15. Reformatting of the Russian Empire

The sociobiological description of the reformation of the Russian Empire  requires the introduction of some models.
 
                The evolutionary development of mankind and individual populations leaves traces in the form of a certain cultural rut. The  cultural rut is generated by  population inherent cultural customs and traditions (institutions). The cultural  rut   its not a new concept; it is a geometric interpretation of cultural evolution.
                The mentality of people and the institutions that support it are the reason for the emergence of a social rut.   The presence of a rut   provides the system with inertia, stability, so that small shocks cannot change the course of cultural evolution.
                In cultural evolution, the direction of development is determined, on the one hand, by a set of MEMs in the population, which are created by traditions, customs, that is, institutions, and on the other, by the external environment. And the selection here decides who will live and develop, and who will go to the dustbin of history.
            It is possible to explain the presence of a rut on the basis of biological science research. Individual development (ontogeny) of each animal begins with the formation of a zygote (fertilized egg) and continues until the end of life. It is characterized by quantitative and qualitative changes occurring in the animal's body, conditioned by heredity and conditions of existence.
           It should be understood that although the path of ontogeny is not explicitly spelled out in the genes of the cell, each subsequent stage of ontogenesis is set by the previous and external conditions. There is no plan, drawing or schedule - ontogeny is the process of self-assembly of the body's structures under certain conditions.
           In biology, they distinguish - the individual development of living things (ontogeny), and phylogeny - the historical development of a class, genus, species and other systematic groups. The idea of the significance of changes in ontogenesis for the evolutionary process of animals was developed in the theory of phylembryogenesis by A.N.Severtsov.
           Severtsev A.N. wrote about phylembryogenesis, i.e. about the evolutionary change in the ontogeny of organs, tissues and cells, associated with both progressive development and reduction. But this concept should be expanded, bearing in mind that ontogeny is the development of an organism from a zygote  to death.
           The concept of ontogenesis also includes the stage of human cultural development, at which behavior changes, and the inheritance of cultural components in ontogeny occurs not with the help of genes, but with the help of the brain structures of MEMs.
           Changes at this last stage of ontogeny lead to lengthening of the active period of ontogeny. Changes in the postembryonic period of ontogeny alter ontogeny itself, since ontogeny is inherited. At the same time, not only progressive development is inherited, but also periods of reductionism.
           Considering that each stage of ontogenesis influences the next one, and thus, at the last stage, a cultural rut is formed as the most likely direction of cultural development or regression.
                But do not forget that the development trend of the next stage is influenced by the conditions of the cultural environment prevailing at the moment in question. Considering that in societies there is a manipulative influence on people from both the power elite and other subjects, it becomes clear that manipulations of people's consciousness allow to some extent influence the trend of the cultural rut, correct its direction.
            When such a change in the cultural rut turns out to be insufficient to solve the problems of adaptation, then bifurcation forks, or in other words, revolutionary situations arise.               
            But protecting the mentality from changes with the help of the Iron Curtain or manipulation with the help of the media and other tools, you can most likely get to the point of bifurcation, where a revolutionary situation arises, which the classic described in everyday language as follows: "the upper classes cannot, but the lower classes do not want."
             The elite can be called responsible if it does not bring the situation to extreme values, does not lead society to revolutionary situations. Hence, we conclude that for the successful development of society, its elite must be not only smart, but also, which is no less important, responsible.


                CULTURAL  ALAPTATIONS  AND  INSTITUTIONS.

