On the establishment of fairness as opposed to the

Now you can order a paperback collection of my sneers "Into one line. Mocking passages. Favorites," on Amazon (Nizovtsev Yury), as well as the two collections of my most significant and popular articles - "Word and Deed" and "New Approach to the Basic Concepts and Laws of Social Development," in in the paper format.



On the establishment of fairness as opposed to the harsh reality


It is unlikely that anyone will object to the formation of the kingdom of justice. But the problem is not only whether it is possible, but also whether it is necessary, since in a developing society such a kingdom, even if it is allowed to exist, it inevitably stagnates. Nevertheless, the humanity from the initial period of the existence of civilization if we turn to his great thinkers, and still passionately wants the arrival of this kingdom, apparently in order to escape from the permanent horrors of beingness, in which all living things only do what they devour or trample each other.

Key words: alive, person, Creation, information, consciousness, time, beingness, freedom, fairness.

Fairness is still too often bound with freedom, failing to understand that freedom always opposes equality and fairness, destroying any stability, and in its extreme form, it is a direct path to chaos.
But and fairness, as a striving for an order that will equalize everyone, at a minimum, in access to basic material goods, in its extreme form is nothing more than a descent into the stagnation.
Moreover, as has been discovered relatively recently, the human brain can vary in abilities, processing speed, memory, and other properties by a factor of more than 40 between seemingly similar individuals, not to mention differences in education, upbringing, the team surrounding the person, etc.
Therefore, even relatives can differ as much as night and day in their attitudes toward a particular deed, their ability to think, feel, act, and adequately assess a situation, which often leads to complete incomprehension of each other.
In this case, talking about fairness and establishing a harmonious society with universal equality is completely meaningless.
Nevertheless, almost all famous thinkers—from Plato to Karl Marx—were primarily concerned not with freedom, but with fairness, which they saw as clearly lacking in society. Even today, with rare exceptions, the masses prioritize justice and are willing to sacrifice freedom for stability and satiety.
One can understand the working people. The majority of them still live in appalling living conditions, and the intelligentsia is mostly just vegetating. Naturally, they all want to live better and believe in any fairy tales about the possibilities of so-called technological progress, even though it has already begun to replace these masses with an artificial intelligence.
But why did great thinkers, who clearly understood that the uniformity and monotony of a society without competition would turn it at any order into a rotting swamp, nevertheless envision the final of this society as the establishment of precisely that order and prosperity, where everyone would know their place and respect society above all else, not themselves?
Confirmation of this desire for similar harmony, apparently to avoid the oppression and suffering characteristic of an antagonistic society, are the main theories of establishing a social order close, as they believed, to the ideal, in which everyone would feel at home in decent surrounding.
These include the most famous examples: Plato's ideal state, Campanella's "City of the Sun," and Karl Marx's communist society. According to these thinkers, all states will sooner or later achieve this ideal, merging into a single, happy kingdom of fairness.
Moreover, the adherents of these benevolent theories twice in history attempted to realize a just society for all, without exception, on a scientific basis: ("The City of the Sun", in what is now Paraguay, and in Russia and its socialist satellites).
It is also interesting that even today, the somewhat debased minds of similar "altruists" also express a desire to establish a just society, but with one caveat.
According to their plans, fairness, due to the planet's small size and the limited resources it offers compared to its current population, should be established only for a few, and then their lives will be pleasant and relatively carefree. True, this would require the reduction of the remaining multi-billion population to zero, which is naturally unfair for this population.
This alone points to the perversity of such an "altruistic" approach in this pursuit of goodness of one kind or another.
These thinkers apparently justify their desire to establish a fair state or society by the idea that a developing society, becoming more complex, must arrive at something better than the constant cataclysms that have occurred throughout recorded history.
And they see nothing better than a harmonious social order, even though experience demonstrates its utopian nature.
Nevertheless, this hope for harmonious world order can never disappear in their blissful consciousness: they as true humanists, are not capable to believe that horrors of our world cannot turn into prosperity of each person and all mankind eventually.
In fact, religion long ago resolved this problem, leaving all the ugliness of our lives here - in beingness, relegating true harmony to the afterlife.
But this is a matter of faith, not proof.
Be that as it may, the root of such a persistent desire in thought and, to some extent, in action for fairness and harmony, expressed most impressively and enticingly by just a few thinkers over three thousand years, remains undiscovered.
However, it is clear that these thinkers, and not only them but also a significant portion of the intelligentsia, for some reason proved incapable of abandoning the desire for similar fairness and harmonious order as they imagined and still imagine it.
And these types of order, described by each of them, turned out to be essentially similar, which is not surprising, since they shared the same goal—to make everyone happy by suitable means, moreover, the people are similar to the mass, from which anything can be molded according to the rather simple laws of  development of socium, which boil down to its increasing complexity and, ultimately, the realization of agreement among all for the common good, rather than discords.
We will demonstrate this striking similarity using excerpts from three of the most well-known theories of harmonious social order, and then attempt to identify the foundation that prevents even the greatest minds from abandoning the pursuit of this reorganization of society based on fairness.
***
Plato, in his Dialogues, believed that fairness at public administration would arise if the state was governed by philosophers: "Until philosophers reign in the state, or the so–called current kings and lords will not nobly and thoroughly philosophize and this will not merge into one – the state power and philosophy, and until those people are obligatorily removed - and there are many of them - who are now striving separately or for power, or to philosophy, until then, dear Glaucon, states will not get rid of evils, and it will not become possible for the human race and will not see the sunlight that state structure which we have only described verbally" [1. Book 5].
Plato has set himself the task, which was to establish a harmonious organization of the state both from the position of the internal consistency of life, where everyone will be satisfied with everything, and in defense from the external enemies: " …we are founding this state not at all meaning to make one of the segments of its population somehow especially happy, but, on the contrary, we want to make the entire state as a whole so. After all, it was in such state that we expected to find fairness, and unfairness, on the contrary, in the worst state system ..." [1. Book 4].
Plato, within the framework of this deceptive model, has considered that satisfaction with beingness by all and, therefore, fairness for all, can be achieved. In order for fairness to cover everybody and everyone, Plato proposed to establish a certain kind of equality between citizens, who, of course, cannot be equalized in general because of their diversity and many points of application of economy and management, but you can try to narrow this diversity by reducing it to only three classes - aristocrats-philosophers, guardians, farmers together with artisans: “Wealth and poverty. One leads to luxury, laziness, innovations, the other, apart from innovations, leads to baseness and atrocities... ...Be that as it may, they contain two states hostile to each other: one for the poor, the other for the rich... ...that fairness consists in that. so that everyone has his own and fulfills his own too ... ... the interference of these three estates in other people's affairs and the transition from one estate to another is the greatest harm to the state and can rightfully be considered the highest crime" [ibid.].
