Problems of communism
Alexander Lopin

© Alexander Lopin, 2026

ISBN 978-5-0071-1846-0

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Introduction

The ghost of communism continues to wander around the planet and bother minds. Especially now, in the era of the crisis of imperialism degradation and the crisis of development of the communist social system, when it has become clear that consumer society is doomed. Consumer society faces the challenge of transitioning to the harmony of communist social system, the challenge of the transition to communism. The observed intensification of the struggle between imperialism and communism, which is undergoing a period of convergence with capitalism, demands a new way of thinking, a renewal of thought, and the creation of a developmental worldview as an alternative to the dominant consumerist worldview.

After defeating communism in the Cold War, imperialism gradually transitioned to a hot war. But the Russian oligarchy and bureaucracy still consider themselves business partners of the West, although in reality, imperialism wrote them off back in 2021. The situation has long since changed, but the mindset and paradigm of thinking in Russia have not yet changed.

This complex geopolitical environment requires new thinking, beginning with the fundamentals and depths of reality, to identify and calculate new paths and methods of action. The following chapters examine these paths and methods.

Information war.

Information warfare is the essence of the current sociosphere. And the battlefield in such a war is the brain — that is, thinking.

On the benefits of cognitive dissonance.

New information and new cognitive technologies force us to abandon the old mentality, which is fraught with the loss of logical thinking, although it can lead to a new paradigm and new thinking.

The struggle of hierarchies as a struggle of instincts.

Society is built as an interaction of three hierarchies — bureaucratic, commercial and cognitive as a manifestation of the instincts of dominance, consumption and curiosity.

Exploitation is necessary for development.

This is the most terrible secret of Marxism. Marx revealed it to everyone in his commentary on the Gotha Program, proclaiming the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But Marxists didn’t believe him. Admittedly, some Marxists did believe Marx, including the Bolsheviks.

The problem of communism.

Communism, understood as a social state or a consumer society, is incapable of self-development. It might be said that under communism there will be no state. But even then, communism, as a welfare society, will be incapable of self-development. Collectivism is based on the idea of consumption. For this reason, communism faces the problem of free will, as free will is incompatible with the priority of consumption. Therefore, under communism, freedom of will comes to the fore through freedom of thought and freedom of cognition.

Convergence causes divergence.

Development as the emergence of something new is divergence, that is, the bifurcation of the unified and the interaction of the resulting opposites. And convergence is the negation of past divergence during synthesis, although it leads to further divergence.

Geopolitical forecast for the next 50 years.

According to developmental theory and ordering theory, a new system develops through struggle with the old system, with the development of the new system determined by the rate of degradation of the old system. In response to this degradation, the new system is forced to evolve. After a period of degradation, the system enters a state of homeostasis and loses its ability to develop.

Information war

The current state of the sociosphere should be described as an information war. And the battlefield in such a war is the brain, that is, thinking. Thinking operates with concepts and abstractions. Thinking is only possible in the realm of ideas. Therefore, an information war is a war of ideas. The main ideological struggle is between ideas of system change and ideas of adaptation to the system’s existing state. In reality, the modern information war is a struggle of worldviews — a worldview of consumption versus a worldview of development. Dogmatics versus dialectic, degrading stability versus development. Adaptation and adjustment are the path to degradation. System change is possible only through its development.

The era of free information exchange demands free thought, and free thought only becomes so when thought is subordinated to development, when the practice of cognition is based on developmental theory as a method of cognition. Free thinking shapes precisely the kind of practice of cognition that can guide social practice. Therefore, free thinking — thinking oriented toward the development of the individual and society — wins in the information war. For personal development is only possible through the practice of social development.

Domination of society is achieved through purpose. Pure violence reduces society to the animal world. Thus, purpose dominates society. But purpose must be adequate, or, in other words, purpose must correspond to the development of the system. Communism as a purpose: the development of each individual is the key to the development of society. The practice of social development lies in the development of labor relations, the network of which is the foundation of human society. The development of the network of labor relations is possible through the conscious struggle of reasonable enthusiasts against unreasonable consumers within work collectives. This will be a permanent revolution, as Trotsky envisaged, but within the work collective. Lenin dreamed of class-conscious workers. Apparently, their time has come. Communism will be a synthesis of socialism and war communism, but to achieve this, technological superiority over imperialism will have to be achieved through social technological superiority in the course of information warfare.

What is information? Judging by the name, it is something in form, something formalized — knowledge in material form. Information, according to Wikipedia, is knowledge, regardless of its form of presentation. So, knowledge is information, and information is information. A tautology. Moreover, this is clearly anthropocentrism, since knowledge or information presupposes a person. But what about the information code of Alive Matter? Or the information interactions of Lifeless Matter, including quantum effects and quantum computers?

Therefore, information is the material form of the possible, where the possible appears as the opposite of the actual in the driving contradiction of Matter (the actual versus the possible). The possible or ideal originates from Virtuality, in which law has primacy over chance (Fig. 1).