              Once a population exists, it is faced with new circumstances to which it must adapt. These circumstances can be both internal and external. Some internal circumstances, which were previously considered insignificant, become important or even dominant with development.
               So the struggle for the conditions of a person's material condition in the early epochs of development played a decisive role in the choice of his behavior. But with the development of the economy, the very existence of man becomes self-explanatory. At the same time, selection moves to other sectors, which become essential for the direction of cultural evolution.
              American psychologist Maslow (1943) wrote: "I am completely convinced that a person lives by bread alone only in conditions when there is no bread. But what happens to human aspirations when there is plenty of bread and the stomach is always full? Higher needs appear, and it is they, and not physiological hunger, that control our body As some needs are satisfied, others appear, more and more higher. So gradually, step by step, a person comes to the need for self-development - the highest of them. "
              External circumstances for humanity consist in a global change in ecology as a result of the development of civilization, which must be responded to. An increased population density can also be attributed to external circumstances, so that individual populations are no longer sovereign in the full sense. A global civilization is being built in a limited area of the Earth.
             The interaction of the surrounding circumstances (environment) with the mentality of people created by existing institutions, changes the direction of development of societies, on the one hand, and on the other, changes the institutions themselves. But cultural institutions have their own professional ministers. They try with all their might to keep the traditions, hinder the adaptation of society to the newly discovered circumstances. They appeal to fellow citizens with concepts of the holy traditions of the fathers, or concepts of the Motherland - mother.
           What drives the behavior of the servants of these institutions themselves? 
            There are several motives for their behavior:
1. The belief that maintaining the old ideology is a positive factor for the entire population.
2. The work of maintaining tradition makes a person the leader of a special group of people, which is attractive.
3. Being in the place of the servants of traditions, specific people are in conditions that provide them with a comfortable existence.
           The maintenance of institutions that ensure the preservation of archaic traditions is quite expensive for the state, but the power elites are ready to bear these costs.
          Whether the human population is able to adapt to new challenges depends on the rootedness in the mentality of traditions and customs (on the strength of institutions) and on the strength of groups that are aware of the need for changes in society in order not to fall into a dead end, from which it will be impossible to get out when reformatting the structure of the population in unfavorable conditions.


               THE  OCTOBER  COUP  THAT  CHANGED  THE  CHANNEL  OF  EVOLUTION.

               The rapid development of civilization in the last two hundred years has been taking place in populations of the first type, where market relations are rooted. Market relations in society give an individual maximum freedom to implement his own life strategies, which stimulates human activity.
              Where economic relations of a different type dominate, the development of the economy lags far behind, a person there is more subject to imposed rules, there is less freedom, there is less human activity, which means that the economy there grows more slowly. It develops mainly, receiving the results of scientific and technological progress from the countries of the first world, but with a time lag. Such development cannot be called catching-up; it is development with an increasing lag.
               The speed of economic development in the countries of the first world is due to the integration of people's efforts within the framework of a social rut based on market relations, generated by competition markets and the selection of the most efficient producers.
            What makes countries with ineffective economies continue to move their own way, and not move to normal market relations in order to ensure a decent existence.
            Market relations for their effectiveness require citizens to have a certain type of mentality. Mentality determines behavior and development trajectory to achieve the desired result. On the other hand, going in the chosen direction, society creates a track of social development. The presence of a cultural rut, supported by the established institutions, prevents an inefficient society from switching to another trajectory in order to develop faster. The cultural rut ensures the stability of development, on the other hand, it makes it difficult to change cultural development in situations where it is necessary.
             Revolutions and coups (coercion) can change the trajectory of development, and after that, for some time, society has to walk on virgin soil, and not along a rut, developing new traditions (institutions). At the same time, mentality begins to change. If these changes are supported by a significant part of society, then it gradually begins to develop on a new trajectory, laying a new track. This process will be successful if people feel an improvement from the track change after a while.   
            Transition to a new rut requires not a total change of the entire mentality, but only a part of the mental complex, which allows all participants to treat the basic concepts of the new trend equally.
            An Armenian can remain an Armenian with his own preferences, but in relation to economic categories, he must change his mentality in order to be compatible in terms of doing business with a Georgian or American with whom he does business.
            Other parts of the mental complex not directly related to business may still differ from each other. The mentality of the Japanese differs from the mentality of the Europeans in many aspects, but as for the behavior in business processes, conditioned by a specific part of the mentality, if not identical, then close to that. Otherwise, business between these entities will be impossible or very difficult.
             The archaic mentality of a traditional backward society maintains its own track, and the track, creating traditions, maintains the mentality.
              For many years, the creators of steam locomotives have been improving them, trying to achieve efficiency, economy, and ease of maintenance. These experienced mechanical engineers would never have been able to abandon the results of their work to convert rail transport to electric traction. This requires not mechanics, but electricians. What is needed is not evolution, but a revolution in the railway business, for other specialists to come.
               How is the curse of the vicious circle in living nature overcome? When changing external conditions bring the population beyond the limits of its plasticity, some causal relationships are lost, the population falls into the bifurcation point. From this point, under the action of small perturbations (in fact, by chance), it quickly passes into a new evolutionary channel. Numerous branches (divergence) are observed on the evolution tree. In them, the populations are divided and then follow different paths of adaptation. But there are several such paths (channels) at each bifurcation point.
            Therefore, the post-bifurcation state of the system is practically unpredictable. The new channel of evolution, into which it fell from the point of bifurcation, may turn out to be unsuitable for the population, and natural selection “mows down” those who have gone this way. Nature is ruthless and has unlimited time to try other ways.
            Academician N.N. Moiseev viewed the history of mankind as the evolution of a complex dynamic system, interspersed with a series of catastrophes (bifurcations), overcoming which led to a change in the very nature of the evolutionary process. But he, unfortunately, did not have the conceptual apparatus of cultural evolution, did not take into account that the elements of a complex system are biological objects that, changing under the influence of circumstances, must remain alive all the time, maintaining homeostasis.