Understanding the insufficiency of this division of the population into a kind of castes to establish equality, which already looks like inequality, Plato comes up with some supposedly fairly clear criteria for evaluating progeny, suggesting, in accordance with them, to conduct a constant selection of this progeny in order to highlight the abilities, qualities of the mind and inclinations of each individual even in childhood and, thus, preliminarily determine the place of a given individual within the framework of one or another estate: “Although all members of the state are brothers ..., but the god who sculpted you, in those of you who are able to rule, mixed gold at birth, and therefore they are most valuable, in their assistants - silver, but iron and copper - in farmers and various artisans. You are all related, for the most part give birth to your own kind, although it still happens that silver progeny will be born from gold, and gold from silver; the same in other cases. From the rulers, God demands, first of all and mainly, that it is here that they turn out to be valiant guardians and that nothing more intensively protects as own progeny, observing what kind of admixture there is in the soul of their children, and
if a child is born with an admixture of copper or iron, they should in no way have pity for him, but act as his natural inclinations deserve, that is, include him among the artisans or farmers; if someone is born with an admixture of gold or silver, this should be appreciated and honorably transferred to guards or into helpers. After all, there is a prediction that the state will collapse when it will be guarded by iron guardian or copper ... "[1. Book 3].
"... the best men should mostly unite with the best women, and the worst, on the contrary, with the worst, and that the progeny of the best men and women should be educated, and the offspring of the worst should not, since our small herd should be the most selective. But that this is how it is done, no one should know, except the rulers themselves, so as not to bring the slightest discord into the squad of guards" [1. Book 5].
In addition to the selection of progeny, Plato proposes to completely eliminate private property, up to the possession of wives, bringing the diversity of citizens of the state in this respect to one denominator for the sake of their equalization, and thereby free them, as he believes, from enmity and envy caused by uneven ownership of property: "... no one should have any private property, unless it is absolutely necessary ... ... no one should have such a dwelling or storeroom, where everyone who wishes would not have access" [1. Book 3].
“Only in this way could the guards remain unharmed and preserve the state. And as soon as they have their own land, houses, money, they will immediately become owners and farmers from the guards; from the allies of the rest of the citizens they will become the hostile overlords; hating themselves and arousing hatred towards themselves, harboring evil intentions and fearing them, they will all time live in greater fear of internal enemies than of external ones, and in this case they themselves, and the whole state, will rush to their speedy death [ibid.].
"All wives of these husbands must be in common, and separately, let none of them cohabit with anyone. And children should also be common, and let the father not know which child is his, and the child - who his father is. "[1. Book 5].
According to Plato, the main group of rulers should include the most capable and intelligent, who are not inclined to simply consume various goods, but who are interested in the structure of Creation, relationships between people, strive for beauty - now they would be called by the creative natures.
Plato has called them philosophers, or the wisest of citizens, who therefore cannot but be aristocrats of the spirit.
In his opinion, it is they who are able effectively to lead the state, serving its interests due to their selflessness, broad views, deep intelligence and insights of favorable prospects for the state they lead: "The nature of the philosopher is distinguished by proportionality and innate subtlety of mind… ... The main property of the philosophical soul is to embrace the whole of time and beingness with thought ... ... A decent person, not greedy, and also noble, not boastful, not timid" [1. Beginning].
"So, wouldn't it be appropriate to say in defense of our view that a person who has a natural inclination for knowledge strives with all his might for genuine beingness? He does not stop at a multitude of things that only seem to exist, but he goes on unceasingly, and his passion does not subside until he touches the very essence of each thing with what is appropriate to touch such things in his soul, and it is appropriate to their kindred principle. Having become closer through it and united with the true beingness, having generated mind and truth, he will both know, and truly live, and feed, and only in this way will he get rid of the burden, but not before" [ibid.].
"The philosopher has four basic virtues of an ideal state ... ... fairness, prudence, courage and wisdom" [1. Book 4].
If we judge in accordance with the rules of formal logic about Plato's choice of philosophers by the leaders of a fair people's state as the most intelligent, honest, not self-interested and knowledgeable persons from the entire population, then he seems to be as the most reasonable.
But, as Plato himself noted, such people are more interested in cultural values, knowledge of the world around them, and not in politics, not in managing a heterogeneous crowd of subjects who are ready to fight for certain benefits. Therefore, Plato has considered it necessary to punish philosophers who refuse to govern the state, and to equalize the heterogeneous crowd of envious and greedy subjects by the abolition of property.
All this at first glance looks quite reasonable and effective, but in practice it turns out to be its opposite.
The fact is that among citizens there are always subjects with a slightly higher level of certain individuality traits, which are mainly the product of the animal form of consciousness, which in this case can cause them to strive not only for a well-fed, calm and prosperous life, but also to domination among their own kind.
Relying mainly on such properties of one's own individuality as a sufficient share of ingenuity; sociability up to servility; a tendency to deception in the form of distortion of information and dexterity in its presentation; acquired professional skills; as well as on such personality traits as a sufficiently strong will; self-confidence; unscrupulousness, expressed in cunning and deceit; a significant proportion of irresponsibility, expressed in experiments that seem beneficial to themselves, but clearly harmful to the population, these subjects gain an advantage over the rest - more inert members of the community in the form of ordinary people, highly moral intellectuals of various kinds, which include philosophers, as well as other sluggish or concerned about other affairs representatives of the population, who are not able to deftly push back or slander the opponent, as well as - reallytto enjoy the humiliation of the lower ones, and at the same time to endure the mockery of the higher ones.
Thus, in the natural process of gaining power, it is not the sage-philosophers who gain the advantage, but the cunning, unscrupulous and clever rogues who expect to receive considerable benefits from it and are ready to push back honest managers by all possible means, who lose the advantage in maintaining their position in power due to decency. the inability to slander one’s neighbor, to push back rivals by any available means, especially since those in power are kept in it by deceiving the crowd with spectacular, but mostly unrealistic promises and small handouts as a so-called carrot, as well as pumping the imaginary and real threats - external and internal, like a whip, but on similar actions the honest and upright philosophers will never go to.
So, the wise and disinterested philosophers are unlikely to last long in this bank with spiders, which is politics and power, contrary to Plato's hopes, as a result of which a fair state does not work with this side either.
Returning to Plato's considerations about the bulk of citizens who do not have great abilities, which must be led, it should be noted that he proposes to engage them in the production of material goods. These people, due to their simplicity and lack of interest in high culture and knowledge of the surrounding world, in his opinion, should just as simply consume the ordinary material goods along with their primitive reflection in culture, and nothing more, doing only one thing all their lives.
Therefore, Plato attributed them to the lowest estate and identified these citizens for the production of consumer goods both for themselves and for everyone else within the framework of crafts or agriculture. He considered the main reason for referring them to the lowest estate to be their lack of striving for mental and emotional development - these people are now referred to as philistines - and assumed to educate them in moderation and a tendency to order and discipline, as well not to climb into someone else's garden, that is, to be attached to one occupation all their lives.
“Look,” I said, “how the state can provide itself with all this: is it not so that someone will be an agriculturist, another a builder, a third a weaver? And should we not add to this the shoemaker and some other person who attends to our bodily needs?... ... in our state we will find that the shoemaker is a shoemaker, and not a helmsman, in addition to his shoemaking; that the farmer is a farmer, and not a judge, in addition to his agricultural work, and a military man is a military man, and not a businessman, in addition to his military occupations; and so on" [1. Book 3].
"In order for our shoemaking business to be successful, we forbade the shoemaker to try to become a farmer or a weaver, or a housebuilder; similarly, we have entrusted everyone else with only one task, to which he is suitable according to his natural inclinations; he will do this all his life, without being distracted by anything else, and will achieve success, if he does not miss the time. And isn't it important to perform well everything that relates to military affairs? Or is it so easy that a farmer, a shoemaker, any other craftsman can be a warrior at the same time?" [1. Book 2].
