its quantity exposes that lies. Therefore, fascism is hostile to general information, and circulates the lies it believes in to the outside world under the guise of correct information. At this time, the leaders of the fascist organization silence information that is not convenient for them in the organization. However, the same information also comes from outside of the organization. Therefore, if fascists take control of the state, they violently suppress all information in the country that is inconvenient for fascist organizations. In addition, they shield information from outside of the country and treat domestic critics who sympathize with foreign news reports as agents of foreign intelligence agencies and make them traitors. On the other hand, a free press is free expression, and free expression includes false expression. Originally, physical truth often manifests itself in the exact opposite of its reality. Therefore, even direct information is often false on its own. For this reason, direct information needs to be consistent with the chain of facts and the course of time. This indicates a general possibility that the representation will be false. So, to put it simply, freedom of expression is even the freedom to say falsehoods. But the misrepresentation needs to be corrected. However, the negation is not done through physical violence, but through counter-regular expressions and discussions. The correction of false representations here also follows the chain of facts and consistency in the course of time. What it expects is the self-condemnation of false expressions by the self-convincing, and the natural death. Otherwise, the violent denial of false expression goes hand in hand with the denial of freedom of expression. However, the fascists take advantage of the need to correct this false expression and suppress all free expression that is not convenient for the fascists. That self-deception seeks its place in false sayings, such as that "The winner can make anything true.", or that "The lies you continue to believe will turn into the truth.". What it expresses is the royal road of idealism, which holds that truth is consciousness and that consciousness determines truth. However, even if you change the way you look at things, the physical truth does not change. It is Russia that invaded a sovereign state, Russia is the perpetrator and Ukraine is the victim. Physical truth does not allow lies that replace the reality of unhappiness with happiness that is only assumed. It is also because of this awareness that Russian fascists need to rid the truth of the war in Ukraine from within Russia's own country. Perhaps the right way to deal with modern warfare is to disseminate such a reality in the fascist state without hesitation. And the modern world has created the Internet as a powerful weapon to realize this strategy. However, even on the Internet, fascist information defense networks are still being built there. In addition, information that purports to be general views or academic views is actually full of diversity and conflicts in the first place. Moreover, under a dictatorship where poverty is rampant, not only is it difficult to translate into foreign languages, but the Internet itself is not fully equipped in the first place. And the fact that the war has not ended also expresses a fundamental lack of factual information in this world.

(2d) Truth and Conscience

In a country where it is impossible to criticize and point out to the upper echelons, such an act of disseminating imfomation can be fatal to the sender. There is no remedy for the problems of the upper echelons, and no one takes responsibility for the chain of command that ignores the field. Naturally, in such a state, corruption and depravity are also left uncriticized and rampant. And since that corruption accumulates at the top, even the central leaders at the top are eliminated in their conflicts of interest. This situation occurs not only at the national level, but also among professional revolutionaries within non-democratic revolutionary groups. However, corruption and depravity in revolutionary groups does not simply arise from the livelihood interests of the upper echelons of the organization. Such a revolutionary group that only pursues the livelihood interests of the upper echelons is no different from an illegal economic exploitation group, similar to a gangster or a Ponzi scheme. What members of revolutionary groups originally expect is good to counter evil. And the dictatorial system embodies the evil that is the opposite of this good. Therefore, the unique corruption and depravity of undemocratic revolutionary groups become more acute in the confrontation with the dictatorial system that is their slogan. At first glance, it is not corruption and depravity in institutions, but rather a deepening of self-sacrificing devotion in nationalism, communism or religion. In the begining, the corruption and depravity do not lead to the acquisition of physical private assets in the collective leadership. But in return, the collective leadership acquires spiritual assets. Its spiritual asset is a self-serving interpretation of nationalism, communism, or religion. However, it turns into the privatization of power within the organization through the thoroughness of that interpretation. In the end, the privatization of mental assets also turns into the privatization of physical living assets. Normally, the self-sacrificing devotion of the revolutionary group is good, and the leadership of the group embodies that goodness. However, if the group leadership is not criticized and pointed out, it is doubtful that the group leadership embodies goodness. And if the collective leadership is riddled with corruption and depravity, then its self-sacrificing devotion only realizes the good that the collective leadership advocates. And if the good advocated by the collective leadership is actually evil, then that self-sacrificing devotion also realizes evil rather than good. At this point, the revolutionary group, contrary to its radical slogans, turns into an economic exploitation group similar to gangsters and Ponzi schemes, or even more illegal. In this case, the terminal members who believe that good will be realized, practice evil. The embellishment of goodness carried out by the collective leadership here, exposes the terminal members to a divergence from reality. But exclusively the terminal members ignore the discrepancy with reality in accordance with the organizational policy set forth by the group leadership. At this time, his mind is supported by a lack of remorse for the repainting of evil with good. In there he has a false idealism that mistakes the repainting of phisics as a triumph of consciousness. But conscience stands on the side of truth, and only truth appears as the voice of conscience. Of course, the fascists would also think that their actions were in accordance with their conscience. But if this is the case, then the fascists cannot explain their own behavior which conceals the truth. The physical truths that are concealed at this time appear as the voice of conscience to the fascists. Therefore, fascism, which conceals the truth, stands on the opposite side of the voice of conscience, contrary to its own intentions. What constitutes the abyss separating the two sides of the river from falsehood and truth is also the difference between economic classes.