                TRANSFORMATION  (REFORMATTING)  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  EMPIRE.

                After a short theoretical introduction, you can proceed to the description the process of reformatting the structure of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century. When Nicholas II in 1917 realized that he was unable to continue to rule the Empire in a war and resigned, power passed in accordance with the existing laws to the Provisional Government formed by the Duma. It called itself so, because its powers were considered legitimate only before the Constituent Assembly. But the Provisional Government was unable to retain power before it began.
               In St. Petersburg at that time (1917), a dual power was established. On the one hand, the Petrograd Soviet is the people's governing body, and the Provisional Government on the other. There was no clear division of powers between them.
               In conditions of war, devastation, hunger, dual power and disease (Spanish flu), the creation of parliamentary democracy was impossible. The white movement wanted the restoration of the monarchy, which lasted for 450 years, and peasant Russia, feeling itself drawn into a bloody meat grinder by the autocracy, wanted peace and land, and did not want the power that dragged it into the war and at the same time did not consider the soldiers (from the peasants) to be people.
               Therefore, dictatorship was the most likely outcome in that situation. But the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks, with their chimeras in their heads, was perhaps the worst way out of the situation.

             The dictatorship became possible because the evolution of social relations in a state that found itself at a point of bifurcation, thanks to a multitude of unresolved contradictions aggravated by the war, opened new channels of development due to random processes, essentially fluctuations.
              Small forces at such moments are able to direct the evolution of the state into one or another channel of development. The Bolsheviks did not have significant forces. They were enough to arrest the interim government and seize some institutions. But even the provisional government did not have the strength to stop the Bolsheviks.
              Further, the Bolsheviks behaved quite cunningly, not usurping power immediately. Having arrested the provisional government, the Bolsheviks, as it were, became the owner of its power. They acted like an experienced chess player, handing it over to the Petrograd Soviet. With the help of the donated power, they won the majority in the Council, and thereby through it secured themselves power in the country. Power through the Soviets was not very suitable for the Bolsheviks, since the council is a democratic organization, and the Bolsheviks dreamed of a dictatorship. Then the next step was taken. In order to concentrate power in the hands of a small group of the party elite, all the Bolsheviks, who by that time had a majority in the council, had to comply with the decisions of the Politburo within the framework of observing party discipline and, thus, implement the dictatorship through the councils.
              In the course of further development, the third step was taken. Gradually, the Bolsheviks reduced the role of the Soviets to zero, made them a decorative organ. The Bolsheviks formed their government, calling it the Council of People's Commissars, which wielded real power. So the executive branch ended up at the top of the party. The communists did not need any other power - legislative and judicial. Previous laws were abolished, and management was carried out on the basis of revolutionary expediency. She also replaced morality. So the Soviet power turned into a dictatorship.
             Apparatus of coercion were created - the Cheka and the Red Army. They dealt with not only the enemies, but also with the old communists, who for some reason, and sometimes even without them, fell into a bloody meat grinder arranged by them. At the same time, proof of guilt was not required, there was enough revolutionary expediency.
              Institutions were created quickly enough to consolidate this order, a track of possible development arose for party functionaries, and no one was allowed to get out of it. Party discussions within the party itself were gradually curtailed.
              The track for other people was a derivative of the indicated track. Red flags were hung for the people. Approaching them or jumping on the spot was considered a violation of the established order and therefore punished.
              Later, when the communist leaders realized the need for legislative power, a meaningful, political article was introduced into the criminal code with many clauses that could be widely interpreted. She then supported the people in a rut, formed the GULAG contingent.