***
At the beginning of the XVII century, the monk of the Dominican order Tommaso Campanella in his work "The City of the Sun" actually tried for the first time on the basis of the model of the ideal state of Plato to promote the idea of   globalization of the world by establishing a world monarchical Catholic state, characteristic by the abolition of private property and equalization of all citizens, control over which was to be carried out with the help of their selection.
Campanella motivates the need for such state as follows: “They are clearly aware that great corruption reigns in the world, that people are not guided by true higher goals, that the worthy endure torment, that they are not heeded, and that villains rule, although they call their prosperous life a misfortune. for it is, as it were, an insignificant and ostentatious beingness since in fact there are no kings, no sages, no ascetics, no saints, since they are truly not like that” [2].
The utopian model of the ideal state of Plato came to the court not only of Campanello, but also of Karl Marx in the 19th century. Both of them, in essence, not only have taken it as a basis, but literally repeated all its main provisions, which is why their models of a fair state also remained utopias, which was demonstrated by attempts to implement them.
In particular, following the model of the ideal state of Campanella in Latin America, the Jesuits created at the beginning of the 17th century a kind of communist state of the Indians, which existed in continuous wars for more than a hundred years, but immediately collapsed after the expulsion of the Jesuits from this territory.
Also following the model of Marx's ideal formation in the form of a communist community, the basic principles of which were borrowed from Plato and Campanella  the Bolsheviks in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century tried to create a state similar to "The City of the Sun", with a gradual coverage of the whole world on the basis no longer of Catholicism, but of a communist ideology close to it. However, their attempt failed due to the complete economic and political incapacity of this new formation in comparison with neighboring capitalist countries.
Therefore, dictator Stalin, approximately 10 years after the overthrow of tsarism in Russia, began to transform the country into a state similar to the Persian satrapy, and transformed the communist ideals into bureaucratic ones, transferring almost all property to the disposal of the state bureaucracy, with the exception of the collective property of farmers, attaching them , nevertheless, to the land in the manner of serfs, just as Plato proposed to attach every citizen for life to one occupation.
Naturally, this kind of quasi-socialist semi-finished product did not manage to exist for a long time, and after a few decades it fell apart, unable to withstand competition with the leading capitalist countries, and also due to a change in the vector of motion in the minds of the impoverished population of Russia and the ruling bureaucracy from communist tomorrow to a well-fed capitalist today.
The "City of the Sun" is not much different from the ideal state of Plato, which was to be headed by the wise aristocrats of the spirit.
Campanella called the main philosopher-manager the Sun-metaphysician, giving him the functions of a secular and spiritual ruler, who is assisted in management by three assistants.
One of them, strictly according to Plato, is in charge of all the security forces, the other is responsible for crafts, art and science, the third - for the selection of offspring, agriculture and cattle breeding: "Their supreme ruler is a priest, called in their language "The Sun ", in our we would call him the Metaphysician. He is the head of all, both in the secular and in the spiritual, and on all issues and disputes, he makes the final decision. He has three co-rulers… …The Might is in charge of everything related to war and peace: the art of war, the supreme command in war… …The liberal arts, crafts and all kinds of sciences are subject to the guidance of the Wisdom… …The conduct of the Love is subject, firstly, to childbearing and ensuring that the combination of men and women gives the best offspring… ... the same ruler is responsible for the upbringing of newborns, healing, the manufacture of medicines, sowing, harvesting and harvesting fruits, agriculture, cattle breeding, the table and in general everything related to food, clothing and sexual intercourse" [2].
Campanella, just as Plato, holds the opinion about the harmfulness of private property for the existence of a fair state, bringing this consideration, like Plato, to the point of absurdity - the community of wives: "...the community of wives ... is accepted by them on the basis that they have everything in common. The distribution of everything is in the hands of officials, but since knowledge, honors and pleasures are common property, no one can appropriate anything for himself. They claim that property is formed with us and is supported by the fact that we each have our own separate dwelling and our own wives and children. Hence selfishness arises, because in order to achieve wealth and an honorable position for his son and leave him by the heir to a large fortune, each of us either begins to plunder the state if he is not afraid of anything, being rich and noble, or becomes a miser, a traitor and a hypocrite when he lacks power, wealth and nobility. But when we renounce selfishness, we will only have love for the community" [2].
"... the community makes everyone both rich and poor at the same time: rich because they have everything, poor because they have no property, and therefore they do not serve things, but things serve them. And that is why they praise pious Christians in every possible way and especially extol the apostles."[2]
Campanella copies Plato in relation to the supreme power in a fair state, believing just as naively that only wise and educated people can rule in it:
"We undoubtedly know better that such an educated man will be wise in matters of governance than you, who put ignorant people as heads of government, considering them suitable for this only because they either belong to a ruling family or are elected by the ruling party. But our 0 (ruler), even if he is completely inexperienced in the affairs of the state administration, will never, however, be neither cruel, nor a criminal, nor a tyrant precisely because he is so wise" [2].
Like Plato, Campanella attaches the crucial importance to the existence of the state to the selection: "When everyone, both men and women, in classes in the palaestra, according to the custom of the ancient Spartans, are naked, then the chiefs determine who is capable and who is sluggish for copulation, and which men and women are more suitable for each other according to the structure of their bodies to a friend, and then, only after a thorough ablution, they are allowed to have sexual intercourse every third night. Stately and beautiful women unite only with stately and strong men; fat ones - with thin ones, and thin ones - with full ones, so that they balance each other well and profitably... ...scientists are combined with women who are lively, lively and beautiful. People are sharp, fast, restless and frantic - with women full and meek. And they maintain that the perfect physique, by which the virtues develop, cannot be achieved by exercise: that people who are vicious by nature work well only out of fear of the law or of God, and if not, they secretly or openly ruin the state. Therefore, all main attention should be focused on childbearing, and it is necessary to appreciate the natural qualities of producers, and not the dowry and the deceptive nobility of the family ... ...Less capable children are sent to the village, but some of them, who turned out to be more successful, are taken back to the city. But in most cases, having been born under the same arrangement of stars, peers are similar in abilities, and in disposition, and in appearance, which results in great harmony in the state, supported by constant mutual love and assistance to each other" [2].
"...the production of offspring has in mind the interests of the state... and since the private individuals for the most part both produce offspring badly and bring it up badly, to the destruction of the state, then the sacred duty of observation of this, as the first basis of state welfare, is entrusted to the cares of officials, and only the community can vouch for the dependability of this, and not private individuals" [3].
Duplicating Plato, Campanella binds each person to the duties he performs, no matter what: "Everyone, no matter what service he is assigned, performs it as the most honorable" [2].
From all this it is clear that Campanella did not introduce significant details into Plato's model of a fair state, except for the idea of globalization of this state, and it remained a utopia copied from a utopia of the same kind.
***
Surprising at first glance, but Karl Marx - the founder of the theory, according to which, as a result of the organized struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors, a happy communist tomorrow should come - and billions of people fell for it - only reproduced in it the basic principles of Plato's ideal state model, slightly modernizing it in the plan of Campanella, putting forward, like the latter, the idea of globalizing the world, but already by establishing a communist regime everywhere.