In this regard, the impossible can move from a person’s fantasy or assumption into information only after it becomes consistent in the course of cognition and, most importantly, turns into a reflection of reality in accordance with Lenin’s theory of reflection.

Science is formalized cognition, and human cognition is a product of information, that is, a product of the possible (the lawful) filtered by reality. Without the actual, the possible remains in the virtual. Therefore, the absolutization of the lawful (determinism) leads cognition into the virtual. Determinism also creates the artificial problem of preserving information when matter falls into a black hole, that is, when matter returns to the virtual. In general, the so-called scientific approach, or empiricism, absolutizes law and, ultimately, arrives at a first impulse or God.

The possible gains freedom in consciousness in the form of concepts, abstractions, and ideas. It must be remembered that consciousness is a product of social development and evolves alongside the development of social relations. Concepts, abstractions, and ideas arise in abstract thinking through its conflict with sensory perception, and within the contradiction between order and disorder.

Cognition develops alongside the development of the conceptual basis of epistemology. Therefore, the development of philosophy should be considered in terms of the development of epistemology. First came Socrates, who articulated the problem of epistemology: «I know that I know nothing.» Plato created a theory of ideas, which are shadows of reality. Aristotle, by linking concepts with reality, essence with phenomenon, substituted essence for phenomenon, thus laying the foundations of scholasticism. Hegel completed Aristotle’s system, thereby discovering the dialectic of development. Marx purged dialectic of the primacy of the ideal and advanced the idea of conscious scientific development (philosophers must change the world). The origins of this idea can be found in Plato. Lenin discovered the method of concept formation (the theory of reflection), the mode of development (the bifurcation of the unified and the subsequent interaction of the new and the old), and the main requirements for epistemology (historicity, that is, the consideration of the object of research in its development), thereby laying the foundations of development theory. Development theory views the world from the perspective of the succession of driving contradictions. As a result, it turns out that the theory of development, as a method of cognition, completes the theory of cognition, which opens the way to the synthesis of knowledge.

The problem of transitioning from dogmatic to dialectical thinking arises. The very nature of abstract thinking hinders this transition, if only because it is so energy-consuming («too much knowledge multiplies sorrow» — Ecclesiastes). And since thinking occurs within the contradiction between abstract thinking and sensory perception, given the primacy of sensory perception, the body, through the senses, attempts to reduce the energy consumption of thinking by simplifying the thought process and even blocking it. The simplest way to do this is by believing in dogmas perceived as absolute knowledge. These dogmas enter thinking from the dominant worldview during brain development. If the dominant worldview changes, the dogmas are replaced, which can cause cognitive dissonance.

A system of dogmas develops, beginning with the mythological stage of cognition, and serves as the ideological foundation of society, for it generally affirms the law of society. This law is subsequently elevated to the law of the universe and personified as God, the Almighty. The determinism of scientific cognition is contained within the framework of this same worldview. The transition to a developmental worldview will inevitably be accompanied by cognitive dissonance, as development is a succession of driving contradictions, which rejects the absolutization of law, which is always opposed by chance. It should be noted that with a developmental worldview, absolutization of development is impossible, as development is the leading opposition in contradiction to universal connection, universal interdependence. This worldview will be followed by a worldview of order, in which order will be opposed by absolute freedom.

The question arises: can dogmatic thinking, imbued with dogma with its mother’s milk, overcome cognitive dissonance and achieve dialectical thinking? Two individuals, Marx and Lenin, are known to have emerged from the dominant worldview. Presumably, there are other examples, but these individuals have been sidelined by the dogmatic majority. Consequently, dialecticians must create their own worldview, a developmental worldview, and a corresponding cognitive hierarchy, for this is what the logic of contemporary socio-economic development, the logic of information warfare, dictates.

Dialecticians triumph over dogmatists because they advocate development, whereas the victory of dogmatists brings about the collapse of the system. Furthermore, consumers, as bearers of dogmatism, experience an internal split, which stems from the need for human development. This need arises as a consequence of consuming labor relations in the labor process; that is, human development is a characteristic of labor relations. Outside of labor relations, human development is impossible. It is precisely this unconscious need for personal development that gives rise to spontaneous enthusiasm, activism, and all manner of rebellion against order. Therefore, the task of reasonable enthusiasts is to channel this spontaneous enthusiasm toward the development of labor relations.

On the benefits of cognitive dissonance

«A number of experiments conducted by psychologists in recent years have shown that the higher a person’s level of education, the more stubbornly they refuse to change their point of view in the face of contradictory information. Simply put, it’s easier, on average, to convince someone with only nine grades and a corridor than someone with two degrees. As far as I remember, this has been tested, including on supporters of all sorts of conspiracy theories. Why? There are various theories. Perhaps an educated person is more skilled at inventing counterarguments. Perhaps their belief system is internally more logical, and they can’t abandon some element of it without jeopardizing the core. Perhaps education gives a certain confidence in one’s own intellectual superiority, which prevents one from admitting one’s own mistakes. Whatever the case, the fact remains: education and intellectual skills not only do not guarantee against delusions, but often hinder the elimination of them.» (from the internet).