              And there could be no mistake, for the state of the dictatorship needed free labor on the construction sites of communism. The process of building a strict vertical of power took 10-12 years. After the destruction of possible competitors, Stalin's dictatorship became all-encompassing and unconditional.
              Usually a new channel of evolution creates a new track of development. The new track will be successful if there are no defects in the old way of development.
              But in this case, the communist authorities considered the people as a consumable material, like the previous government, freedom for individual development and activity became much less, the party leaders behaved like the landowners and capitalists who had gone into oblivion earlier.
            The October coup and subsequent development in this direction could not do what Marx promised - did not make production efficient and advanced, and people happy and free. The country has fallen into the wrong channel of evolution, where efficiency is achieved through market relations, and democratic institutions force businesses to realize their social responsibility, which brings prosperity to workers.
             Free development allows all people to vote with their feet when making choices. This is the lowest level of the democratic order. The socialist economy did not have this lowest level of democracy. But there was compulsion, labor armies, collective farms and poverty.
              But some categories of citizens actively cooperating with the regime were freed from everyday inconveniences, but at the same time were obliged to support the regime. This included art workers, party nomenklatura, representatives of law enforcement agencies. But none of them was immune from reprisals.
Once established by the communists, the dictatorship was maintained throughout the entire existence of the USSR, hence the permanent violence as a method of government. Stalin appropriated to himself the status of a gardener with the function of weeding society in order to preserve himself as the only father - teacher of all the peoples of the USSR.

Was a democratic path of development possible after the abdication of the tsar?


For the transfer of power from autocracy to a democratic form of government, certain conditions must be met.

1.Institute for Independent Elections.
2. Separation and independence of the three branches of government.
3. Feedback from the bottom to the top, which could not be ignored by the top.
4. An appropriate mentality of the active part of society is required, which would make it possible to realize these conditions.
              The necessity of these conditions should be realized by sufficiently wide layers of the population to go exactly this way. In 1917, this was not the case in Russia. The broad peasant masses understood democracy as direct control over everything, by various committees, councils and other organizations created by the popular masses. This understanding of democracy came from the peasant community, where societies are small and all people are in full view of each other. This is a given that influenced all subsequent events.
               Real democracy for a large society (state) can be built only in 2 stages - first, the 3 specified conditions are provided, which are the mechanisms for building democracy, and then with the help of these mechanisms, over time, a genuine democratic system of government is built, taking into account the mentality of the population. Democracy in management is necessary for an industrial state for its further effective economic development.
                If the laws of another democratic country already tested in practice are mechanically transferred to the country, they will not correspond to the mentality of the population, and they will need to be supported with the help of sufficiently significant violence. But violence is dangerous, for it is quite capable of generating a self-sustaining dictatorship. If we act in two stages - step by step, then democracy will not be introduced, but grown, i.e. and will naturally be perceived by the population. It's like in the body, where the immune system instantly recognizes elements foreign to the body and takes action, up to apoptosis (cell suicide) to eliminate the danger.
               In conditions of war, hunger, chaos and the primitive understanding of democracy by the masses, any way out of this state is associated with the use of violence. At this time, human societies lose their immunity and are susceptible to various social infections. It happened in Russia, later it happened in Germany.
               The most complex events of the reformation of the Empire in the framework of the sociobiological description turned out to be very compact. This model approach allows some alternatives to be considered. The historical description does not allow for the subjunctive mood. This is just a description that is often distorted by historians.


                WAR  COMMUNISM.

