Pioneer deformation: how Soviet ideals were perverted

In general, the pioneers appeared in the Soviet Union in 1922. Last year, as we remember, we celebrated exactly the centenary of this date. Then the II All-Russian Conference of the Komsomol decided to create pioneer detachments. And away we go. Being a pioneer was considered important, honorable and, in fact, obligatory. But not everyone was able to become them. But very, very many dreamed about it – they dreamed sincerely, for real. Pioneer is the first step in joining Soviet society, the first floor of the social elevator, which in the Union, albeit with reservations, worked in its own way.

And then the USSR ended – and the pioneers remained in the past, turned into an element of retro decor and a fetish of some politicians. Walking in formation has become completely out of fashion. Instead of red ties, crimson jackets appeared. And the state has abandoned any ideology. A hole was formed into which, like a pit, the punks that wanted to wipe the old people off the face of the earth fell.

But nature, as you know, does not tolerate emptiness. Banality, yes, but very accurate. And over time, it became obvious to those in power that children need to be occupied with something, to captivate, in the end, they need to be brought up. Previously, this was done by the pioneers, but with her disappearance, a vacuum has formed. It very quickly filled up with television, and after that with the Internet. Now, instead of the state of children, as in an incubator, the matrix grew. Not that the state was much worried about this, there was no particular moral torment on its part, but it, like any other, was obliged to protect itself from the influences and claims of other leviathans. After all, the young are the building blocks. Where without him?

Once upon a time, the British The Who sang that the kids are all right (the kids are all right). A couple of decades later, the Americans of Offspring objected to them: the kids aren’t all right – that is, the children are still not in order. The latter, unfortunately, was more like the truth. Obviously, often teenagers and children grew up and grow up on their own – apart from the country and adults. And this gives rise, first of all, to a deep value conflict – both points of contact and reference points are lost. Is it any wonder, looking at these children over time, why is it so difficult to find a common language with them? And are they to blame?

Then, in the 80s of the last century, destroying the USSR, many believed that a free world of equal opportunities awaited them. There, in this brave new world, individuality will certainly be respected and, most importantly, various freedoms will be given: freedom of self-expression, creativity, freedom of speech, and so on. However, in reality, nothing like this happened. And the basic freedom that most people got in the 90s was the freedom to die.

And individuality – the request for it – was not supported by any of the various authorities. And when, exactly, was it different? The new world began to format people in its own way. Instead of the Soviet pioneers, the pioneers of the brave new world appeared. And there was a significant difference between them. Those that were before swore allegiance to communist ideals. Those that emerged after 1991 succumbed to globalist ideas that raised a slave who should be content with his slavery.

The year 1991 is named by me approximately. Of course, the processes of mass averaging and suppression started earlier and consisted of many completed stages. It’s just that the collapse of the USSR became a clear marker that the unipolar world (even if I don’t like this term too much) won. Moreover, we were given to understand that this victory was not an accident, a quirk, was not achieved by superhuman efforts, but flowed purely from the logic of history. Francis Fukuyama, reinforcing this triumph of the bourgeois liberal-democratic society, formulated this first in an article and then in the book The Last Man, or The End of History.

At the same time, in 1991, in fact, such a concept as “soft power” was staked out. It was she who subjugated (and ultimately subdued), crushed this or that society, and then the country in which this society existed. The United States has used soft power best of all. To simplify as much as possible, they equated the “cool life” (cool life) and a happy life. At the same time, they managed to convince almost the whole world that a cool, cool life is possible only in the USA with their understandable and convincing American dream. The one that you can touch. However, not everyone will get there, in the New World – therefore, it is necessary to create something like an American environment in their own state. And welcome to paradise!

As a result, by the end of the 20th century, such a concept and phenomenon as neo-colonialism took shape completely. It turned out that it is not necessary to conquer a country – to exploit and subjugate it, it is enough to capture the consciousness of citizens, instilling in them the myth of the great American dream and a trembling desire for freedom. The mechanism of such a suppression system was as simple as it was effective.

If very briefly, without going into details, then elites were brought up, recruited, who, through various structures, were given the opportunity to expand their circle of acquaintances and spheres of influence (contemporary art was often used for this). Then future leaders were brought up, who underwent appropriate education and training in American centers. At the same time, through mass culture, through pop culture, millions of young and not very young people were inspired by the image of a happy future – bright, accessible and understandable. If you want it, then rise up against the old world! And then prepared leaders loomed and led the crowd pumped up with dreams of paradise. This, as we can see, has worked in almost all countries of the world. Soon there, however, it turned out that the poor were getting even poorer, and the country was shamelessly exploited, milked like a cow before slaughter, but a widespread parody of Hollywood reigned.

I said that communist ideals were brought up in the Soviet pioneers. Then the call was sounded: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” But, having perished, the communist ideal paradoxically embodied in the post-capitalist world, the globalist world. The unification really took place, but not under the red banner and not to the sounds of the “International”, but in a single corporate matrix, introducing plus or minus the same “values” to billions of people around the world.

The digital economy, virtual dictate, the cult of conceptualism in art are all elements of this matrix. The moral aspect, without which no person and no society can exist, is represented in the new wonderful world by concern for the humiliated and offended. In reality, this means supporting LGBT propaganda and radical eco-activism. Globalism never remembers other minorities – on the contrary, it carefully and silently crushes some of them.

In fact, this is what the pioneers of the brave new world look like – those who are always ready. First of all, I am ready to sacrifice the individuality of the individual, the identity of culture and the independence of the state in order, relatively speaking, to live like everyone else. Russia at a certain stage was no exception here. And when we once again say that we have challenged the unipolar world, we must clarify: how exactly and in what area did we challenge it? Has the right address been chosen in this context? And, perhaps, the current problems are connected precisely with the fact that those very pioneers of the brave new world, who do not consider independence as an end in itself, have been brought up and come into their own?

The conclusion, in fact, here will be one: the struggle outside is meaningless without a struggle from within – without a struggle for their own identity and education of the masses in freedom from the dictates of a new wonderful world. This is the problem that we must solve first. To the averaging of the masses we must oppose the consonance of diversity. This has already happened in our history – and, in fact, the only way we won. They defeated both the external enemy and the internal enemy. Now we have yet to do it. If we want to survive, of course.