Fichte in his Jena period. Kubitsky, Alexander Vladislavovich (1880—1937). «When his system is attacked, the dogmatist is truly in danger of losing himself.» Dimly aware of his own wrongness, powerless to repel the attack on his system, «he defends himself with fervor and ferocity.» He «becomes heated, distorts facts, and would initiate persecution if it were in his power.» Thus, the inability to recognize one’s true independence and self-worth, «a character inactive by nature or weakened and crippled by spiritual slavery» — these are the causes that create the ground for dogmatism; and it will disappear when these factors disappear.

So, the whole problem with dogmatism lies in spiritual slavery, that is, the lack of freedom of thought. Therefore, dogmatists’ confidence in their own intellectual superiority is merely a defensive reaction to a latent fear of being wrong — a hidden intellectual inferiority complex. Most likely, the problem lies in cognitive dissonance, that is, cognitive breakdown. Abstract thinking filters incoming information and continually seeks new doses of doping, that is, acceptable information. Therefore, theories die along with their proponents. Every theory is based on certain initial axioms and is doomed to revolve within their boundaries, constantly bumping into them and not daring to transcend them, for by doing so, it will inevitably destroy itself. Thus, every theory is a closed system that unsuccessfully attempts to reflect the open, evolving system of the universe. A blockage of consciousness occurs, prohibiting (tabooing) any departure beyond the palisade of initial axioms, although these axioms are merely ideal entities. But the difficulty is that these ideal entities are concepts of abstract thought and are tightly linked to sensory perception, which, in turn, is tightly linked to human physiology. This is the reason for the cognitive breakdown that occurs when old theories collapse.

There’s also a purely mercantile interest at play here. As they say, people in science are spiteful, envious, petty, vindictive, and deeply immoral. The theft of scientific ideas, backbiting, manipulation of grants and articles, and the use of administrative resources to harm competitors are rampant in the scientific community. There are a few truly outstanding people who have proven themselves to be decent.

«I believe because it’s absurd.» Feelings control consciousness, feelings direct consciousness. I believe what feels good to believe. Sensory perception controls abstract thinking. The fact is, the brain gets pleasure when it realizes it doesn’t have to change its worldview, that it doesn’t have to rebuild its thinking patterns. Therefore, in the realm of information exchange, it seeks examples of confirmation and rejects examples of denial. I believe because it’s absurd, but it feels good. Consequently, the masses are information addicts.

Cognitive dissonance is accompanied by excruciating withdrawal, against which the brain defends itself by blocking consciousness. This can’t happen because it can never happen. Propaganda operates on feelings: «our minds are seething with indignation and ready to wage mortal combat.» But at the same time, in conditions of free information exchange, the brain itself selects information that pleases it, rejecting or involuntarily blocking information that disrupts its belief system or undermines its faith.

Free will is the process of realizing one’s social purpose. But this requires awareness of one’s social purpose. Consequently, the practice of cognition comes to the fore. Therefore, free will is possible only for rational people, who thereby become reasonable enthusiasts.

Every theory is a dogmatic theory, for it cannot contain the struggle of contradictions within itself. Every theory is determinism, and determinism is doomed to ascend to some abstract unity or axiom. For example, Euclid’s theory ascends to the sum of the angles in a triangle, and Einstein’s theory to the speed of light. These axioms are presented as a primary essence, sometimes shaped like God or another fundamentally unknowable entity. Therefore, determinism logically leads to agnosticism, since it cannot, in principle, model the contradictory nature of the evolving world. Determinism absolutizes universal connection, the connection of everything with everything. But in reality, development breaks old connections to create new connections. Therefore, it is necessary to consciously maintain the primacy of development over interconnectedness.

The question arises: can there be dialectical theories? Only a theory of cognition based on developmental theory adopted as a method of cognition can be dialectical. As it turns out, the theory of cognition is a contradictory unity of developmental theory and ordering theory. The only way to overcome cognitive dissonance and the subsequent cognitive breakdown is to think in contradictions in accordance with developmental theory as a method of cognition.

Marxism is not a dogmatic theory and, therefore, does not adhere to determinism. Therefore, Marxism has been unsuccessfully criticized from the standpoint of determinism. The essence of Marxism is the contradiction between production and consumption, or the same contradiction in the form of labor relations and exchange relations. Lenin approached the understanding of development as «the bifurcation of the one into mutually exclusive opposites and the interrelationships between them.» Lenin then outlined a method for presenting the theory of development, which consists of finding «the simplest, most ordinary, fundamental, most widespread, most commonplace, billions of times encountered relation» that would contain «all the contradictions» of the object being studied, the phenomenon — in our case, development. Such a simple, ordinary, fundamental relation for development is undoubtedly the «bifurcation of the one» and the subsequent interaction of opposites. However, the one is not primordial, but is a product of previous development.