                In March 1919, at the VIII Congress of the RCP (b), the second program of the Bolshevik Party was adopted, which consolidated the "military-communist" principles as the basis for building socialism in Russia. She set the tasks: to complete the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, to move from monetary trade to natural exchange of goods, from equalizing to collective land use, from a market economy to a planned economy. Note - the laws were canceled, and instead they began to use the principles of the party, adopted in a narrow circle. This is dictatorship.
                Trade was banned. They introduced surplus appropriation - the compulsory withdrawal of "surplus" from the peasants. Thus, the food received in the village began to be distributed in the cities in rations. Is free. We made free housing, utilities, medical care, nurseries and kindergartens, secondary and higher education, travel by all types of transport. This policy is called "War Communism".
                Such a great nonsense as "war communism" could only be thought of by a sick person, devoid of common sense, who does not understand how biological systems and societies live and develop. It is foolish to abandon market relations in a country destroyed by wars, because all market relations have been developing for centuries and they work. Lenin had the audacity to introduce all his philosophical nonsense (Marxism-Leninism) with the help of terror in his own country.
                In the head of the party leader, the "teacher of humanity" V. Ulyanov (Lenin), the prospects for the future, for the real future, were seen only one step forward. Lenin turned out to be a brilliant sergeant who had to lead all the armed forces. He was a tactician, as befits a sergeant. The same perspectives (strategy), which he had in mind, were the fruit of his sick imagination, a man who had never worked, who had been engaged in the development of methods of revolutionary seizure of power with the help of philosophical "science". The sergeant at the head of state sees it as one big army.
          The military experience of 1918 forced Lenin to abandon the pre-October program position on replacing the standing army with the general arming of the people (the militia army). He became convinced of the need to have a regular, cadre, well-trained, strictly disciplined army with centralized control and party leadership, which could defend the results of the October 1917 coup.
           Created in January 1918 on the basis of voluntariness, the Red Army in May was transferred to the mobilization principle of manning. This made it possible to increase the size of the army from 1.5 million in the fall of 1918 to 5 million at the end of 1920. The Red Army, despite the massive desertion, became the largest army in the world.
            As a result of the pursued policy of war communism, famine, epidemics, civil war caused by the actions of the Bolsheviks, the country by 1921 was on the verge of complete collapse. And then, at the suggestion of Lenin, they switched to NEP, i.e. to the new economic policy, in fact to the old proven economic relations. This retreat, according to the leader's thought, was just a temporary respite.
              Trade was restored. For peasants, canceling the surplus appropriation system replaced by regular taxes. For the townspeople, those who saved their funds were allowed to open shops, cafes and restaurants. The previous payment in kind was replaced by cash. They began to restore light industry, and they decided to transfer heavy and extractive industries to foreign firms in concessions, relying on investments.
              But having refused to service the debts of tsarist Russia, what kind of foreign investment can we expect?


                GOVERNMENT.

                In the first years after the coup, the power of the Bolsheviks existed in the form of Soviets. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies was the supreme legislative, administrative and controlling body of the republic - the RSFSR, which operated in the period between the All-Russian Congresses of Soviets. This provision was enshrined in the first Soviet Constitution, approved on July 10, 1918 by the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
                It is significant that Lenin himself, as chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (SNK), was the first person in the system of Soviet power. The Council of People's Commissars (SNK) (government) was supposed to carry out the decisions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The Constitution emphasized that the All-Russian Central Executive Committee “provides a general direction for the activities of the Workers 'and Peasants' Government and all bodies of Soviet power in the country, unites and coordinates work on legislation and administration.
                The first Soviet Constitution did not recognize the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. Power was viewed as something whole and indivisible, and when making decisions proceeded from the principle of revolutionary expediency. But even 2000 years ago in Rome, laws existed, and when, after deep thought, J. Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he thereby violated the laws of Rome.