(2024/01/14)

Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (3)　　Previous article⇒The present state of Russian fascism (1)

Original Japanese(1)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（１）

Materialist : List of articles

2024-02-08

The present state of Russian fascism (1)

政治時評

(1) Forms of fascism

The pre-modern authoritarian order has emerged as a feudal order. And this caste system is the distinction between this dictatorship and the modern dictatorship. However, the caste-based feudal order imposes the will of the ruler against the will of the people. That coercion is already a dictatorship, and the degree of concentration of power within the ruling class and the divergence from the will of the people had raised and lowered the degree of dictatorship. On the other hand, fascism as a modern dictatorship begins as a seemingly democratic national movement. However, it has come to fruition as a totalitarian state in which the people monitor each other in order to support the ruling class. Historically, it has manifested itself in the following three forms.

　　・Nationalist fascism

　　・Red fascism

　　・Religious fundamentalism

These three types of fascism form national movements from different directions. But they all end up with similar dictatorships. All of them aim at the spiritual control of the people, and the ruling class sits at the top of that spiritual control. Of course, if the content of the mental control is legitimate, then the control may also be valid. However, its legitimacy needs to be understood by the public. And the process of understanding is democratic, which is opposed to the autocratic order. And the spiritual domination in the dictatorship is already unjust in itself. Moreover, the content of their mental control is often unjustified. Naturally, dictatorships alienate from the people. If the dictatorship wants to dispel its injustice, it needs to stop being a dictatorship itself. But the reason why a dictatorship is a dictatorship is that the dictatorship insists on being a dictatorship itself. Behind this adherence is the basis of the economic privilege of the dictatorial ruling class. In the following, this article confirms the establishment and correlation of these three forms.

(1a) Fascism and nationalism

The keynote of fascism manifests itself in the violent extermination of foreign peoples at home and the violent suppression of its own opposing forces, as well as the violent maintenance of one's own interests abroad and external military advances for that purpose. In other words, its external characteristics are ethnic cleansing and aggressive nationalism. It began in Italy, became more radical, spread to German Nazism, and took a different form as nationalism and totalitarianism, sweeping the world. Its mother ideology is fundamentally nationalistic. But not all nationalism aims at this fascist keynote. Nationalism in fascism unites a particular class and its supporters as an ethnic group, and aims at the violent realization of its interests. To put it simply, nationalism is an economic class consciousness that represents the interests of a particular class. Therefore, its nationalism does not need to be confined to ethnic boundaries, and its scope can be arbitrary. Incidentally, many of these obscure ethnic boundaries are based on religious differences. This is because many of the unclear ethnic boundaries overlap with sectarian boundaries. Conversely, ethnic differences are only such differences. In other words, these differences are not issues that deserve to be opposed to each other in the first place. For this reason, much of the nationalism of the modern world is represented by Islamic sects. Of course, in conflicts between Islam, the Islamic sect at the center of domestic interests occupies the xenophobic center and suppresses other Islamic sects. Conversely, religion can form ethnic boundaries, such as Judaism. Therefore, the ethnic boundaries only express certain common interests in the region, and are not actual ethnic boundaries. It is also because of this that nationalists can label their fellow nationals as traitors and non-nationals. At this time, the nationalist believes himself a patriot and does not suspect that he may be a traitor to the state. However, the nationalism, through its violent rule, degrades its own people to inhuman tribes. And such inhuman tribes are not respected, but rather despised. Moreover, that contempt comes not only from other nations and peoples, but also from one's own people. In addition, the violent rule of the people by the fascists is a hindrance to economic and cultural development. Thus, while talking about patriotism, fascists impede the economic and cultural development of their country. Fascists do not love the country at all in their actions, they only love the interest groups to which they belong.

(1b) Fascism and communism

The fascist movement in Italy was under the influence of the communist movement, which was on the rise at the same time, and they imitated many forms of communist activity. In fact, in the case of Nazism, there were socialists in the party who were later purged by the right wing of the party. However, the similarity of their activities is not merely due to the fascists' imitation of the communist movement, but also to the commonality of their supporters. In both communism and fascism, the leaders and supporters of the movements were the social classes that were oppressed and disadvantaged at home. However, while the Communist support base was the proletariat, the fascist support base was the small capitalists with their own capital. But petty capitalists can also be exploiters of the proletarian. And the communist movement at that time was mercilessly attacking the exploiting small capitalists, no matter how big or small they were. Therefore, regardless of their similarities, they hated each other as enemies and confronted each other. Fascism, on the other hand, does not have a vision of a future for an egalitarian society like communism, and it has no faith in scientific rationality. At the root of this movement is a grudge against one's own decline and an impulse to dominate with no direction. Its irrational passions are incompatible with the ideals of human rights and equality. In fact, fascism attacked the idea of equality and advocated the domination of the weak by the strong. Socialism and communism are essentially internationalism rooted in equal human rights. On the other hand, the foreign policy of fascism converges with imperialism, which aims at the domination of other peoples. Fascism, therefore, leans toward nationalism because it represents an idea that can compete with human rights and equality. Fascists are convinced of their own ethnic superiority in their nationalism. However, there is no particular basis for this conviction. Much of their ethnic advantage is based on their own infrastructural superiority and affluence over other peoples. That is, the conviction simply follows the indigenous privileges of the region. However, nationalism on its own is not enough ground for dictatorship. It is also irrational for fascism to oppress its fellow citizens under the pretext of nationalism alone. Therefore, fascism puts socialism on its banner. But the socialism that fascism speaks of here is not about realizing human rights and equality. The goal of their socialism is the realization of the national interests that they consider. Of course, the interests of the state are actually the interests of a particular interest group, not the interests of the people as a whole. For this reason, the socialism advocated by fascism violates many human rights that are outside of a particular interest group as a matter of course. As a result, this contradiction leads to a bizarre situation in which socialism, which is supposed to aim for the realization of human rights, constantly violates human rights. Because of this gap, fascism distinguished its own socialism from the original socialism and called itself National Socialism. The designation now expresses the inferior ideology of xenophobic nationalism. However, when it first appeared, National Socialism was touted as a superhuman idea that could compete with communism.