The encounter with the contradictions of existence forces dogmatic abstract thinking to invent new entities to theoretically justify the original dogmas or axioms. As a result, abstract thinking evolves. Within Christianity, particularly within its Western version, scholasticism arose, which in Hegel’s system reached its apex in the form of abstract dialectics. But Hegel’s dialectic ascended to the absolute idea as some kind of primordial unity; that is, here we have the same determinism, only a side view. Only Marx revolutionized cognition by moving to the study of the actual contradictions of development.

It should be noted that the one is the opposite of the many, just as discontinuity is the opposite of extension, the finite is the opposite of infinity, the photon particle is the opposite of the electromagnetic wave, and so on. Therefore, determinism, which rejects the contradictory nature of development, can only reflect the world one-sidedly and is incapable of describing development in principle. As Kozma Prutkov noted, a specialist is like a gumboil; his fullness is one-sided.

It should also be remembered that historically, Hegel’s theory of abstract dialectics arose within Christianity as the realization of Jesus’s testament — a conscious striving for God as the personification of good, which opened up freedom to abstract thought. This can be read in Hegel’s «Life of Jesus.» As a result, man becomes the subject of cognition, albeit abstract cognition. Other religions have failed to rise to this level. Judaism and its counterpart, Islamism, were unable to completely overcome paganism, turning God into their own property. Hinduism remains a diversified system of paganism to this day. Interestingly, Buddhism, which originated within Hinduism, was soon supplanted. Buddhism rejects abstract thinking or subordinates it to sensory perception, as does yogic practice. Chinese ideology is built on the absolutization of the state (Confucianism and Legalism). Taoism is a synthesis of Buddhism and yogic practice.

The religious worldview is built on self-awareness. Self-awareness is consumer thinking, as self-awareness is based on the recognition of individual needs (which represents progress relative to primitive consciousness). This implies the dogmatic nature of self-awareness and consumer thinking, for individualism underlies thinking, through which social demands are recognized. Self-awareness is based on social dogmas, dogmas of social consciousness, or worldviews adapted to self-awareness, with which they can be used to control people in the interests of the social system.

The current practice of controlling the masses, whose thinking is typically based on self-awareness, is carried out by playing on the basest animal instincts, the most important of which is the instinct of self-preservation or fear. Therefore, people are first intimidated by real or imaginary threats through the use of public consciousness. Then, as a defense, not a plan or theory is offered, but a group of people who supposedly possess methods of defending against the threat. And finally, people are forced, by the very need to overcome fear as a negative emotion, to believe in their saviors. People are freed from fear through faith. Along with faith comes a dose of pleasure and positive emotions in the form of a sense of security and pride in being among the saviors of a given social system or of all humanity. Subsequently, faith (dogmatic thinking) hinders criticism of the initial intimidation.

Naturally, after the collapse or degradation of a social system, doubts about previous beliefs or old dogmas arise. This results in cognitive dissonance and cognitive breakdown. The transition from self-awareness to reason within the framework of thought is only possible through cognitive breakdown. The fact is that human thinking initially develops as dogmatic thinking. The transition to dialectical thinking, that is, to thinking in contradictions, requires understanding the evolutionary picture of the developing world. To think dialectically, one must consider the development of contradictions, for the developing world is woven from contradictions. The transition from self-awareness to reason is simultaneously a transition to free will. Free will is a transition from the practice of cognition to subjectivity, which in reality means the creation of a developmental worldview by reasonable enthusiasts.

The struggle of hierarchies as a struggle of instincts

Power, economics, and ideology are the three components of a social system. That is, bureaucratic hierarchy, commercial hierarchy, and cognitive hierarchy coexist within society.

Trade hierarchy, bureaucracy, cognitive hierarchy

Bureaucratic hierarchy is built on the instinct of dominance, or, equivalently, the instinct of violence. It is the flip side of the instinct of self-preservation. The instinct of violence served as the foundation of the labor process, for all labor is an overcoming of environmental resistance, as well as an overcoming of the individual’s own nature. The instinct of violence is opposed by the instinct of consumption, which has a more ancient origin, dating back to the Archean period. It served as the basis for barter relations and the trade hierarchy. The cognitive hierarchy owes its origin to the instinct of curiosity.

In society, labor relations are the leading element in the system of social relations. Labor created society, but since labor is a purposeful activity, all labor is preceded by mental activity, all labor is preceded by cognitive activity. Even the most obtuse performer must have a plan of action in mind, and this mental plan must precede the work.

Therefore, in a primitive community, cognitive activity and the network of information exchange inevitably created a cognitive hierarchy in the form of shamans, sorcerers, oracles, magicians, seers and prophets, sorcerers, and priests, who developed a worldview in the form of mythology. Consequently, cognitive hierarchy is a consequence of the necessity of mental activity for the conduct of labor. Cognitive activity arises from the instinct of curiosity. Through mythology, the community distinguished itself from the surrounding nature and other communities with different mythologies.