                The Bolsheviks occupied the majority of seats in all Soviets. They gradually turned the Soviets, created by the popular masses into a decorative organ for the approval of decisions worked out by the party elite. Resolutions and decisions of party bodies must be binding on everyone, and must be unswervingly implemented by all party members.
               The centralized system of building party organizations with party committees at the head inevitably led to the concentration of power in the most important party committee, which under Lenin was the Politburo. All the main questions were actually predetermined at the very top, however, they were still approved by the congresses.
                Stalin (Dzhugashvili), who under Lenin and then until 1928 was only the general secretary of the party, equal among equals of the old Bolsheviks, gradually, with the establishment of the vertical of power, became the first person in the state of the party dictatorship, carried out with the help of the Cheka-OGPU.
                Not the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars, which were officially considered sources of power, were in fact. Under the one-party system, the party became the driving belt of the entire mechanism, and Stalin was in charge of the party's cadres. He managed to take advantage of his position, creating a vertical power structure, gradually getting rid of his former associates, old party members, replacing them with new obedient and loyal ones. This was the main task for him. At first, with the help of Zinoviev and Kamenev, he fought against Trotsky, who had great authority as the creator and leader of the Red Army that had won the civil war. Then, having achieved the expulsion of Trotsky, he dealt with his former allies.
                In the 1920s. party leaders, including future opposition members, enjoyed their undivided power. There was a massive renaming of cities. On the Soviet map there were already the cities of Trotsk, Zinovievgrad, Stalin, Stalingrad, etc. In Leningrad, a real cult of Zinoviev was formed.
                Once "In the Palace of Labor" there was a "bond" between workers and academicians. Before the end of Academician S.F. Oldenburg, the door at the stage swings open, two maidens in golden dresses, with golden hair fly out. A few minutes later, Zinoviev "himself" in a scarf enters, sits down in a prepared chair, delivers a long speech, which is written down by the "golden" maidens who turned out to be stenographers (this is how Zinoviev's multivolume collected works are born). He comes out after a standing ovation first alone, a minute later by the stenographers. Downstairs, he gets into Nicholas II's former personal car.

             Such characters still imagined that they could participate in a collective dictatorship as equal partners. But this is a misconception. There was no democracy among the old Bolsheviks, in the party leadership. The selection of delegates to party congresses and conferences became the rule. It is known that the election of delegates to the 12th Congress was declared invalid. New elections were held at party conferences with the participation of representatives of the Central Committee. Zinoviev blurted out about the selection of delegates for the 12th Congress of the RCP (b) in the midst of an internal party discussion in the fall of 1923. Zinoviev: "The party is engaged not only in agitation and propaganda, as they wanted to tell us, but the party organizes, the party directs, the party leads the Soviet government, the party is its head."   
                Moreover, the delegates to the party congresses, starting in 1923, were apparatuses. For them, gifts were also provided during the congress for the "correct" behavior. For example: a cut for a suit is a good Boston, 3 m for 18 rubles. - 54 rubles, 10 m of paper, a rubber coat, 2 pairs of underwear, 1 top shirt, 2 spools of thread, 2 pieces of plain soap, 1 piece of toilette, 1 jacket of woolen knitwear, 1 pair of shoes. In addition, at the congress it was given: 800 g of butter, 800 g of cheese, 1 kg of smoked sausage, 10 boxes of canned food, 80 g of sugar, 100 g of tea, 125 cigarettes.
                Not a single state department was now independent in the conduct of personnel policy from the party bodies and the Cheka-OGPU. By the end of 1923, state bodies in the center and at the local level had largely lost their independence and now completely depended on the respective party committees.
                But one after another, or in groups, the old party members, through the efforts of Stalin and his assistants, fled into oblivion. Those who helped Stalin in organizing the processes were also doomed to leave, but a little later. "Cadres decide everything" while shuffling the deck, Stalin noted philosophically.
                These cadres, participating in the repressive policy pursued by the party, in fact, were criminals, if we consider their activities from a humanistic position. While helping to disperse the flywheel of repression, they themselves often pleased the regime they had built into a meat grinder. This is a common result in such processes, when a dictatorship eats up its founders. The history of the French Revolution serves as confirmation.
                Gradually, Stalin became the only breeder, gardener, directing the evolutionary development of the state along the path that seemed to him to be correct. The dictator ruled with the proven means of the carrot and stick. Knut is the GULAG, the Cheka (OGPU), and the fear of them. Gingerbread is the creation for the nomenclature of rights to different privileges depending on the rank. The working masses had no privileges. Some were organized into labor armies, not having the right to leave state enterprises, others were forced to join collective farms, and still others joined the ranks of the GULAG prisoners.