Like Plato and Campanella, Marx has advocated the abolition of the private property, the equalization of all citizens, and even some kind of the selection of these citizens, which Lenin tried to implement in practice, but all this should have been led, however, not by philosophers or priests, as assumed Plato and Campanella, respectively, but the party wise men, who in the Soviet Union turned out to be just apparatchiks from the Central Committee of the Party, and the communists became their assistants, penetrating everywhere and controlling everything and everyone.
It turned out to be a reproduction of the model of the ideal state of Plato, in which, however, they were embarrassed to directly socialize wives, although at first there were such attempts, but Lenin after the revolution in Russia limited himself, in accordance with the ideas of Marx, by communes, which, due to their incapacity, were replaced ten years later collective farms (collective farms with workers paid by workdays, not money), in which peasant farmers, according to Plato, were also attached to the agricultural labor for life, since they were not given a passport and thus they were deprived of free displacement.
In this regard, it must be assumed that all these thinkers, recognized as the most outstanding intellectuals-humanitarians, have found no other way out for the gray mass of workers, as soon as forcibly leading it to universal happiness for everybody, in which they themselves certainly believed, which is rather stupid in itself, not only because happiness is unattainable in principle, but also because not everyone wants it, especially in this form, and even by methods that are contrary not only to freedom, but also to the natural nature of every person, which may be, especially the human brain in this nature, as far from another person as chicken brains are far from the brain of a monkey.
Nevertheless, it is not always harmful to want, if only because progress in the motion of the technological civilization is largely ensured by the struggle of these theorists – the guardians of the common good - with conservatives in power, parasitizing on it and at its expense.
So, practice shows that sometimes also certain deceptive ideas are good for progress.
Marx and Engels have set out the idea of creating a kind of fair formation at the very beginning of their famous "Manifesto", from the outside, in adequate form: "The whole history of society has so far been the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, the patrician and the plebeian, the landowner and the serf, the guild master and the apprentice, in short, the oppressor and the oppressed were in eternal hostility to each other, waged a continuous, now hidden, now overt struggle, always ending with the revolutionary reorganization of the entire social edifice or the joint death of the struggling classes" [3, p. 2].
Indeed, the oppressors and the oppressed could not help but be at enmity with each other practically continuously, but revolutions and upheavals did not happen very often, apparently because something incomprehensible for these thinkers accumulated in the minds of people and from time to time was discharged in riots and revolutions.
However, if they did occur, then the change partly of the oppressors and the oppressed locally, as happened repeatedly in China and recently in Russia, Cuba and a number of other countries in Asia and Africa, has led to the fact that the new rulers from the oppressed rather quickly became oppressors. population of their own country in one form or another bureaucratic form, often more brutal than it was before.
This state of affairs, which history points to, clearly demonstrates the stability of antagonism in society, although few people like it. In this society, of course, different groups and estates are necessarily at enmity, since their interests differ, and property is by no means evenly distributed, and the invaders always want to protect and preserve it, whereas the deprived always want to take it away for themselves or divide it equally when the opportunity arises.
But some segments of the population should be leading in this struggle for power and property, right?
It is clear that the structure that has seized the main property and power in the state, the so-called power elite, is at the head of this struggle and is trying by all means to retain power with all its privileges.
But who always opposes any power?
Presumably, it is unlikely that this opposition represents oneself all oppressed in a row or separately such oppressed masses as clogged with life and propaganda the philistines, the semi-literate proletariat, or illiterate peasants who were capable only of local disturbances or rebellions which have happened quite often in history, but they all had only vague notions of fairness in their heads,, which should be established, for their reasons, by some new good ruler.
That is, these almost always suppressed somehow spontaneous mass motions had nothing to do with the creation of a real and clearly structured a fair people's state.
Nevertheless, the rest are fundamental coups in the way of life of a society such as the French Revolution of 1789 were also reduced not to the creation of a fair people's state, but to the change of power elites in accordance with a change in property relations, which did not care about fairness and public disasters.
Nevertheless, even these revolutions that change social relations within the same framework - the oppressed and the oppressors - were led by ideological and competent fighters against injustice who have their own concept of a just state structure. However, in practice, all their efforts to improve the situation of the lower classes were reduced to the previous model of antagonistic social relations, and the new power elite turned out to be equally unfair to the oppressed.
Thus, a fully conscious opposition at all times of civilization has always been only a certain part of educated and cultured people who, due to accumulated knowledge and a considerable share of acquired altruism, could not help but want fairness for everyone, and they were disgusted the greed, hypocrisy, stupidity and arrogance of the nouveau riche of all times, at this, such people who are oppositional towards those in power, too, have always been enough in a more or less cultured community - even in a slave-owning one.
Their theories about improving the structure of society for the sake of a decent life for all without exception were different, but they all invariably thought about the public good.
Here, Plato, Campanella, Thomas More, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chernyshevsky, Lenin and many others with their comrades, of course, could not tolerate such fairness against the oppressed masses of the people, as well as the methods of governing the state only for the benefit of the ruling elite, and they, at a minimum, they came up with models, ways and means to overthrow the oppressors and establish a just people's state, and even often fought with the oppressors, like Jan Hus.
In other words, the ruling elite tries to do everything only for themselves, spitting on all morality and coming up with laws to preserve power, and the intellectual opposition to it does everything possible to undermine the power of tyrants or cunning oligarchs, and calls on the oppressed to revolt and coups for the sake of restoring fairness, which for them, as a rule, boils down to the transfer of society to equality for all, that is, to utopia. As a result, despite all the efforts of the intellectual opposition to the authorities, fairness in their understanding is not being established in any way, and the antagonistic society still doing unfairness.
The ruling elites use all the power and legislative bodies of the state to retain power, the oppositionists-informals call for the struggle of the oppressed with the authorities for the sake of equality and fraternity, as the same Plato and Campanella proclaimed in their utopias. But, as it can be seen from history, social contradictions do not disappear from changing the places of the components.
Apparently, Marx, realizing from the results of the recent revolutions in France that there was no prospect of a change of power elites, and at the same time finding a rather organized detachment of proletarians which was being selected during the development of capitalism, decided to turn to the origins.
Knowing antiquity well, he most likely has seen in the ideal state of Plato the model that, with some adjustment, can be used to create not an ordinary state with ineradicable inequality of citizens, but a society of equal citizens, in which there are no proprietary, and, therefore, antagonistic relations.
But this did not seem enough to Marx, and he also borrowed Campanella's globalist idea of establishing a society without antagonistic relations throughout the world.
However, Marx, we must give him his due, somewhat updated the ideas of Plato and Campanella, proposing on his own behalf to make a smooth transition to these peculiar communes on a world scale without estates and classes by creating, as it were, intermediate states in which the proletariat would dominate, led by ideologists like to him. These states will pave the way for the establishment of real communism.
The novelty of this approach of Marx also consisted in the fact that he, perfectly imagining the resistance of the exploiters to such turn in social relations, has proposed to overthrow them by force with the help of the same proletariat and arrange society without any violence not immediately, but through states with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would to act to maintain their own power and correct other citizens up to the gradual building of a non-antagonistic society.
All these constructions of Marx looked impressive and have made an unusually strong impact on society, inspiring its best representatives to feats for the glory of the realization of Marx's ideas.
However, both Marx himself and his followers have not understood that, if we turn to their ideas about it, as it was shown above, due to ineradicable individual differences, there is no real equality of citizens and it is impossible to establish it in any way. At the same time, they failed to realize that without proprietary relations, the development of society will cease and technological civilization with all its conveniences will come to an end.