Labor, unlike cognition, is violence: violence against oneself and violence against external nature. Therefore, in the contradiction between the cognitive hierarchy and the hierarchy of labor relations (bureaucracy), the latter takes precedence. The thought of resisting the forces of nature is not violence, it lacks subjectivity, but acting on such a thought already constitutes violence against nature, for example, building a house or organizing a community for the purpose of hunting mammoths. We must understand that organizing, that is, organizing, a collective is also labor activity. Labor relations require order, which forces the network of labor relations to create a hierarchy in the form of a bureaucratic system. Consequently, at the core of labor relations lies the instinct of violence turned against oneself, that is, violence against one’s own animal nature. Due to the subjectivity of labor, the instinct of violence initially dominates the instinct of curiosity, and, accordingly, bureaucracy dominates the cognitive hierarchy.

The instinct for violence, as the flip side of the instinct for self-preservation, originates from the animal nature of man, but within the framework of social relations, it is used by society to create a social system. As the saying goes, «Whoever hinders us, helps us.» Violence is inherited by society from the herd organization, and within the network of social relations, against the backdrop of emerging free will, it is transformed into labor relations, from which bureaucracy emerges as a hierarchy within the network of labor relations.

At the beginning of society’s historical development, there was a constant interaction between cognitive hierarchy and bureaucracy. This resulted in the ordering of society and the Neolithic Revolution. However, the transition of human consciousness to the stage of self-awareness led to the recognition of oneself as an individual, to an awareness of one’s needs, and led to the disintegration of the primitive community. This became a necessary condition for the exploitative system and the primacy of exchange relations based on the consumer instinct.

Interaction within the contradiction between cognitive hierarchy and bureaucracy (a power hierarchy based on violence through labor relations) constitutes the essence of the primitive communal system. Violence can acquire subjectivity only if the cognitive hierarchy not only specifies a goal but also organizes society based on a worldview. Any governance requires prior organization of thought. Therefore, violence (bureaucracy) is forced to operate within the framework of an already established worldview. Therefore, leaders require shamans, and the subjectivity of shamans is limited by the abstract thinking of people, which is a consequence of the social practices existing in a given period.

Under favorable economic conditions, the disintegration of the primitive community allowed priests to achieve primacy over chieftains or to control them. In Sumer, temple economies formed the basis of the economy. Similarly, in Ancient Egypt, before its unification by the pharaohs, temple economies existed, and subsequent pharaohs were required to perform fertility rituals under the guidance of priests. In Ancient China, before the Qing Shi Huangdi Empire, kingdoms were influenced by a cognitive hierarchy. The life story of Confucius confirms this. It can be assumed that the influence of priests was decisive during the early emergence of kingdoms.

The ancient economies listed above arose in favorable natural conditions and represent the Asiatic mode of production. Exchange relations in this mode of production were initially subject to the control of the cognitive hierarchy, as the disintegration of the community and the transition to a temple economy took place within the framework of mythology, and the priests controlled the labor process through both mythology and exchange relations. Subsequently, after the priests lost their power due to conquests by surrounding tribes, the new military administration was forced to assume the priests’ functions. Interestingly, the last example of the Asiatic mode of production was the Jesuit state in Paraguay in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Under conditions of resource scarcity, the disintegration of the community led to the primacy of leaders over shamans in the process of seizing resources from other communities. The surrounding sociosphere was presented to the invaders as a biosphere to be consumed in accessible ways, like hunting wild animals. As a result of wars, a hierarchy of violence arose on a clan or tribal basis. The Assyrian Empire is the first and most striking example of an empire based solely on violence. However, the bureaucracy came under the control of barter relations, as military actions were waged for wealth, and captives were sold. Therefore, in the ensuing first stage of the exploitative system (slavery), barter relations took precedence, while power relations lost their agency (people died for metal). Merchants came to the forefront of social development, thus forming a trade hierarchy. The exchange of consumer goods became the driving force behind social development. At the same time, people themselves, as speaking tools, were transformed into commodities. It should be noted here that the exchange system requires a state for its existence, both for protection and for external management, that is, by the bureaucracy. We must recognize that competition among traders is not like communicating vessels, but like communicating bubbles.

Marx wrote that all social struggle in ancient Rome revolved around land ownership. The key word here is «property,» and property is a consequence of the system of exchange of commodities. Consequently, social struggle in ancient Rome was determined and controlled by this exchange system, that is, by the commercial hierarchy (senators). This social struggle unfolded within the contradiction between the military bureaucracy and the commercial hierarchy, while the cognitive hierarchy played a passive but necessary role in the consolidation of society. Ultimately, as a synthesis of this contradiction, after the civil war, imperial power emerged, financed by the Senate. Society found itself under the control of the commercial hierarchy, labor relations came under the control of exchange relations, and the bureaucratic hierarchy lost its connection with society.