                TWO  POINTS  OF  VIEW  ON  THE  OCTOBER  COUP.

              The October 1917 coup led, in essence, to the fact that one group usurping power (representatives of the autocracy), which had already begun to transform through democratic procedures into a constitutional monarchy, was replaced by another, which arose from the very idea of dictatorship. There was no evolutionary transition of power, there was a return to the dictatorship of Ivan the Terrible on a new basis. The guardsmen were replaced by the Chekists, the terror against the dissenters was intensified many times, the Red Army was created to retain power within the framework of the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
              Effective market mechanisms have been replaced by card accounting and distribution mechanisms. The choice of a place of work was replaced by work in labor armies, where no one had the right to leave state enterprises. This order was supported by violence, and the violence sparked numerous armed protests.
              Man is a representative of the order of primates, i.e. monkey, but advanced. Genetics gives rise to instincts that govern the behavior of primates. But a person has one more superimposed on the genetic control system from above. It is formed by a system of MEMs, functional brain regulators. I wrote about this in the previous chapters.
               MEMS shape the mentality of a person and are often factors that restrain instinctive (genetic) behavior. But this inhibition is not observed in all cases, not in all individuals, and not always. Therefore, you have to look at a person from two points of view in order to better understand him. From a sociocultural and biological point of view.
               Just like we look at a photon sometimes as a particle (when observing diffraction phenomena), and sometimes as a wave (observing or using interference phenomena). Dualism is not a problem of a photon, but a problem of our brain, which has only models in its arsenal that cannot describe the behavior of a photon in different situations using everyday ideas.
                In physics, dualism was introduced into everyday life, and a similar approach should be taken when considering human behavior in society. Society is an important factor here, because human behavior on a desert island does not require the mind to overcome its own instincts.
                If you look from the sociocultural perspective, where there are such concepts as evil, justice and guilt, then it is not difficult to find the guilty ones. But when punishing the guilty, we usually limit ourselves to this, and if there are no more guilty ones, then we limit ourselves to swearing at them, considering our mission completed.
                And if we take a sociobiological point of view, then in principle there are no guilty ones, there are circumstances that led to one or another outcome. With such consideration, the question arises of what can be done, how to influence the circumstances in such cases in order to prevent certain consequences.
               All living organisms exist at the expense of their own information, and not external control. External control is used by humans to develop new breeds and varieties.
              The breeder experiments on the basis of his experience and knowledge, but not philosophical principles. The Marxist breeder would be driven out of the greenhouse or garden, since he cannot bring any benefit there. And the Marxists infiltrated human society and began crazy experiments there.
              All specimens that deviate from the state desired by the breeder in one direction or another are ruthlessly destroyed by him. The result obtained is considered positive if it meets the requirements of the breeder. But during selection, a cultivated cultivated plant always differs in reduced vitality from its wild ancestor, because natural selection acts to benefit the wildest plant or animal population, and the breeder selects specimens for further existence in his own interests.      
           It is known that weeds always clog cultivated plants if a person stops taking measures that support cultivated plants. Human societies are living systems. For them, all the facts described also take place. Therefore, questions arise.

1. Is it permissible to conduct cruel bloody experiments on human societies?
2. How can you choose the property of society to strive for with the help of objective rather than taste criteria?
3. As a result of selection, a species appears less viable than its ancestor. This is also a problem. After the cessation of selection and care, the cultured species of animals quickly returns to its original state, which was noted by Charles Darwin.

 There is no positive answer to any of the questions.

                In 1920, N. Bukharin (member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (1924-1929), academician) wrote, justifying terror and violence: “Proletarian coercion in all its forms, from executions to labor service, is a method of developing communist humanity from the human material of the capitalist era ”. And after 18 years, he himself, the academician, was re-educated by the organs of the OGPU, having prescribed 9 grams of lead in the head. Deserved.
                It is impossible to find the culprit for the fact that everything turned out that way, that the country took the most unfortunate path of development, if we consider the entire cascade of successive events from the point of view of sociobiology. The wolf is not to blame for eating a hare in the forest. He cannot eat grass. If there is a wolf, then there must be victims. That is life.

