Why we are afraid of own children.

 This article arose out of continuation of theme of pension reform. («The pension myths”, “Pension reform: die today”, “Reform of the pension system”).

Clear that old men always and in any societies financed on an aftertaste, otherwise such society loses the future simply. Clear similarly, that the modern system of pensions carries all signs of mortal illness of society, namely the most cynical and unfair social inequality the simple removal of that immediately will result in disappearance of far-fetched problem of "absence of facilities".

 It is here suggested to dig deeper. Are the pensions needed in general?

Self on itself the pension system of old men is one of conquests of socialism, along with a 8-sentinel working day, free medicine, education and accommodation. To all this social package to that russians (and the whole world too) so got used, yet made default one hundred years, in 2017 there will be only the first centenary anniversary of revolution of bolshevists in Russia.

I.e. that us it seems to usual and natural, actually is the quite offtype phenomenon for all history of development of humanity. When in similar things everybody depended only upon the forces.

And this newest world order, the quite yet not getting cold period of history shows, as close there was an idea of state-nursemaid all of us, as liked to feel us protected and insured, thus so that we perceive it as the absolute law. But not revolutionary, inverting a traditional world order upside down, conquest (by the words of famouse Nina Anreeva), that needs to be valued, confirm and every day protect not in a joke, and seriously.

But because we did any authorities get used absolutely initially to call in a question, we will put the question point-blank: is it really so needed all this social lisping of the state with the fully independent and capable citizens, especially in part of parasitic attitude of old men?

In fact valuable and normal citizens, it not some abstract virtual being requiring regular sacral presents, but fully adequate and reasonable people that rather can be obliged, than to require. So why all this difficult system of total public slate-club, with all her expenses and abuses, if does everybody have (must, to be!) own children and old men?

And if does a man in young days do a choice in part of abandonment from creation of family and birth of children, i.e. does not perform the major public duty, then why are all other on him thrown down? Thus the question already is not about a justice, and about creation of direct destructive stimulus, destroying society.

  Stimulus that treats oneself an exactly such antistimulus, namely by parasitic attitude of young people. I.е. instead of that to lay on adults caring about old men, the state begins to pursue a stimulant policy in part of procreation, and then and employments of young people. Finally appropriating the unusual to him role of bread-winner of family, responsibility of head of family the same for continuation of family, for deserving existence of old men, for peace and prosperity.

In other words, an idea about a state-nursemaid too well lies down in the tendency of destruction of family, eliminations of distinctions between a man and woman, between the different age-related parts of population. Agree, though pensions, certainly, is good, but prospect is somehow not very.

  But we will continue logic of reasoning. State, beginning the systematic caring about old men and young people, formed the most loyal and easily manipulated task force the same. On any demonstrations and protests motive force is made by pensioners and students. Exactly "grandmothers" and "buckwheat" are the creators of brand "Leonid Chernovetskyi". Exactly pensioners and students are a basic contingent of Communist Party, reason of her permanent success, in spite of complete absence of the real political will to power.

  Exactly an increase of pensions is one of key promises within the framework of  Yanukovych’s "improvement".

  Thus pensioners and students are a not at all end, and only beginning. All greater amount of officials (in Russia - 1 million!), physicians, teachers, constabulary, soldiery etc. included in this task force total depending on the state dependants.

  If logically to continue a tendency, then with the increase of the labour productivity and height of all these parasitic layers, loading on remaining business and ordinary worker will surpass a critical level (to the curve of Laffer), that inevitably will result in a social explosion and autodestruction of such society. If the elite of society will envisage this explosion beforehand, then the use of one or another mechanisms of total violence is inevitable, for smoothing out of contradictions.

  Here especially to invent nothing and it is not needed, all logically enough and it is integrally described by Kurt Vonnegut in the "Player Piano". Those, who remained in the real business will become lucky persons, white neckwears and provided people. The same, who machines will eat the same as in 16 century of sheep, two variants will have: army, where it is possible infinitely to dig trenches and polish the buttons, and road-building works, where all approximately the same, only without a drill.

 Thus exactly in these two industries is introduction of improvements and innovations maximally laboured: why to deprive people and without that senseless work?

Is Milton Friedman here right really? I do not very love this scientist and political figure, as his basic achievement not at all advancement of some new economic ideas(stolen, in my opinion, at much more interesting and eccentric Silvio Gesell: open market, free, permanently depreciating money, free earth, free labour - it and there is modern monetarism). The basic achievement of Friedman is deep Orthodox belief in liberal market conception, and it already has small general with science.

 And however will we build a logical chainlet from the postulate of Friedman, there can be total and decisive destruction of the state will give some (let uncheap) panacea from the prospect of total appeal in a global concentration camp?

  It maybe in theory. Thus here again nevertheless more useful Gesell appears. In fact the key parcel of his society is the freedom, understood as possibility of absolute choice of place of inhabitation, sphere of employments, free access to means of production (in his presentation it is primary earth or small enterprises like smithies or mills).

 But an universal progress of industry trend is an all greater concentration of capital goods, for example all modern motor industry is symbiosis rather, than really free and independent competitors.

 In the terms of concentration of industrial and financial capital, every strengthening of role of the state is adequate and retentive, neutralizing the negative consequences of the first tendency.

  Therefore destruction of one of inhibitions and counterbalances, balancing society, results only in the yet greater rates of motion toward a total concentration camp.

   Before to walk up to culmination, it is needed to go back to a question that while fell out of consideration. If from the point of view of society on the whole clear that excessive parasitic attitude not too useful, then how on it to look from the point of view of ordinary man?

Universal, nescient rules and exceptions tradition there is a desire of parents maximal to minimize the dependence on children. Think, you can confirm my supervisions: all my grandmothers and grand-dads, and similarly the relatives of acquaintances preferred complete financial and economic independence, avoided even a hint on the physical weakness and incompetence, and in the same rarest cases, when the help of invalid tenders was really required, it was for them frightful punishment.

 Strange tradition, not true? In fact children for that and brought up, loved and pampered, in old age to get attention and caring.

 Why we are afraid of own children?

 Explanation, that all it is a rudimentary, animal fear of old men for the fate, it seems to far-fetched to me. Yes, there is tradition in the Chinese and Far-Eastern culture, when old men, not to eat youth leave from family. But it is not Russian and not christian tradition obviously. Our tradition - not to leave, guarding and guarding the children, giving the all best, and sometimes and only food. As in blockade Leningrad or during dearth on Ukraine. (My grandmother is left an orphan just like this, but she survived that.)

  Therefore I would see here not fear, and shame, understanding of own weakness and involvement to the lawlessness created in the world. We sign in that brought up the children worthless, unworthy. We are to the last afraid to give to them a right for a decision-making FOR US, supposing that they certainly will decide thinly.

 As a foolish mother that is nursed with a quadragenarian and fully infantile son is intellectual, that in a little while and roles will change inevitably.

 So from the third parcel we again come to the total world concentration camp, only already ensuing from all greater infantilism and lack of initiative of new generations of children.

 That to do?

 At least to grow up. As at most, to leave off to be afraid of own children bringing up their apt at serious, independent and adult decisions, a bit earlier to produce them in the world. To leave to them this world though slightly better, than reached to us from our parents, that oppressive sense of guilt was not before them.

 Really all? Yes.

However soon a difference from the point of view of parasitic attitude between old men, young people and strong healthy fellows apparently will not be quite.

 This will be a communism.

And as far as terrible or gloriously will live in this society depends exceptionally on a sphere non-material, from spiritual values, from veritable maturity of humanity.

 From our choice.