In other words, Marx, like the previous idealist thinkers, was captured by the expectation of the inevitable arrival of a joyful and happy tomorrow for everyone at once, instead of the current misfortunes, with the help of a friendly and independent proletariat, if the proletariat  will be working in the way indicated by him/ Then it will be created a truly just society, the foundations of which he borrowed from Plato, although Plato himself did not He was confident in the practical implementation of his own model of an ideal state, but Marx was confident.
But, paradoxically for many, including for all followers of Marx, the pace of development of society, more precisely, the current technological civilization in the conditions of the incessant struggle of both strata – the power elites and the informal intellectual opposition, - involving the rest of the population into this struggle during critical periods of the existence of civilization, are increasing, that is, the own time of this civilization is accelerating: one epoch replaces another, developing with increasing speed, which is clearly visible by the number of centuries of  existence of these epochs, and civilization is gradually blossoming, gaining more educated, cultured and living in a more comfortable environment of citizens, who are finding more and more degrees of freedom in society with all its antagonism.
Thus, it turns out that the basic position of Marxism about the decisive role of the class struggle in social development turns out to be untenable, and the true driving force behind the development of society is the dissatisfaction of both components of the dual consciousness in its individualistic and collectivist forms, which is reflected in the struggle of the ruling elites with the informal intellectual opposition to them.
In the course of the struggle of natural consciousness and self-consciousness in every head and in all heads at once, their collectivist form gradually gives way to an individualistic one, and society from slaveholding through feudalism comes to capitalism, in which the individualistic character of all social forces is most clearly expressed, that in turn leads this society through ever-deepening crises due to its own imperfection to decline and decay, and it tries in the person of its elites, under the threat of loss of own power to be returned to the former collectivism that flourished in the archaic, through the abolition of property, but this attempt cannot to be successful due to the decomposition of the entire structure of society, which should disappear like a house on rotten piles [4].
If we return to the foundations of Marxism, we can clearly see that they are not far removed from the principles of the Platonic ideal state by comparing Plato's Dialogues and Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.
In the leading place from all citizens, Marx puts assistants of the main sages, like himself, imbued with the ideas of these sages: "...the Communists, in practice, are the most decisive, always striving forward part of the workers' parties of all countries, and in theoretical terms they have the advantage over the rest of the mass of the proletariat that they understand the conditions, progress and general results of the labor motion" [3, p. 17].
Like Plato in relation to private property, Marx states: "Communists can express their theory in words: the destruction of private property" [3, p. 17].
True, to console the public, Marx declares: “... this will not be the transformation of the private property into the public property. Only the social character of property will change. It will lose its class character" [3, p. 18].
Developing the idea of the destruction of private property in the future, Marx admits that in this way the personality is also destroyed, but, apparently, the impersonality does not frighten him, just as it did not frighten Plato, who on this basis introduced true, in his opinion, equality, against which Marx does not object: “In bourgeois society, capital has independence and individuality, while the worker is dependent and impersonal. And the bourgeoisie calls the destruction of these relations the destruction of the human personality and freedom. And she's right. It is really about the destruction of the bourgeois personality, bourgeois independence and bourgeois freedom. Under modern bourgeois conditions of production, freedom is understood as freedom of trade, freedom of purchase and sale” [3, p. 19].
All this sounds loud and convincing as a true struggle for fair for the majority of working people, but, alas, Lenin has faced similar idealism in Russia in his time, when communes, the abolition of trade, buying and selling led to the practical collapse of the state and famine, forcing the main sage Lenin to re-introduce these bourgeois prejudices, as Marx estimated them, in the form of the NEP (New Economic Policy), which was in fact a salutary return to the old methods of management.
Quite in accordance with Plato's ideas about the ideal state, Marx believes that the destruction of the family will solve the problem of raising offspring in the spirit of collectivism, exposing by the pretext for this measure that the family is the basis of the bourgeois system, also offering, in accordance with Plato's ideas, to raise children not at home, but in a public way: “On what does the modern bourgeois family rest? On the capital, on the private profit. In its fully developed form, it exists only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the forced celibacy of the proletariat and in open prostitution. The bourgeois family will naturally have to fall with the fall of this addition, and both of them will disappear together with the disappearance of capital ... Bourgeois rhetoric about the family and upbringing, about the tender relationship of parents to children, inspires all the more disgust, the more family ties are destroyed among the proletariat thanks to large-scale industry, and the more children of workers are turned into mere commodities and working tools ... Communists could be reproached except in the fact that they want to put the official community of wives in the place of the hypocritically concealed one. But it goes without saying that with the destruction of modern conditions of production, the community of wives created by them, that is, official and unofficial prostitution, will also disappear” [3, p. 21-22].
Marx also uses Plato's idea of the compulsory attachment of a citizen to the workplace in the following formulation: "The same obligation of labor for all, the establishment of armies of labor, especially for agriculture ... The combination of agricultural labor with factory labor, the gradual elimination of the difference between town and country" [3, p. 26].
As for the Platonic selection of citizens, Marx believes that capitalism itself has selected the most determined citizens, who will overthrow it. These are hired workers in factories and factories - the proletariat: "The proletariat will take advantage of its political dominance in order to take away all capital from the bourgeoisie in a series of attacks, in order to centralize all the tools of labor in the hands of the state, that is, the proletariat organized as the ruling class ..." [3, p. 25].
Oddly enough, but Marx, brought up on the ideas of Hegel, including, in particular, the struggle of opposites as the driving force of social development, comes to the conclusion that this struggle will eventually be eliminated in the form of the elimination of class antagonism: “When class differences are destroyed over time, and all production will concentrate in the hands of associations, social power will lose its political character... If the proletariat, in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, unites as a class, achieves dominance through revolution, and, as the ruling class, forcibly destroys the old conditions of production, then it also destroys the conditions for the existence of class antagonism, classes in general, and at the same time their own class domination. The place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonism will be taken by an association in which the free development of each will be the conditions for the free development of all” [3, p. 26].
If for Plato faith in an ideal state was justified by the fact that he did not suspect the need for a struggle of opposites, then Marx knew about this, but preferred to believe in the coming communist earthly paradise, having opposed it to paradise in the other world, which sinners can lose, and communism will remain for everyone, however, only during their lifetime, but this, as many believe, is not bad at all. It is precisely because of life, disgusting for the majority and so beautiful in the paradise painted by Marx, that this obvious utopia has gained such popularity among the population.
As a side note, we note that Hegel himself was just as inconsistent as Marx, having considered at the end of his life the Prussian state contemporary to him as an ideal.
So, they both came into conflict with reality, succumbing to the charm of each of their own utopias: Hegel, having believed in the ideal in the form of the Prussian state with its, as it seemed to him, perfect order, and Marx, having believed in the Platonic ideal of a just community without struggle and passions.
***
What's interesting is that these models of "the fair states" are essentially based on the collectivist consciousness of society that prevailed in Ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, and patriarchal Russia.
That is, the design of such states is only suitable for such state can appear only for undeveloped ethnic groups, who, possessing mainly a collectivist consciousness inherited from state of archaic still close in time, are a little capable of individualistic, initiative actions and easily succumb to suggestions about future happiness in a complete fairness for each and all in the form of ideas similar to Plato ones.
