czech version


 Small communities, families and municipalities carried out the original care for its members. Big society (the state) limited these small communities in terms of their independence and economic possibilities. People living in the anonymous environment of a big city lacking togetherness did not feel well and started to require the security they had before. The feeling of insecurity and exploitation led to creating identity with big society, which however had to gradually and as a result of pressures such as the danger of totality, introduce the securities. While small communities took care of the security as needed and individually – the one carrying them out usually knew the cases and what they require, big societies had to issue many laws, create funds and the whole bureaucratic apparatus, and everything was very complicated and financially consuming. Even though social security comes from the same emotions as it used to in the tribal communities, people became citizens with the conviction of belonging to a great society with the same reasons they used to become a part of a hunter group, only their decision is now harder and they cannot influence the unproductiveness of the society, when on one part they explore pragmatic opinions concerning limitation of this juggernaut, mostly by overusing by other people, and on the other part there still is a fixed emotional bond with the people of the nation and state, which also has its own beneficial dimension. It just seems, that with the progression of the phenomenon of disjunction the beneficial bond gets stronger and the voices of general belonging are not heard, because selfishness grows stronger than understanding that the society needs to function properly. Nevertheless, beneficial dimension of social security gets into an argument between a specific society and an open society, as I stated for other things. Everyone knows that only a specific society can provide social security. Yet this society gets weaker, loses its strength in the global environment and becomes unable to fulfil its obligations.

 Politic socialism was building on social instincts of solidarity. Marxism was created based on this feeling overwhelming masses of people, and therefore could be utopic and became more of a religion that philosophy. The countries that had their social system based on Marxism proved, that they are not suitable for modern age, that they are not able to ensure free critical environment for development, and utopic theories tried to realize themselves through violence and doctrinal darkness. Democratic socialists refused violence and reached a certain respect and success in the critical environment of free societies. Marxism failed practically and was overcome by neo-positivism and critical rationalism. Democratic socialists became only the advocates of the rights of certain groups of people without philosophical base and they could only distribute the means to those, who they thought needed it. Open society of people in disjunction became the environment in which they cannot be successful. They became either irresponsible populists, promisors of brighter tomorrows on debt, reducing the themes to wishes and promises. It is as if they do not see that international corporations take their profits out of the state to avoid paying taxes, that the production is moved to third world countries and that the citizens cease to understand their connection to the state in such a rate, that they succumb to disjunction and nothingness. Social security is not threatened by the state, however it is not possible for the state to ensure it anymore. Socialists deny this fact and rather put the state in debt. Given the circumstances, socialists are rather the parasites of the nation and they create an uncertain future. This is nothing more than a conflict of a specific and open society, which shows disjunction supporting open society, and belonging, which holds a specific society.

 It is obvious, that in an open society of exploited people there will be no social security. Therefore the apologists of open society have a problem with socialism itself, because such socialism is an affair of the state, and the state is not a friend of exploitation, but it requires rooting to function. Rooting is hardly comparable to open society. No one is talking about the possibility to restore small communities like families and municipalities, the advocates of neo-rationalism do not point this out, and actually they even cannot point this out, because emotions are supposed to disappear. The man becomes completely disjointed and he has to ensure all types of social security commercially. However, this is dubious too. In an open society, there is no guarantee of deposits and insurance payments. There is no sponsor taking on the responsibility, no one will save the people if their banks go bankrupt. Open society in its current form is a nothingness, which tries to make the impression of general and encompassing awareness. Nothingness cannot provide anything. And also the mistake, that belonging to a great society, usually called patriotism, can be substituted by a “nothingness” relying on the “perfect” man, who when free, moves through the world like a fish in the sea and shows social belonging naturally, however there are no institutions in the world that would require moral behaviour anymore.

The apologists of socialism are usually on a sort of top of unnatural thinking. Natural mechanisms are their archenemies; they do not want to hear about them, they see only the bad in them. They usually do not want to hear about the fact that a man needs to work and make effort not to psychosomatically degrade, that they are not able tocreate a paradise on Earth, where based on advanced technologies, people would not work and just carry out “meaningful” activities according to their taste. They do not want to talk about such things, because their humanitarianism (all for human well-being) does not allow them to. By this they create an environment where there is no chance to end the unnaturalness. Socialism however needs the state and apologists of socialism therefore have to proclaim belonging so that the state exists. This is in conflict with proletarian internationalism and syncretic projects are emerging. Despite this fact, socialism promotes disjunction. A secured person does not need to have solidarity bonds to other people, because they have been granted security by the state. The state is a substitution for a mother, who has to care for her children, and therefore everyone can stay a child. Infantile thinking is thinking lacking responsibility and has nothing to do with economic thinking. We can see this demonstrated in today’s protest events. It is a cry of a baby, who had its toy taken away. Citizens are reaching out and socialists are still promising something. Who becomes an adult and starts a family gets into trouble, which the social state tries to solve, but is not able to, because the expenses for families are enormously higher than those for an individual adolescent.