A society transformed into a market lost its ideological coherence and disintegrated into separate economies linked only by barter. Therefore, the Romans, for example, were the last to notice the collapse of the empire, only when Rome was conquered by barbarians. But long before its collapse, ideological processes aimed at creating a unifying worldview were underway in Roman society. To achieve this, pluralism in relation to various mythologies was allowed. As a result, Christian sects prevailed. As the state disintegrated, the role of the state was assumed by the church organization, resulting in the emergence of the papacy in Italy.

Relying on Christianity allowed Constantine to preserve the Eastern Roman Empire virtually intact by consolidating society around a single religion. Moreover, Constantine played a decisive role in the creation of Christianity as a religion. He organized a council at which he forced the hierarchs to achieve unity and develop an orthodox version of Christianity. Before him, Christianity existed in various sects and was essentially mythology. Only with reliance on power did Christianity become a religion, that is, a bond between people through ideal violence (fear of death, trampling death by death, necrophilia, heavenly bliss, etc.), reinforced by the actual violence of the state. Consequently, a cognitive hierarchy, just as a commercial hierarchy, cannot exist without a state.

Similarly, Islam, after its origins as mythology, spread its ideas through violence and evolved into a religion. Judaism, on the other hand, was a tribal mythology that allowed the tribe to consolidate even in the diaspora. Moreover, the cognitive hierarchy secured a leading position in society and prevented bureaucracy from gaining power over it, while simultaneously acting in concert with the commercial hierarchy.

Thus, neither the trade hierarchy (based on the exchange of consumer goods) nor the cognitive hierarchy (based on the exchange of information) are capable of ensuring the governance of society without the state, without the bureaucratic hierarchy (which exercises real violence).

It’s interesting to trace the evolution of the interaction between bureaucracy and cognitive hierarchy. The emergence of collective labor and labor relations based on the «do as I do» method arose from experience (social practice), but this experience had to be generalized into a system of concepts in the form of culture and mythology for the «do as I do» method to work. Therefore, the development of labor relations proceeded in parallel with the development of thought in the process of social practice. But since labor relations and power relations (bureaucracy) occupy a leading position in social practice, the development of thought and cognitive hierarchy occupy a subordinate position in social practice.

The disintegration of the community due to increased economic efficiency and the development of exchange relations allowed the cognitive hierarchy to assume a leading position in social practice, creating ideological cover for the transition to a class state and the transition to an exploitative system. A symbiosis of priests and the state emerged, in which the state was assigned the role of violence against the body, and the cognitive hierarchy the role of spiritual violence against thought. This symbiosis is characteristic of the Asian mode of production. If the disintegration of the community occurred not peacefully, but militarily, through conquest, then the bureaucracy had no need for the patronage of the cognitive hierarchy. As a result, the latter remained in the background and, remaining relatively free, was able to pursue pure cognition, as was observed in Ancient Greece, albeit within the framework of mythology.

However, without ideological support, slave empires were doomed to collapse (unlike empires with an Asian mode of production). Therefore, Byzantium was able to survive much longer than the Roman Empire due to the establishment of a symbiosis of religion and state, with the state playing a leading role. After the fall of Constantinople, Orthodox hierarchs flourished under the control of a Muslim state. The Catholic Church, in the context of feudal fragmentation, itself became a feudal lord and, as such, incorporated state functions and barter relations (trading in indulgences). This circumstance served as the ideological impetus for the Reformation and the development of capitalism. Ultimately, other states left the Vatican’s ideological functions, while its participation in barter relations remained unchanged.

Development of people’s thinking

In primitive communities, the formation of consciousness had been completed, but thinking was not yet capable of self-awareness. Therefore, people’s spontaneous, conscious behavior resembled programmed robots: if everyone else ran, I ran too. Even in today’s society, there are people who live their lives, so to speak, without regaining consciousness. It is well known that in a crowd overwhelmed by strong emotions, people lose the ability to self-awareness. It was precisely the use of human consciousness under the control of a cognitive hierarchy that enabled the creation of a new economy in ancient kingdoms under favorable natural conditions. Subsequently, with the development of barter relations, consciousness evolved into self-awareness, based on the instinct for consumption. Ultimately, the primacy of barter relations over all other relationships reached its peak in the contract between people and the gods: people will worship and make sacrifices to the gods, and the gods will be kind to them. Thus, human self-awareness is a product of barter relations — people perceive themselves, first and foremost, as conscious consumers. This leads to the idea of free will as freedom of consumption, which inevitably ends in a dead end of consumption.

Under feudalism, the bureaucratic hierarchy interacted with the cognitive hierarchy, while the commercial hierarchy faded into the background, although it exercised indirect primacy over the bureaucracy, as merchants financed wars. Under capitalism, the commercial hierarchy regained its primacy over the bureaucracy, while the religious cognitive hierarchy was discredited and bifurcated, with the emergence of science. Science came under the control of the commercial hierarchy. The primacy of the commercial hierarchy over bureaucracy achieved harmony when a society, having accepted barter relations as its foundation, chooses a bureaucracy to govern itself through barter relations. This social construct is called bourgeois democracy.