And indeed, a "fair" state in the form of a theocratic patriarchal formation under the leadership of the Jesuits on the territory of present-day Paraguay has been formed at the beginning of the XVII century from Indians in state of archaic. It existed for about 150 years without any spiritual development, except for some improvements in the sphere of management, participating in frequent clashes with neighbors, This state was liquidated as a result of the victory over it by the Spanish-Portuguese troops in 1750, and the Indians themselves returned to an archaic state after the removal of the Jesuits from their midst, which shows the artificiality of this formation.
Likewise, the Soviet Union, which has been formed on the territory of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, initially had the vast majority of the population in the form of unlettered and semi-literate peasants with a collectivist consciousness, since they led a communal economy, that as a result initially has gave the state with three main estates: the power elite, security forces and producers of material products, where there were no private property relations almost according to Plato - at the heart of this state at first were communes, which later transformed into collective farms.
The enthusiasm of the population with its desire for a fair community in the form of communism all over the world, which was opposed by equally aggressive neighbors, led to the fact that this state turned out to be a kind of aggressor with a poor population, in which in power were not philosophers and sages, but ordinary bureaucrats, who concentrated in their hands the disposal of all property and the corresponding aspiration to conquer the whole world at this expense.
Thus, they used the main resources of the state to fight their neighbors for dominance in the world, keeping the population in poverty and virtual lack of rights. This formation, reminiscent of the Persian satrapy, existed for about 70 years and ceased to exist due to its artificiality and economic incapacity compared to its Western neighbors, as well as due to the population's loss of faith in the coming of a communist tomorrow.
The result of the relatively short existence of this unstable entity, the kind of utopia, was its disintegration and the return of the remaining metropolis to the natural bosom of capitalism in an extremely weakened state.
China turned out to be a similar state in the middle of the XX century with an illiterate overwhelmingly population leading a semi-animal lifestyle. True, China, a few decades after the painful communist experiments that brought many victims, managed to move away from distributive socialism towards a more proactive and well-fed capitalism, having acquired a significant incentive for development after that, however, with the coloring in the form of the leadership of the country by the oligarchic elite under the deceptive name of the Central Committee of the Communist Party,
Thus, the analysis of the models shown of the fair states, which appeared as a natural impulse of these outstanding representatives of mankind to harmony and happiness for all citizens without withdrawal shows impossibility of establishment of harmonious communities in the conditions of a technological civilization which development is provided on the basis of the private-ownership relations only with contradictions practically between all its components.
***
In order to determine the basis that does not allow even the greatest minds to abandon the desire for a harmonious reorganization of society on the basis of fairness, it is necessary to begin with determining the differences and essence of living beings, including a person, in comparison with inanimate matter.
All living beings are different from other objects of beingness by the presence of consciousness in them, which, in fact, makes them alive. This means that, unlike inanimate objects, they acquire new properties that allow them to replicate themselves through reproduction thanks the genetic code available in them; to be merged with the environment through metabolism; thanks to mutations, to be distributed on different types of living organisms, and, at the same time, with greater or less success, to be modified in accordance with changes in the environment, in particular, getting more complicated in order to consume a larger number of pleasant sensations.
However, these beings in the form of flora and fauna have no subjectness. They manifest themselves in the environment only in the form of dynamic components of the environment that do not conscious themselves, although and act to give development to this environment, but act instinctively-reflexively, i.e. their consciousness is limited consumption of sensations, and it does not go beyond the environment, and the development itself is very slow in comparison with conscious actions. Therefore, such initial type of consciousness can be qualified as the lowest consciousness, the only inherent to all living beings, except for the person who has some kind of complement to it.
The basis of this addition is a program in the human genome, added to the program characteristic of other living beings.
Only in this case does this new being gradually acquire the ability to be aware of its actions over time, planning systematic changes to its environment for specific purposes.
Thereby, one gets the opportunity to become the subject of action: he understands the meaning of his actions, composing projects, correcting them on the move, that is, remaining as part of the environment, he at the same time rises above it, becoming partly its master and even the creator both in various man-made structures, mechanisms, processes, and creations of the spirit, which is reflected in various areas of art and culture.
Such actions change significantly and with accelerate not only the environment, but also the content of the person, increasing his educational and cultural level, that is, allowing him to become gradually in awareness himself all higher and higher. Therefore, this type of consciousness, which is complementary to the lower consciousness, can be qualified as the highest consciousness of the living beings, or self-consciousness, which is inherent only in people.
Thus, in human beings there are two components of consciousness - the lowest, often called unconscious, or subconscious, and the highest consciousness, or self-consciousness. the level of which can differ significantly depending on the degree of development of the person or his communities - take, for example, the person of the Stone Age and the current Nobel laureate, - the level of consciousness and in that and other case significantly other, however self-consciousness is present both here and there, without disappearing anywhere, but the lowest consciousness, which is responsible generally for functioning of an organism (body) to hold it in a live state and to do it by adequate concerning stay of a body in the environment as well as to fix and spread an organism in  the environment, remains almost invariable, i.e. actually it does not depend on time.
Both these components exist and act in the body and through the body in an indissoluble connection, but the highest consciousness is incapable to exist without the lowest, as the last is responsible for preservation of the living being in the environment - it is impossible to do without this, and the first – above all - for conscious and design activity of a being as individually, and in the human communities which are in a certain environment, and other natural beings always do without self-consciousness.
It is these deep entities in the form of the lowest consciousness and highest consciousness, hidden and intertwined in every human consciousness, and, consequently, in the public consciousness, with all their antagonism because of the need to solve various problems for the most part contradicting each other, really determine development of human communities at any stage.
In other words, the life of a person is governed by the interaction of both of these components of consciousness, distinguishing it from inanimate objects through its own activity, transforming movement into development (complexity, improvement, which is conscious for a person) through its own efforts.
What, then, compels a person, and indeed all living things, to move forward—to evolve? This activity, while sensitively responding to life's circumstances and the environment, manifests itself in feelings, thoughts, and actions in two ways: on the one hand, compelling them to remain active under any circumstances, and on the other, sharply raising or lowering its level under certain circumstances, both natural and man-made?
The active is different from the passive - exactly by the inner aspiration to the change oneself in a person in the external environment, by the inability to safely and constantly arranges itself among things, the order of which the active (consciousness) cannot be satisfied, because it itself arranged this order without full confidence in the correctness of this order. Consciousness in a person immediately reveals in it the shortcomings that lead to the awareness by the human mind of its own omissions and, accordingly, its own certain insolvency.
Similar state of activity, or state of conscious destruction and creation is the source of liberty, which is manifested in all actions of each person in his relations with the outside world, things and fellow tribespeople that means his development. And this state maybe only when the living being realizes himself, i.e. in the case of the emergence of self-consciousness at it. Self-consciousness, which is initially active, that is, restless and dissatisfied with itself and, consequently, any order and any relationship, which are absent without him at all, or which in fact completely depend on him, because external circumstances the person (his consciousness), except global circumstances, produces personally, and is freed from them independently.
In a person this activity of consciousness is expressed in its enduring aspiration to build an ideal order and to arrange the harmony between people, what he, naturally, never reaches among unstable things and imperfect people, but in this aspiration, it reaches the main thing – development of own consciousness, and this development is his true destination.