(1c) Stalinism

Fascism's resentment of its own decline and the impulse to dominate without direction are no stranger to communism. It is the class rage of the working class in communism, and its understanding justifies the relentless assault on the exploiting capitalists. It was also believed that if the goal was to achieve human rights and equal life, then the end would purify the means. And when Lenin staged the Red Coup in Russia, Russian Bolshevism came to embody communism. However, the leftward tilt of communism further enforced Lenin's disregard for democracy within the communist camp. As a result, Lenin's fatal flaw, far from realizing human rights and equal life in Russia, created a world of opposites. That was Stalin's communist dictatorship in Soviet Russia. Communism was hostile to the fascist dictatorship. The communist dictatorship, however, was no different from its hostile regimes, but rather more outrageous. The dictatorship violently annihilated not only other partisans in the country, but also all the factions within the party that could become its own opponents. In addition, it has destroyed religion, culture, art, social sciences, and all other ideas that could become the seeds of its own opposing forces in the country. And abroad, the dictatorship violently restored Russia's interests in the old era and pursued military advances to that end. In the logic of external expansion, Russian nationalism was openly proclaimed. But it had nothing to do with communism as a theory. In the end, the communist dictatorship became a mere communist version of nationalist fascism. But its communist color, even if it is false, still constrains Russia's nationalist dictatorship. In addition, the process of establishment of the communist dictatorship is different from nationalist fascism, which arises from nationalist populism. Thus, the difference distinguishes communist fascism from nationalist fascism and treats it as red fascism. But the majesty of communism obscured the truth that the regime was simply red fascism. Many left-wing activists, including communists, understood that red fascism was necessary for the survival of Russian communism. Even in the silence of these left-wing activists, the majesty of communism played a major role. As a result, while left-wing activists around the world denounced fascism, much of the humanitarian calamity of Russian communism was ignored. The truth of the Russian communist dictatorship finally becomes a universal public fact when the Russian communist dictatorship could not bear the burden inflicted by itself and screamed at itself. However, Russia's national strength was restored to a certain extent by the postwar reconstruction after World War II. Once again, the Russian communist dictatorship sinks all of Russia into a state of oxygen deprivation of Stalinist dictatorship. It would not be until 30 years later that Russian communism itself would once again raise its voice against the shackles brought about by the dictatorship. However, by this time, it was too late for Russian communism to change direction, and the Russian communist system itself collapsed.

1d) Red fascism and Putin's dictatorship

The majesty of communism in Soviet Russia played a major role in the survival of red fascism in Russia. On the other hand, the majesty is also a shackle for red fascism in Russia. It demands communist equality on the Russian red aristocracy and constrains the privileges of the red nobility. In its appearance, the hierarchy of the Russian red aristocracy is closer to the chain of command in the military than to the hierarchy of positions in the enterprise. The direction of its decision-making was not focused on the realization of the national interests of the fascist groups, but on the maintenance of order and its external expansion of the Russian communist system. The realization of the former national interests and the maintenance of order in the communist regime were in many ways identical in Soviet Russia at the time of the founding of the country. But the chain of command in the army was at odds with the realization of the personal interests of the fascist group, and it suffocated themselves. In addition, in a gigantic system with no free press, there is a limit to the military-style top-down. On the one hand, the rigid command system of ignoring the field leads to the accumulation of laziness and disregard of orders as it progresses to the terminal part of the system. And on the other hand, it produces corruption and depravity in the intermediate command system. In addition, the distribution of Russian interests to the local peoples and the Communist bloc of Eastern Europe was a heavy burden on Soviet Russia. Therefore, when Soviet Russia aims to correct this, the maintenance of order and external expansion of the communist system on the contrary affect the independence of each peoples under the regime and the communist bloc of Eastern Europe. However, it could also be seen as detrimental to the national interests of Russia at the time. Moreover, the cacophony was increased by the steady stabilization of people's lives in Russia and the exposure of relative poverty compared to the West through Western media. And it led to a confrontation between the Russian leadership and the military, which ultimately led to the collapse of Soviet Russia. Incidentally, what made the survival of the ultra-Stalinist regime in North Korea possible was the delay in the stability of the people's lives in the country and the prevention of the intrusion of the Western press that exposed its absolute poverty. Whichever of them collapses, it will probably be difficult for North Korea's dictatorship to survive. Compared to the previous Soviet Union and North Korea, the fate of red fascism in China is still in flux. The control of information in China has been looser than that of the previous Soviet Union, and there have always been people within the Communist Party who understand the need, including democratization, for China's modernization. This historical background supports China's liquidity. Therefore, also about the current response to the dictatorship of the Communist Party in China, it is necessary to determine whether China goes to the direction of nationalism or internationalism, in the form of a post-Xi Jinping era. On the other hand, Russia, by losing the majesty of communism, gained a domestic base to purify its red fascism into nationalist fascism. Russia's privileged groups no longer have to worry about communist missions such as equality and revolution. They profess purely Russian nationalism and allow them to concentrate their own interests. In fact, Putin's aim is not the restoration of communism, but the revival of purely Russian national glory. In the first place, Putin hates communism and denies revolution in general by the poor who resist dictatorship. His interest in Stalin follows the mere reason for his respect for Stalin's red fascism.

