Discussion in networks that arise in any mass protests (which we saw in the recent local unrest, and will see many more times), distinguished by one characteristic. The demonstrators see their goals and motives quite differently than they are evaluated by outside observers.
From the outside the Maidan showdown between rival construction firms, the interests of the external players — from within the people find these assumptions are blatantly false and deeply offensive. They came not for the state Department and not for someone’s corporate interests, and not to one official undermined the other — but for something clean, bright and deep just, came in the company of good, nice, trustworthy people, and certainly no state Department (or any other interested group) they were not paid a dime.
The majority of participants at the same time — that is, they are quite outspoken about their motives and experiences. Inside their experience, through their eyes, the situation looks that way. It is their vision, however, may not coincide with how the situation is perceived, so to speak, the organizers of the average. They understand that in order for the Banquet took place, it should be something planned and paid for. It requires effort and investment. People working full time. This does not mean that the person receiving the money for their political struggle, a cynical mercenary and doesn’t believe in what fights.
A person can be sincere, motivated, enthusiastic and dedicated fighter for all the good (or what appears to him as such), dedicates this fight all the time and effort. But at this time, someone has to feed, clothe, pay utilities, Internet and other prose of life. In his spare time, nothing much organized. All night to raise the anger of the masses, and then to work for nine? It will not work.
A person can be sincere in their beliefs — and to eat something anyway. The question of “who pays?” does not imply that the fighter — the man is insincere and corrupt. It implies that someone is interested enough in him, the fighter, and activities to support her financially. Says a wise American saying, “There is no such thing as free pizza” is “pizza doesn’t exist”. If you get the pizza for free, then paid for it by someone else. Someone who considered it a justifiable investment of money.
Of course, the wrestler could collect money from sympathizers on the Internet, but it is the responsibility of pleasant things, the source of scarce and unstable. If only under the guise of anonymous well-wishers on the Internet is not hiding someone more solid.
To conduct political work, we need some solid sponsors. The organizer of the intermediate level takes their money. That he may not share the objectives of those who gives them, and to proceed from the principle expressed by a famous revolutionary — an Alliance even with the devil if you cheat hell, but he is not you. For example, Ukrainian nationalists or “moderate Syrian opposition” ideologically have nothing in common with their American backers, that does not prevent them from accepting their help.
Thus, different levels of movement representation of its goals and values can be very different. Ordinary members can quite frankly do not understand the objectives of those who pays for dinner — and offended to the core when someone tells them about these goals. They went out for. Of course. That’s for customers only matters not the motivation of the participants — and the real goals that will be achieved with their help.
It is then people are asking a poignant question, “for this was the Maidan?”. From the point of view of ordinary members — no, of course not for it. From the point of view of the organizers — it is for this, and his goals he has achieved. It’s called manipulation — when, encourage people to act against their own interests — and, as a rule, keeping in the shadows the genuine purpose of the manipulator. However, these goals are not something completely incomprehensible. The loosening of the political situation is quite obvious interested parties.
The report of the analytical centre RAND Corporation, “How to overtax and to unbalance Russia” is in the web in the public domain, because there is nothing secret in it — as there is nothing secret in the fact that we live in a highly competitive world. The report on the theme “How can we undermine the ability of competing companies” is not surprising, the term, which is found in the subtitle of the report — cost-imposing, literally, “the imposition of rates” taken from the world economic competition and means a strategy that should force a competing company to spend forces and means unproductive way — and, thus, undermine their competitiveness.
Similar strategies apply in international relations — they are called “strategies of peace time”, because they suggest the opposition of the other powers without military action. Such attempts to undermine each other — a normal component of the relationship between competing corporations and the state. Right now we are seeing the economic conflict between the United States and China in which the US is trying to destroy the Chinese Corporation Huawei.
This, thank God, quite far from a real war — just as in the corporate world Apple will not be literally bomb the headquarters of Samsung, though the rhetoric of the leadership of Apple at times been very angry and even military. But to insert each spoke in the wheel, to recruit, to try to ban the sale of the goods of a competitor in their country on the court, stealing technology is plenty. Normal economic life in the spirit of healthy competition.
But back to the measures that are to apply to our country RAND to undermine Russia’s ability to threaten Western interests. Among these measures, for instance: “the Promotion of civil speeches and non-violent resistance could help to divert and destabilize the Russian regime and to reduce the likelihood that he will take vigorous action abroad.”
Nothing unusual in this. This is a completely standard technique in world politics is to encourage the fighters for freedom and the noble ideals of the powers that you wish to create internal difficulties and undermine, so their desire and ability to create problems in the international arena. The question here is not about some lofty ideals, and, especially, not about the interests of residents of foreign countries and corporations are least concerned about the well-being of shareholders and employees of competitors. We are talking about how to use the provocation of internal strife to weaken the competitor.
Returning to the example with the Huawei. Anybody in a head will not come that the purpose of the American authorities — to take care of the interests, rights and freedoms of employees of the Corporation or the Chinese in General. Of course, if the US government was able to ingratiate himself to the competitors and to rebel against their superiors, they would have done, but in the corporate world it’s hard to find people so incredibly naive. To imagine that the staff “Huawei” go to the Maidan against his incompetent, corrupt and aggressive leadership that they quarreled with the entire civilized world, is hardly possible.
But such naive people are easily found in the world of politics. Anyone really believe that a foreign government is sincerely interested in his welfare and prosperity — just for the sake of his beautiful eyes. Someone just carried away by the romanticism of the struggle. Some people are upset. But all these people have one thing in common — negligence and romantic naivete.
Having fun at the party, happily catching words of encouragement and support in your address, they avoid asking the question, “who organized the Banquet, and what he needs”, or even angry, when they pose this question. But the question is inevitable — in this world there is free pizza. And free cookies too, does not happen.
Read more •••