              But sociobiology can help to understand why this sequential series of events became possible that brought the country into this state.
If your investigation ends with the fact that the communists were to blame for everything, and this allows us to consider the issue resolved, gives satisfaction to the research work, then something is wrong. I scolded and forgot, at a time when something like this could happen again today. Sociobiological analysis of historical facts indicates that in some cases it is necessary to take preventive measures to prevent this from happening.


                THE  GUESTION  OF  GUILT  FOR  THE  OCTOBER  COUP.

             The Bolsheviks established the dictatorship they dreamed of and began to act in accordance with their ideas. To obtain food from the peasants for the army and cities, they sent food detachments to the villages in order to exchange the food for receipts that they prepared for the peasants. V. Lenin from the center sent directives ordering to shoot and hang those who resist grain procurements, any decisions of the Soviet government, but in fact the power of the Bolsheviks. Lenin was an outstanding tactician in the revolutionary struggle, an outstanding manipulator, but he was not a strategist. His reflections on the future were of a fabulous, utopian nature, intended rather to justify his actions, the slaughtering policy of war communism.
               Can Lenin be considered the culprit of the coup and subsequent events on this basis? From the sociocultural perspective. YES, and T.Z. sociobiological NO, because the existing circumstances allowed him to do what he did. No alien intelligence introduced Lenin into Russia.
              This person is an existing objective reality. And this must be taken into account. A person may be smart enough, but not cope with the suppression of some of their genetic instincts. Lenin thought 24 hours a day about a revolution, a world revolution at that. L. Gumilev called such people passionary. But in many cases they are isolated in psychiatric hospitals or prisons, because these people are not civilized in their characteristics. This category includes the leaders of terrorists and bandits of various kinds.
               In a sealed carriage, Germany passed the Bolsheviks' company across the front line. But she pursued her own interests - to undermine the forces of her military adversary Russia. And the authorities of Petrograd, for some reason, did not arrest everyone who so happily arrived in the city across the German border. According to martial law, this must be done. There are many such circumstances. Therefore, we can say that the circumstances were favorable for Lenin and unfavorable for Russia.
               If the mentality of the people in Petrograd were somewhat different, then somewhere the chain of luck for Lenin would have been broken, he himself would have ended up in the Peter and Paul Fortress and the October coup would not have happened. Most likely, something else would have happened, less painful for Russia. After all, it is difficult to find another group or party that would deny market relations.

               So what happens? From the sociocultural point of view, the leaders of Bolshevism are criminals, they can be judged, they are to blame for the long bloody path of Russia. And from the point of view of sociobiology, there are no guilty ones, but on the other hand, the reasons are clear that there was no power in St. Petersburg and even in Russia to punish the Bolsheviks, to move Lenin Hut in Spill to the prison.
           To understand the regularity of the emerging dualism, let us turn to another example. A situation has arisen in the atmosphere that precipitation (rain) is inevitable. And from the point of view of people living in the territory, it is harmful to the crop, it can cause a flood for other reasons. Who is right here and what to do? The only thing that comes to mind is to make a good drainage system, a good drainage system, choose a construction site so as not to suffer from flooding. And cursing the weather is a useless exercise, since it is a given. All living things adapt to external conditions, and not vice versa.
             After Lenin, Stalin received a well-oiled machine of terror in control, he was ready to manage it in his mentality. He could not redirect it in principle. A track has already been laid. At any attempt to get out of it, he would also undergo a "re-education" like other old Bolsheviks who "deviated" from the party line.
               Stalin acted as he considered it necessary to preserve the communist legacy he received, as necessary for the victory of communism throughout the world, as necessary to preserve himself as the only gardener, perceiving the country as his own fiefdom, as the autocrats perceived it. But the last autocrats received a good education, and he was the son of a shoemaker and expropriator (bandit) in his youth. However, origin cannot serve as an excuse for behavior in a civilized society.