(1e) Religious fundamentalism

What is necessary for the overthrow of the authoritarian order is the establishment, maintenance and expansion of revolutionary groups against the dictatorial order. Once a revolutionary group is established, the irrational poverty and discrimination under the authoritarian order will rather affect the growth of the revolutionary group. But those people suffering from poverty and discrimination join the revolutionary group, only if they find the cause of their suffering in the authoritarian order. However, they are the uneducated and violent inhabitants of the underworld who suffer from irrational poverty and discrimination. And their ignorance and cruelty often keep them in the bottom world. On the contrary, their resentment of their own decline and their impulse to dominate with no direction rather invite them to fascism. At this time, if the ruling class of the authoritarian order actively supports them and merges with them, the uneducated and violent inhabitants of the underworld will join the ruling class of the autocratic order and reinforce the dictatorial order. Revolutions in developing countries, therefore, require a simple explanation that rightly directs the class grudges of the poor to the side of the privileged establishment. And communism has been chosen as the ideology suitable for this simple explanation. However, the erosion of communism's majesty has alienated the people of the world from communism. Still, what is needed here is a democratic revolution and the realization of a republican system. But what is necessary for the overthrow of the authoritarian order, as indicated earlier, is the establishment, maintenance, and expansion of revolutionary groups that oppose the dictatorial order. However, the part of the people who should be the subject of the democratic is suppressed, and the other part turns to patriotic fascists and supports the dictatorial order. Consequently, the absence of that revolutionary agent and the historical backwardness of communism lead to the establishment of an undemocratic, unpatriotic and irrational revolutionary agent among the people suffering from irrational poverty and discrimination. And exclusively religion appears there. It manifests itself as a traditional patriarchal social order that follows exclusively religious conventions. Its undemocratic nature is underpinned by rigid and stylized social principles. The principle is formulaic and does not require discussion. And because there is no need for discussion, individual members are expendable in the revolutionary group. The core of the revolutionary group is the idea of a fundamental social order. On the other hand, the unpatriotism of this revolutionary group places God's trust group in place of the existing ruling class. That is, the revolutionary group, in rebellion against the existing state, gives a new state to each member. In the end, the revolutionary entity is just another kind of patriotic fascism that has only established a different ruling group in place of the ruling group supported by the existing patriotic fascism. It is also immediately apparent that the revolutionary group's form of activity and organizational policy is Lenin-type Bolshevism. In other words, that other kind of fascism is also a different kind of red fascism that has only placed religious principles in revolutionary ideas instead of the fallen communism. However, unlike red fascism, fundamentalist fascism does not have a vision of the future of an egalitarian society more than nationalist fascism, and it lacks faith in scientific rationality. Perhaps the image of the future society it advocates is a religious despotic state of the group of fundamentalist clerics in Iran style, or same of the religious monarch in Saudi Arabia style. And that lack of scientific rationality justifies the killing of other sects, other peoples, and democrats within the regime in a self-destructive cult-style zeal. Of course, the denial of that talk not only denies talks with other democracies, but also denies talks between religious fundamentalists. Therefore, they do not know where the conflict will end. In other words, the historical retreat of communism has revived the demons of the old era in the present day.

(2024/01/14)

Continue⇒The present state of Russian fascism (2)