This kind of dissatisfaction is characteristic of both types of consciousness, but it reaches its maximum level in the self-consciousness of a relatively small part of society, outwardly manifesting itself, as a rule, among humanists, who are often well educated, smart, quite energetic and therefore perfectly understand the injustice of social relations, at which, for the most part, sheer blockheads or bloodthirsty bandits rule over everyone else.
This dominance of the altruism of the highest consciousness, which pushes aside the lower, forces these informal intellectuals to pursue goals primarily opposed to those of the ruling elite (the oppressors), pointing out to the people the injustice of the established order, in which some receive everything they desire, while others are forced to endure only hard or uninteresting labor.
These informal intellectuals are incapable of giving up hope for a transformation of society toward harmony, which, in their view, means the eventual achievement of equality, brotherhood, and, at the same time, freedom, thus marking a sort of rest at the end of the road, setting aside the fact that freedom always opposes equality and justice, destroying any stability.
In other words, they cannot resist the aspiration, built, as it seems to them, on iron logic, based on direct vision, which presents for them beingness with a clear disproportion, and they are sure, that the correction of this “incorrectness” is a law of social development, without understanding that immediate vision, even if framed in a law-based form, does not coincide with the true state of affairs: in particular, the benevolent idea to eliminate the flagrant contradiction in society, making it so that there are no rich and poor, seeming absolutely true, leads to complete absurdity and cataclysms of various kinds when it is realized, that is, all their efforts turn to dust, since such reforming never succeeds - society automatically returns to its previous - antagonistic order.
Nevertheless, the informal intellectuals do not calm down, but this aspiration, on the other hand, turns out to be positive, maintaining constant tension in society, and thereby expressing in open form one of the driving forces of social development.
The struggle between them. when the passive behavior the most part of the rest of the population, occurs continuously with the dominance of a more energetic governing elite, which is provoking self-hatred from everyone else, and thus forming that antagonism that does not allow society to stop in developing.
Thereby, the people, willy-nilly, are involved by energy of this struggle into a forward motion, which can also be evolutionary at the consent of the power elite with the opposition from the nonconformists-intellectuals to certain compromises in the interests of the working masses, but it can jump into a different course if there is no such agreement, which is reflected in the public consciousness as a clear injustice, transforming into a more or less successful attempt to remove the ruling elite from power upon the occurrence of suitable conditions.
The dominant belief in the hearts and minds of these informal intellectuals is, in fact, the unfounded belief in the creation of absolute harmony on the planet through the efforts of the people, supposedly in accordance with the "laws" of social development they themselves have discovered—a kind of earthly paradise where each will be rewarded according to his or her needs. If only there were a limit to these needs?
But paradise never materializes, leaving them distraught. Yet they continue their noble work, even though the most energetic among them, like Lenin and Mao Zedong, have done much damage without achieving what they sought, destroying tens of millions of people who were highly skeptical of the ideas they were promoting.
***
he approach of our great predecessors to the final stage of the development of the human communities is generally understandable, since they, being mostly humanitarians, invented theories corresponding to their general views, which in no way corresponded to the true state of affairs, relating, in particular, to the physical time of the existence of civilization and, therefore, to this or that position of society in the final stage of the existence of civilization, which is not eternal, but, like all objects of existence, has its own time of existence, which presupposes their inevitable transition to another form or even complete disappearance.
Naturally, the fact of the finiteness of any objects of beingness, at least in their specific form, does not imply some kind of happy eternal existence, but it assumes the disintegration of civilization, determined by physical reasons at the so-called singularity point, when the civilization's own time ends.
What is this point and what caused it?
If we try to approach the problem of the existence and development of civilization from the position of the presentation of time as an information process, the run of events with the development of civilization should accelerate. In other words, the present time of each person, like the whole community, is compacted with an increase in the information flows consumed by them, which is an inevitable consequence of conscious human activity that captures all large spaces.
This acceleration of the own time of the human community (civilization), which affects the compaction of significant events, begins to be especially clearly visible from the stage of the industrial revolution, when the time of the Middle Ages, slowly stretching in its relatively insignificant changes for hundreds of years, begins to accelerate significantly: only in a few decades from the invention of the steam engine, the railways, cars will go along the freeways, planes will rise into the sky, and then within an even shorter period of time rockets will take off, the mushroom of an atomic bomb explosion will blur, computers will appear, the planet will cover the Internet with its tentacles.
Here are the figures showing the pace at which this acceleration took place, or the compaction of one's own time during the development of life on Earth and, in particular, during the existence of civilization to this day
The single-celled organisms appeared on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.
The time interval from the emergence of the single-celled primitive organisms to the formation of more structured organisms in the form of algae had compiled 2.3 billion calendar years.
Animals have appeared about 550 million years ago. Accordingly, the time interval from the appearance of algae to the appearance of the first animals turned out to be shorter – about 650 million calendar years.
The first mammals appeared 220 million calendar years ago. That is, the time interval from the appearance of the first primitive animals to the appearance of complexly organized mammals turned out to be even shorter – about 330 million calendar years.
Thus, it is noticeable that the development of organisms on Earth went with acceleration, that is, the own time of these groups of organisms was being got denser.
If we follow the course of development of the animal world, then we can note the incessant densification of the own time of development from simpler creatures to more complex ones.
In particular, the first mammals appeared 220 million calendar years ago, the first monkeys appeared about 30 million calendar years ago, the first hominids appeared 6 million years ago, first homo sapiens appeared about 200 thousand years ago.
This acceleration, at least, indicates that living beings, residing in astronomical time, along with that have their own time, which fits into the external one – astronomical, or calendar for us.  Moreover, it turns out that since this time does not fall on them from somewhere above, they form it involuntarily, also differing in this property from inanimate objects of beingness.
In this  own time, which makes up not only the phases of development of individual populations with the appearance of new species or qualitative changes in existing ones, but also the life time of every living being from birth to death, one can think and act, at a minimum, to keep oneself in this time due to dissatisfaction with the existing, that stimulates aspiration for the best, willy-nilly changing with the possibility of developing in generations, first involuntarily, and then, with the advent of a person, by design and planning, subordinating one's time even more to oneself, but not suspecting it, although from the outside this is visible by the increasingly accelerated course of this time as a result of the actions of human communities within the framework of civilization, that is, in proprietary relations.
First of all, it should be noted that with the emergence of the human communities among the communities of living beings, the compaction of the own time of these human communities has increased sharply, and the apparent reason for this phenomenon is that, in contrast to the purely adaptive behavior of all other living beings, a person’s program of actions has radically expanded towards his acquiring the ability to set goals and achieve them, using his emerging abilities for creativity, penetrating his ideas into the future, and thereby mastering time, that is, realizing himself in it, whereas the animals are always limited only to the present in the form of sensations.
The volume of information flows in this case increases sharply, the environment begins to purposefully change under the influence of these new creatures, at the same time changing them themselves at a much faster pace than what happened before.
That is, a person in his communities falls into the field of increasingly increasing information flows that are perceived by his senses, developing both them and the body's control organs, as a result of which, for example, the mass of the human brain has increased several times compared to the mass of the primate brain.
Let us now note how the acceleration of human communities has changed with the emergence of civilization within the framework of the main phases of their development in units of calendar time.
The slave system, which replaced the primitive communal organization of human communities, which took many tens of thousands of years, lasted only several thousand years until the transition to the feudal type of economy.