In a communist system, the bureaucratic hierarchy establishes primacy over the commercial hierarchy, while the cognitive hierarchy falls under the control of the bureaucracy. Thus, in the modern era, science is under the control of the commercial hierarchy and science is under the control of the bureaucracy, just as there is the primacy of the commercial hierarchy over the bureaucracy and the primacy of the bureaucracy over the commercial hierarchy.

The information exchange network generates a cognitive hierarchy. The cognitive hierarchy uses human thinking to organize (preserve) social relations. That is, its existence and social functions are a consequence of the existing development of human thinking, but it cannot in principle contribute to the development of thinking, as the cognitive hierarchy is only capable of preserving and transmitting existing information. Therefore, the development of thinking and cognition occurs both thanks to and in spite of the cognitive hierarchy. The cognitive hierarchy controls the information exchange network and, accordingly, the development of consciousness, just as the trade hierarchy controls exchange relations and, accordingly, production.

Science and Christianity. Jesus’s ideas about the conscious pursuit of good served as the foundation for the development of self-awareness and free will. It was free will that allowed the instinct of curiosity to break free within the framework of abstract thought and create science as an alternative cognitive hierarchy, yet still within the framework of religion. The new religion for science is determinism — that is, the dogmatic absolutization of law and the rejection of the inconsistency of the world and the contradictory interaction of law and chance. The absolutization of law leads to the denial of the infinity of the world and the denial of its development.

However, abstract thinking merely reflects reality. It comes, according to Marx, post A festum, like a hangover after a party. Abstractions reflect the surrounding reality (Lenin). Therefore, science, as a cognitive hierarchy, cannot in principle become a subject of social development and is forced to serve the interests of either the commercial hierarchy or the bureaucracy.

People are governed by feelings and emotions (that is, conscious feelings), not by ideas. Therefore, a worldview is a socialized sense of things, not ideas. Ideas are merely a consequence of socialized feelings and emotions. But if ideas evoke general feelings or are associated with specific feelings — that is, if they correspond with general emotions — then such ideas gain mass appeal. A worldview is formed on the basis of what is good and what is bad, defined by a system of social relations that appears to the individual as an indisputable reality. Indisputable because the individual cannot escape it without losing their humanity.

Hegel described the evolution of abstract thinking in his «Phenomenology of Spirit» as a succession of stages: consciousness, self-consciousness, and reason. According to recent data, the brain’s limbic system ensures the primacy of sensory perception over abstract thinking, while the frontal cortex governs thinking through its socialization. Therefore, society governs people’s abstract thinking through their worldview. Self-consciousness is blocked by the limbic system (fear and terror), but reason is not. Self-consciousness is controlled through fear and through the blocking of consciousness. Reason cannot be blocked, for it is immersed in the practice of cognition. Therefore, Marx wrote in 1845, «philosophers must change the world,» signifying the subjectivity of the practice of cognition.

The struggle of instincts in the development of human thinking

To address the problem of the emergence of collectivism and the development of thought, we must examine the emergence of labor relations in the human herd. Marx pointed out that people enter into labor relations under the pressure of survival. This point is the starting point for the materialist worldview. Marx also proposed that human society arose with the production of tools. Indeed, tool use is found in the animal kingdom; for example, sea otters use stones to crack shells. But if tool production arises, then so does the division of labor. It is precisely this division of labor that facilitates, on the one hand, the formation of a network of labor relations, and, on the other, facilitates the ordering of this network with the formation of a bureaucratic hierarchy. However, the very emergence of tool production is not a consequence of either the consumer instinct or the dominance instinct, since the emergence of something new cannot be accomplished by command or by desire, for this newness does not yet exist in nature. This newness can only be invented through curiosity and experimentation. The instinct of curiosity is inherited from the biosphere; it is a consequence of the primacy of information acquisition over information transmission, which is the essence of the succession of biological species. Moreover, the instinct of curiosity lies at the origins of consciousness, for consciousness is the product of labor relations and the division of labor that arise from the instinct of curiosity.

The instinct for dominance has struggled with the instinct for consumption throughout the history of the sociosphere. If the instinct for consumption is a necessary condition for labor relations, then the instinct for dominance is a sufficient condition for the formation of labor relations, since labor itself is a violation of external and internal nature through consciousness. In the first stage (primitive communal society), dominance gained primacy over consumption through consciousness, which arose from the instinct of curiosity. It was the development of consciousness, which represents the first stage of human thought, that allowed the instinct for dominance, as an attribute of collectivism, to prevail over the instinct for consumption through labor relations. In the second stage (exploitative society), consciousness transformed into self-awareness through the denial of collective consciousness by individual self-awareness, the emergence of which is conditioned by the awareness of individual needs. Consequently, self-awareness, which is the second stage in the development of human thought, came under the influence of the instinct for consumption. The reliance of consumption on self-awareness allowed consumption to escape the primacy of dominance. Self-awareness, together with the instinct of curiosity, came under the control of the instinct for consumption. If, in the first stage, the instinct of curiosity worked directly to build society through the development of consciousness, then in the second stage, the same thing — that is, the development of thinking — occurred indirectly, through the development of consumption. Specifically, the development of self-awareness through the instinct of curiosity became a consequence and manifestation of the instinct of consumption. Thus, the instinct of curiosity came under the control of the instinct of consumption.