Original Japanese(1)⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（１）

Materialist : List of articles

2024-01-23

ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（３）

政治時評

（４）独裁国家民主化の方策

　ファシスト国家の侵略戦争を抑止し、その民主化を支える場合、ファシストが国民弾圧に使う各種の口実を挫く必要がある。もっぱらその口実を根拠づけるのは、ファシストが信奉する民族主義や原理主義宗教の妄言である。ファシストはそれらの理念を通じて、自らを民族的中核、または宗教的真理と喧伝する。そしてそれにより彼らは、自らに対抗する他者を一掃し、国家を支配する。ところがもともと民族主義の目標は、地域住民の自由と人権の実現に集約される。またそうであるからこそ、地域住民の自由と人権が阻害されたときに、迫害された地域住民の中から民族主義が立ち現れる。このような民族主義の意義は、宗教の意義においても変わらない。宗教は地域住民の純化した生活習慣であり、その形式だからである。この点で言えば、ファシストが民族主義や宗教を根拠にして国民を弾圧するのは、それらの本来の目標に反する。しかし民族主義や宗教は、自由と人権から切り離れて現れることもできる。もともとそれらが地域住民の自由と人権の実現を目指す理由は、該当地域住民が迫害される下位の生活集団であることに従う。しかし該当地域住民が下位集団を収奪し、支配する上位の生活集団であるなら、その支配地域における自由と人権の実現は、自らの生活に不利益をもたらす。それゆえに支配集団の民族主義と宗教は、容易に自由と人権の対極へと移行する。またそれらが実現しようとするのは、もっぱら該当地域における平均的多数者の伝統的生活にすぎない。このような民族主義と宗教は、単に多数者であると言う権利に従い、多数者から外れた個人や馴染めない個人、あるいは別形式の生活習慣を持つ集団、またはもともとの異国人を追い詰め、滅ぼす。それゆえに迫害される下位の生活集団においても、往々にして民族主義と宗教は、自由と人権の実現に対立する。そしてファシストが信奉するのは、結局その程度の民族主義や宗教である。それゆえに民族主義と宗教が自由と人権の実現を目指すなら、その目標のために自らの無根拠な形式性を離脱する必要を持つ。ここで求められているのは、多数者による少数者の暴力的抑圧ではなく、そして自由と人権の暴力的抑圧ではなく、話し合いにより地域住民の対立を調整する作業である。そしてその調整作業は、民族主義や宗教を根拠づける思い込みや迷信ではなく、現実世界の物理的事実を根拠にする。

　ちなみに民族主義や宗教が根拠にする思い込みや迷信は、可能であるなら、民族定義の変更、宗教の廃絶、または全宗教の癒合のような空想的手法により一掃できる。全世界的に国境線を均等サイズに細分化できれば、侵略戦争が口実を失なうので、民主主義がそれらの不満を吸収できるかもしれない。また大規模封印列車を実施すれば、独裁体制に抵抗する人材を独裁国家内部に移植できる。ほかにも難民の発生に対応して、ロシアのやり方を真似る形で、独裁国家の国境沿いの一部地域を難民キャンプ専用地に確保し、国際的に該当居住地域を支援して、民主化を局地的に確立させる新型植民地などの非現実な方策を考えられる。しかし民族的妄信や迷信の一掃は時間がかかるし、そもそもその一掃を実現できるなら、おそらく同時に独裁国家の民主化も完了する。また全世界的な国境線の均等分割は、それ自身が武力を背景にするか、全世界的な民主化の完了を必要とする。そして大規模封印列車を実施すれば、封印列車で送り込まれた反体制派や民主化知識人は、独裁国家に全員収容所送りにされるか処刑されてしまう。一方で前述の新型植民地は、ファシズム国家にとって侵略である。またファシズム国家において自国領土内に真理が出現することは、ファシストの虚偽にとって脅威でしかない。ファシストは自国領土内の難民キャンプを容赦なく爆撃することになり、戦火はファシストと難民の間で二つの相反する愛国の武力対決に発展する。しかしどれだけ資本投下して難民地区を近代化させても、駐留外国勢力が敗退すれば、日本の朝鮮併合と同様に単なる侵略の事実だけが残る。もしかすると３０年後のアフガニスタンでは、現在の閉塞した国内状態も、タリバーンが残虐な外国勢力を駆逐した愛国武勇伝の世界として描かれているかもしれない。また二つの相反する愛国の武力対決が、停戦を通じて国内国境線を残すのであれば、それは第二次世界大戦後のドイツや朝鮮半島、またはベトナム分断の再来を招く。それは分断を残すことにより、双方の側の国内近代化を阻害する。そのように考えると、独裁国家の外部から武力を通じて民主化を実現させるのは、やはり無理があるように見える。もともと民主主義は暴力の対極である。民主主義を暴力で実現するのは、どのようにしても矛盾を残す。むしろ暴力で実現した民主主義は、容易にその反対物に転化する。そもそも民主主義は、正しい対象認識を実現するための道具に過ぎない。その基本は、自然科学における正しい対象認識の実現方法に準拠する。それは世代をまたがる研究者の間における批判と検証が実現するものである。そしてその批判と検証の手法こそが民主主義を構成する。つまりその学術的真理は、研究者が暴力的に確定するものではない。もちろんその学術研究でさえ、異なる認識主体の階級利害において捻じ曲げられて承認される。しかしその承認された真理も、最終的に物理的自然それ自体がその真を確定する。そしてその真が、自己利害において真理を捻じ曲げた者たちの虚偽を暴く。それゆえに民主主義をその基本から即して実現するのであれば、事実認識の流通から始める必要がある。