During the era of feudalism, the development of civilization accelerated even more than during the period of the slave system, taking a little more than a thousand years in Europe.
Capitalism occupied a historical period of several centuries - from the 17th century to the 21st century, accelerating the development of civilization several times compared to feudalism.
This increased greatly acceleration of human communities in comparison with other communities of living beings was first noted by the historian I. M. Dyakonov in 1994: "There is no doubt that historical process shows signs of natural exponential acceleration. From emergence of Homo sapiens until the end of the I phase passed not less than 30 thousand years, II phase lasted about 7 thousand years, III phase - about 2 thousand years, IV phase - about 1.5 thousand, V phase - about one thousand years, VI - about 300, VII phase - a little more than 100 years, duration of VIII phase while it is impossible to determine. Put on the schedule these phases add up in exponential development which assumes eventually transition to the vertical line or rather, to the point of so-called singularity. Scientific and technical achievements of mankind were being developed according to the exponential schedule likewise …" [5].
Having turned the look to beingness known to us, we will see that it is constructed at work of particular coupled systems, or on action of gradually changing communities which arise and disappear all the time, – from communities in the form of galaxies and star systems till communities in the form of crystalline structures or fungi.
As well communities of more high level – civilizations of alive and reasonable individuals – are changing: they are arising, developing till the particular moment, and then they are decaying. The question consists only in the speed of this process which in comparison with the speed of changes of galaxies or crystals is much higher owing to larger complexity and dynamism of this system of living individuals among macro systems.
Some researches were devoted to a subject of condensing of time periods between critical events up to a final point. This approach is based on concept of the singularity, used John von Neumann in the middle of XX century. The singularity, if not to mean its astrophysical comprehension, represents a point behind which extrapolation starts giving senseless results.
Thus, the definition of a technological singularity appeared after Diakonoff's works: the technological singularity is the hypothetical moment after which technical progress becomes such fast and complex that it will be inaccessible to comprehension. The technological singularity as a result of development of nanotechnologies was considered in the report of 2007 of the Commission on economic policy of the Congress of the USA, as start date of a singularity was called 2020, according to another prognosis — 2030. Basic idea of this conclusion is the corollary from the law of Moore (an empirical conclusion from the observed speed of development of technologies): somewhere between 2025 and 2035 the computing power of separate computers will be made even to the "crude" computing power of a human brain, and then and will surpass it.
The given dates are close to each other and they also are close to the present time. The question is only in interpretation of the specified process, i.e. what will happen in the singularity point with the world civilization.
The approaching informational collapse is confirmation of that the era of fundamental changes in civilization development approaches with an approximation of the point of the singularity.
Informational collapse is defined as the condition of network information space menacing to its stability and normal functioning. Informational collapse is characterized by fall off of capacity of communication channels and arises at a situation when existing technologies are not able to transfer growing volumes of traffic.
The beginning of the informational collapse manifests in constant increase in speed of emergence of new information and accumulation of this information in the Internet. Acquaintance with the avalanche flow of information becomes more and more difficult and even more difficult becomes thereof its adequate use because filtration of information, as a rule, for doubtful criteria becomes actually by single method of ordering of information. This process conducts to fast loss by society of perspective reference points of development, to replacement of the true purposes by corporate purposes, to bamboozle of an overwhelming majority of Internet users.
All this quite convincingly demonstrates that the acceleration of the proper time of the human communities is directly linked to information flows.
If time in the process of activity of living beings is an information product, then with changes in the information flows encompassing a living being or beings, the time of their own lifespans and the lifespans of their genera or species, as well as the phases of existence of human communities that differ qualitatively, changes in accordance with the changing information flows in which they find themselves, despite the fact that calendar or astronomical time flows as before.
Naturally, the condensation of the proper time of individual communities of biological systems during their development cannot proceed indefinitely, shrinking at an accelerated rate, despite the fact that all these time intervals fit into the invariably flowing astronomical time, which in itself demonstrates the difference between these types of time [see, e.g., 6].
However, continuous growth of volume of information coming to consciousness of people and affecting external expression of this information process – acceleration of own time of a civilization, has to fit into the existing possibilities of human consciousness, inasmuch the finite (strategic) decisions are made by the person, but not the computer. Therefore, inevitably there comes the moment when the main centers of a civilization cease to cope with the avalanche flow of the arriving information – the speed of information processing begins to lag behind its receipt. At this extended moment (a singularity point) own time of system of a civilization is completed – crash of a civilization. In other words, the system loses the quality, inasmuch it isn't capable to function the same way.
Exponential acceleration of time or continuous growth of the information streams passing through consciousness of a person leads ultimately to impossibility of functioning of a civilization in its former form, inasmuch a person as the system, managing everything, is no longer able to "digest" these flows, to cope with them. And escalating power of the linked computer systems turns out not the assistant to a person more, but threat for him. Information collapse in the form of exit a manage system from the sphere of direct and adequate control by a person stops the functioning of a civilization.
That occurs further can only be assumed, but the civilization, as well as any difficult system, finally, breaks up with emergence on its place of something new; or after certain pause under suitable natural conditions on a former place arises the civilization similar to former and starts developing, forming already own accelerated time. [see, e.g., 7].
Another possibility is the emergence of so-called equilibrium-ecological civilization of a non-technological type in the same location from the remnants of the population, as a result of which its development is halted. This type of civilization is based on the interaction of small collectivist domains without private property, the prototype of which are the kibbutzim of Israel. Therefore, it can remain stable for quite a long time [see, e.g., 8].
This fact is extremely regrettable for the common consciousness, if only because our ordinary life in a relatively comfortable civilization is ending. And in this situation, this fact is true because the development of the human society as a limited system of civilization is not infinite.
The human civilization is finite and must disappear. But, on the other hand, civilization, once it has emerged, can arise again under suitable conditions, and this can continue ad infinitum.
So, eternal happiness in a communist or any other future does not threaten us, especially since the point of singularity has already arrived.
Be that as it may, life in its most diverse manifestations is possible only in the finite, in localized temporal gaps; it is precisely that imperfect, manifested reality in which consciousness can grow and develop, overcoming various essential thresholds, striving for perfection through countless lives in countless worlds, but never achieving perfection, and therefore never stopping.
Bibliography
1. Plato. Complete works. Republic. Hackett Publishing Company. 1997.
2. Tommaso Kampanella. City of the Sun. Amazon. ISBN-13. 978-1507823613.
3. K. Marx. The Communist Manifesto. Geneva. 1882.
4. Nizovtsev Yu. M. Property as the basis for the accelerated development of civilization. Monography “About the origin and manifestation of personality”. Chapter 3. 2024. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: www.amazon.
5. Дьяконов И.М.  Пути истории. От древнейшего человека до наших дней. КомКнига. Москва. 2007г.
6. Nizovtsev Yu. M. Time as a sliding present formed by alive. Monography “Creation as the unity of eternity in time and nothingness out of time”. Chapter 5. 2024. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: www.amazon.
7.  Nizovtsev Yu. M. On the source of entropy and its features in beingness. Monography “What determines a person's thoughts and actions?”. Chapter 5. 2024. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: www.amazon.
8. Nizovtsev Yu. M. Are "paradisiacal tabernacles” on Earth possible? Monography “On the causes of the consequences of the human activity”. Chapter 16. 2024. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: www.amazon.