（４ａ）事実報道の整備

　独裁国家の内政に対する影響力は、文化芸術を通じた人権理念の提示、および独裁の現実を伝える事実報道として可能である。その行使が的確であるなら、その行使は民主化の必要を、支配層を含めた独裁国家の全国民に自覚させる。独裁国家への長期的な対応を言えば、この非軍事的方策は、前者の軍事的方策より重要である。その重要性は、その方策自体が非暴力であることに従う。それゆえに理想を言えば、諸外国は軍事的方策を一切取らずに、人権理念と事実報道を独裁国家に提示することで、その独裁を改悛させたい。例えばロシアによるウクライナ侵略において求められているのは、ロシア国民におけるウクライナで起きた惨劇の加害者としての自覚である。ここで必要なのは、ウクライナをロシアの下僕に扱うロシア意識、およびその非人間性を愛国と偽る民族主義の虚妄を暴き出し、それら虚偽意識がウクライナにもたらした地獄の惨劇をロシアに直視させることである。それがもし成功するなら、その事実系列の羅列は、犯罪加害者としての自覚をロシアにもたらす。またそれらの露呈と事実認識なしにロシアは、自らを犯罪加害者として自覚できない。もちろんその自覚に立ちはだかるのは、他国の所有物を奪い取ることを誇るような虚偽的な民族主義である。あるいはそのような行為を恥ずべきことと思わない国民気質である。しかしそのような民族主義と国民性も、民主主義にとって自らが一掃すべき対象にすぎない。ロシアや中国、北朝鮮のような独裁国家において他国の情報を制限するのは、その支配層がそれらの事実の拡散を怖れているからであり、自らの虚偽の露呈を危惧するからである。彼らが示す恐怖は、独裁の現実を伝える事実報道の威力をそのまま表現する。一方で物理媒体を伴う情報整備は、その媒体の進歩により規定される。過去の多くの時代においてその媒体は、もっぱら印刷文書であった。そこでの情報は、その真偽内容を別にして、何かについての伝承や研究や表現である。その情報は記号や形で表現されるので、情報の形状と内容の差異によって分類と体系を可能にする。その情報は、一方で現実世界の存在者の真を表現し、他方で現実世界の存在者の偽を表現する。さしあたり事実記録は真の現実世界の真を表現し、創作物は偽の現実世界を表現する。ただしその真偽区分は、対応する事実の有無に留まる。しかし事実記録もまた、一方で真の現実世界を表現し、他方で偽の現実世界を表現する。そしてその真偽は、情報の現実世界における実在の有無に対応する。もしその事実記録が実在しなければ、その事実記録はただの虚偽記録となる。虚偽記録の多くは、過去における事実記録であり、あるいは迷信となった過去の伝承である。そしてこのように情報の真偽も、情報についての分類と体系の一画を成す。もし情報の真偽が一覧検索可能であれば、情報捏造者が数多く発する虚偽も、瞬時に真偽判定において否定可能になる。ただしここで重要なのは個々の虚偽情報の捨象ではない。虚偽情報は、それ自身が虚偽の事実記録を成す。そこで必要なのは、その虚偽情報の出所と背景の特定であり、虚偽判定の根拠の明示となる。その地道な作業は、法廷における立件ならびに裁定の手順に準拠し、肯定と否定、弁護と検察の双方の主張の全てを記録したものとなる必要がある。

（４ｂ）事物と観念

　事実報道の真偽は、さしあたり該当情報の有無に従う。単純に言えばそれはその意識の起源が、物理か観念かの差異である。ただし観念論に従えば、物理が現れるのは意識の場であり、意識の起源は常に観念である。その理屈に従えば、意識は直接に物理を知り得ない。この場合にせいぜい可能な物理は、異なる意識が共有する共同観念に留まる。この理屈は、物理を意識の他者として前提する。そしてその前提のゆえに意識は物理を知り得ない。しかし自己意識にとって、他人の意識も意識の他者である。そうであるなら、自己意識は他人の意識を知り得ない。したがって異なる意識によって共有される共同観念も成立し得ない。ただしこの観念論は、この不都合な事情には目をつむる。要するにこの観念論は、意識の蓋然を物理に扱う経験論である。一方で意識の蓋然は意識の不整合を多く含み、その補正を必要とする。その不整合の背景には意識の偶然があり、さらにその背後に物理の偶然を隠している。しかしいずれの偶然を規定するのも、物理的真である。その物理的真は、さしあたり同一律や矛盾律として現れ、現象の不整合を補正し、最終的に物理法則を実現する。もちろん観念論はこの物理的真を認めない。もっぱら観念論はそれらの物理規定を唯物論の信仰に扱い、それを意識の真に置き換える。その物理的真の否定は、ときに同一律や矛盾律の否定にまで至る。しかしその物理的真の否定は、物理的真に対立する意識の不都合に従う。あるいはむしろその不都合により、意識は物理的真に対して反発する。その葛藤が表現するのは、その意識の成立基盤と物理的真との対立である。ただし物理的真に対して反発する意識もあれば、それを受け入れる意識もある。むしろ現実世界に対応する意識は、物理的真を受容する。また唯物論から言えば、その物理的真に反発する意識の自己都合を規定するのも、やはり物理的真である。そして真理一般を自己都合で否定する意識の在り方は、既に虚偽である。それゆえに観念論による物理的真の暴力的排除は、放っておいてもそのうちに物理的真が否定する。すなわち現実の物理が、その自己欺瞞を打ち倒す。しかしその冷戦を通じた観念論の自己崩壊を待てないのであれば、観念論の側に物理的真をより早く流通させる必要がある。そして実際に８０年代の衛星放送に始まる独裁体制下の事実報道の流通は、続々と独裁体制の崩壊を実現してきた。おそらく今必要なのは、その情報革命の加速であり、事実報道の整備である。一方で事実報道は物理の偶然と意識の偶然を含む。それに乗じて意識の自己都合は、その相反する事実を組み合わせて虚偽事実を捏造する。しかし捏造者は、既に自らの捏造の虚偽を知っている。当然ながらその知は、捏造者に嘘つきの自覚をもたらす。その自覚が捏造者に与える良心の呵責は、捏造者にその呵責を許す上位者を必要とさせる。そしてその必要に応じて物理の対極に宗教が現れる。しかしその宗教も自己都合で事実を捏造するなら、自ずと自己を捏造者として自覚する。いずれにおいても捏造者は、自らの一瞬の快楽のために、神の足元から離れて行く。宗教が真理の加護者であるなら、宗教は捏造者としての自己を許せない。結局その自覚が醸成するのは、一連の捏造者における敗北の自覚である。

（４ｃ）ファシズム認定

　ファシズムは愛国の美名のもとで自らに不都合な真理を暴力的に弾圧する。このときにそれは個々の国民に保身の甘言を弄し、最終的に国民全員を暴力の共犯者に仕立てる。それは民意の全体から抵抗者を排除するので、必然的にファシストが多数決で国家を支配する。それゆえに民主国家とファシスト国家は、その民主的体裁だけでは区別され得ない。その区別は、その国家における物理的事実の正当な流通、および対等な話し合いの実現の有無に従う。すなわちそれは、該当国家における言論の自由と人権尊重の現実性に従う。そしてその現実性の欠如は、言論の自由と人権尊重を訴える人々が抑留され、国外に逃亡する現実により判定できる。この点で現状のロシアは、このファシスト独裁にあり、その頂点にプーチンがいると断言できる。一方で国家の近代化と科学技術の発展は一体の関係にある。そして話し合いの無い世界で、科学技術は進歩しない。つまり科学技術の発展と民主主義の実現も、一体の関係にある。それゆえに民主主義の欠如は、そのまま国家の近代化を阻害する。ファシスト国家では捏造された原理的イデオロギーが国民を支配し、それが国民の話し合いの上位に立つ。ただしそれでもその国家は、その批判的国民の暴力的排除を隠匿し、民主的体裁を保とうとする。そこにファシスト国家における次の必要が生まれる。それは、独裁支持と愛国を一体のものとして現す必要である。もちろんそれは、前述したとおり、実際には愛国ではない。第二次大戦後の世界において、ファシズムの不人気は確定的であり、ロシアでさえ自らのファシズム認定を避けるために、ウクライナをファシスト扱いする。周知のようにロシアが利用しているのは、ウクライナ民族独立運動がナチズムと野合した第二次大戦時の経緯である。ただしそれは、ウクライナが毒蛇と人食い熊の選択を迫られて、熊ではなく蛇を選んだことを非難する程度の話である。しかしそれをもってロシアは、ウクライナの民族運動にファシズムのレッテルを貼りつける。もちろんその目的は、ロシアにとって不都合なウクライナの民族的自立を貶めることにある。そしてロシア支配層の目論見から言えば、ウクライナの民族的自立は、ロシアに対する民族浄化を伴う侵略的民族主義に等しい。もちろんそのレッテル貼りは、自己都合のファシズム認定に留まる。少なくとも国家としてのウクライナは、民族浄化をしていなかったし、侵略もしていない。しかもそのロシアの不都合は、ロシア民衆にとっての不都合ではなく、ロシア特権階級にとっての不都合でしかない。民族浄化を伴う侵略的民族主義をファシズムに扱うこの一般的定義に、さしあたり問題は無い。注意すべきなのは、このファシズム認定が対象国家について民主主義の有無を問わないことである。また実際にファシズムは、民主主義の単なる対極ではない。過去のファシズムは、民主主義におけるポピュリズムとして登場した。それゆえにむしろファシズムは、言論の自由と人権尊重の対極として限定される必要がある。ファシズムは、国民の支持を得て政権を奪取した後、反対者の暴力的排除に移行する。結局それは、民族浄化を伴う侵略的民族主義が、言論弾圧と人権無視を常に必要とすることに起因する。そしてこの言論弾圧と人権無視は、既存秩序の枠内で体制の物理的事実から抽出可能な事象である。その物理的事実を通じたファシズム認定は、ウクライナに対するファシズム認定を不可能にし、逆にロシアによる自己のファシズム認定を可能にする。その認定基準の確立は、ロシアだけに留まらず、現存する他の独裁体制の評価にも有効であり、さらに今後現れる全てのファシズムにも有効である。当然ながら、表現の適正使用に対する或る程度の良心、および世界的なファシズムの不人気は、このファシズム認定基準の国際的通用により、ファシズムの抑制に作用する。ただしその認定基準の擁立は、物理事実に対する意識の変化に過ぎず、観念的操作を超えない。したがって認定基準の変更は、おそらく意識の一過的な対応に留まる。とは言えそれでも、現在および将来のファシズムの抑制を試みる上で、この認定基準の変更は十分に有意義である。

（５）ロシアン・ファシズム

　プーチン独裁政権の確立には、ナチスドイツにおけるヒットラー独裁政権の確立との類似点が多い。両者とも民主的選挙を通じた民族主義的ポビュリズムで人気を博し、低迷する国内経済の復興時期に政権を担当している。ただしプーチンの場合、ヒットラーほどの天才的な経済施策の実施をしたわけでない。彼の経済施策は、ロシアの潤沢な資源を自由主義経済の供給路線に乗せ、西側の支援においてロシア経済を復興するものである。それは経済の自然回復を早期実現しただけであり、せいぜい鄧小平の中国近代化を模倣した水準に留まる。ただし翻って見るとそれは、回復した国力によってロシアの帝国的復権を目指す北朝鮮式方策だったと見るべきかもしれない。一方でヒットラーとプーチンは、謀略事件による政敵の壊滅、治安組織によるテロと情報統制、他民族に対する武力制圧と対外侵攻などの諸点で共通項を持つ。結果的にいずれの体制も、その戦時体制において国民に支持を強要し、また戦時体制に持ち込むことで国民の支持を受ける。いずれにおいても体制批判者は投獄されるか抹殺されるか、石のように黙るしかなく、そのことが国内世論の発言者を体制賛同者に純化する。そしてその体制賛同者への国内純化を、独裁政権は自らの圧倒的支持と錯覚する。しかし批判の封殺と情報統制で実現した国内世論と政権支持は、民主主義が前提する対立意見の公開と事実検証を踏襲していない。要するにそれは単なる多数者による少数者の圧殺と支配であり、民主主義ではない。そのプーチン・ロシアが昨年２月から本格化したウクライナ侵略で目指したのは、簡単に言えば民主化潰しである。プーチンを筆頭にするロシア支配層が恐れるのは、民主化のロシアへの波及であり、民主化の進展による自分たちの悪事の露呈である。もちろんそのような心配が、そのまま悪事露呈への危機感として表明されることは無い。その口実は、旧ソ連の場合だと共産主義の防衛であり、プーチンロシアの場合では民族的権利の防衛である。この民族的権利の防衛は、もっぱら侵略を正当化する虚言として現れる一般的口実であり、ナチスドイツや帝国日本も使っている。ただプーチンの場合はその民族的権利の防衛について謀略性が高く、しかもその規模が最初から大きい。例えばプーチンは、大統領選を優位に進めるために連邦保安局（ＦＳＢ）と結託して５件の集合住宅爆破事件を起こしたとの疑惑を抱えている。そしてその疑惑の追及に対して、まず亡命した証人を毒殺し、次に真相を追及するジャーナリズムへのテロルとその権力的排除を実施した。もちろんその処刑と権力的排除が表現するのは、自ら犯した謀略の誇示であり、要するに犯行の自白である。同様に昨年２月からのウクライナ侵略でもプーチンは、ウクライナにおいて迫害されるロシア系住民の保護を侵攻の口実にしている。ここでもウクライナにおけるロシア系住民の迫害の事実追及を、ロシアはウクライナ東部の接収を通じて排除している。これらの事実隠蔽に必要なのは、報道と表現に対する権力的抑圧であり、話し合いを基本にした民主主義の否定である。逆に言えば報道と表現に対する権力的抑圧を排除し、話し合いを基本にした民主主義を実現するなら、プーチンロシアの数々の虚偽が暴かれ、現在のウクライナ戦争も終焉する。これに対してプーチンロシアは、報道と表現の自由、および民主主義をアメリカ一極の世界秩序と捉え、民主主義に敵対する独裁国家を仲間に引き入れた世界の多極支配を訴える。もちろんロシアが考えるその多極の一つの極にウクライナ政権は含まれていない。ここにあるプーチンの危機感は、第二次大戦後のハンガリーやポーランド、さらにチェコスロバキアに登場した人間の顔をした社会主義に対し、ソ連が持った危機感と変わらない。もちろんロシアが欧米以上に自由で民主的であったら、ロシアはそのような危機感と無縁だったはずである。その場合だとウクライナは、逆に欧米を離れてロシア寄りになっていたであろう。しかしロシアの民族主義者は、ウクライナにおけるロシア支配の離脱事態をそのように捉えず、むしろロシアを自由と民主主義に対立させる。そして昔も今もロシアの独裁者は、その誤った民族主義を自らの延命に利用する。現在のロシアでは、ロシアの誇りと権威を失墜させる行為が愛国とみなされ、ロシアの誇りと権威を守ろうとする行為が売国と非難される。本来ならその愛国判定を行うのは、物理的事実に基づく話し合いである。すなわち科学と民主主義が、愛国の真を決定する。そして愛国の真は、自由で民主的なロシアを目指し、ウクライナの民主化を支持する。当然ながらそれは、今回のロシア自身によるウクライナ侵略を全面的に拒否する。しかし独裁者は、この決定を許容できない。そこで支配者は、自らの独断により愛国の真を決定する。ここで彼が依拠するのは、ウクライナの民主化に対立する偽りの愛国である。それが目指すのは、自由の対極にある独裁国家である。それゆえにロシアの独裁者は、物理的事実と話し合いを拒否する。結果的に独裁国家における事実報道と民主主義は、権力の統制下で自由を奪われる。それどころか独裁者は、その不自由な報道と制約された民主主義を、さらに事実報道と民主主義の対立物に転化させる。ファシズムは物理的事実と話し合いをそれぞれ虚偽と暴力に代置し、国家を人間に対立する腐臭の漂う化け物に変える。

(2024/01/22)

前の記事⇒ロシアン・ファシズムの現在（２）

英語版(3)⇒The present state of Russian fascism (5)

唯物論者：記事一覧