The development of self-awareness occurred under the control of the cognitive hierarchy, which in turn came under the control of the commercial hierarchy. This seems strange, but the state (the bureaucratic hierarchy) rarely interfered with religious cults, and if it did, it quickly ended in its demise. All religious cults always include a ritual of exchange with higher powers in the form of sacrifice, etc. While an object is involved in the exchange, an ideal promise of future consumption is given as an element of consumption. Consequently, the instinct of curiosity, along with the cognitive hierarchy, came under the control of the instinct of consumption through barter relations.

In the third stage (communist social system), dominance regained its primacy over consumption in the form of the mature primacy of labor relations over exchange relations, while the self-consciousness inherited from the second stage remained under the control of consumption. The transition to this third stage occurred through the suppression of individual self-consciousness by a collective consciousness that had not yet reached the level of reason, merely representing a return to the consciousness of the first stage, but armed with the ideas of the second stage of abstract thinking (the stage of self-consciousness), which were subordinated to the ideas of the first stage of consciousness, the ideas of collectivism. Class struggle is based on the instinct for consumption, and therefore cannot free society from the control of exchange relations, from an exploitative system. The instinct for dominance (also known as the instinct for violence and self-preservation) is required as an expression of collectivism, but at the same time, the instinct for dominance must be subordinated to the instinct of curiosity, which has escaped the control of the instinct for consumption. In this way, reason emerges from self-consciousness. Reason arises from the bifurcation of self-awareness, when self-awareness replaces its foundation, the instinct of consumption, with the instinct of curiosity through the practice of cognition. Consequently, reason is forced to turn the instinct of domination against the instinct of consumption, which is the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But at the same time, the instinct of curiosity, freed from the control of the instinct of consumption, fell under the control of the instinct of domination.

Marxists after Marx derived the dictatorship of the proletariat from the class struggle of the proletariat. This led to the conclusion that without universal proletarianization there would be no socialist revolution. But in practice, the proletariat is caught in a web of exchange relations, unable to escape. In reality, the transition to a communist system took place in a peasant country under the leadership of a proletariat that still retained a communal consciousness, not replaced by self-awareness. According to development theory, development proceeds through the following stages: formation-antagonism-harmony. Antagonism strives to completely negate formation, but to no avail, for in so doing it loses the object of negation and the meaning of existence. Therefore, formation, in a renewed form, returns as harmony, which is a synthesis of formation and antagonism. But synthesis is not the negation of antagonism by formation, for without antagonism there will be no harmony. Therefore, reason is the synthesis of collective consciousness and individual self-awareness. Hegel understood this when, in his «Phenomenology of Spirit,» he examined the transition of self-consciousness into reason. He wrote that as soon as reason establishes itself as universal, it immediately returns to self-consciousness. Therefore, after reason, through collective reason and religion, Hegel arrives at absolute knowledge, which is nothing other than spirit — that is, an abstract worldview or ideal theory of cognition.

The rational need for the collective to control the consumer instinct leads to the control of reason by the dominance instinct. But reason also gains the ability to spread through the dominance instinct. One successful breakthrough to reason occurred in the Russian Empire, and then reason spread through dominance, through the establishment of a dictatorship of primitive collective consciousness over self-consciousness in the form of a struggle between collectivism and individualism. After the successful establishment and strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR and the victory in the Second Imperialist World War, along with the old imperialists over the new imperialists (Germany and Japan), came the spread of communism to China, Korea, Vietnam, and Eastern Europe. Socialism arrived in Eastern Europe on bayonets and found itself in the conditions of the old self-consciousness, controlled by the consumer instinct — that is, controlled by exchange relations. Therefore, after the collapse of the USSR, socialism was quickly replaced by capitalism in Eastern Europe and the Baltic republics, as well as in the Transcaucasian republics. In the Central Asian republics and Mongolia, where feudal relations persisted under socialism, a natural transition from feudalism to capitalism occurred. In China, Korea, and Vietnam, the communist system relied on peasants as bearers of a primitive collective consciousness. This is why Mao’s strategy of encircling the city with the countryside led to the victory of the communist revolution. As a result of these revolutions, each country was divided into two states, communist and capitalist, with the capitalist state finding itself under the protection of imperialism. Only Vietnam was able to reunify after a difficult war with imperialism. Because the new identity was formed under the control of the dictatorship of the bureaucracy (the instinct for dominance retained power over the instinct for consumption), the restoration of capitalism took place within the framework of the communist system.

However, collectivism remains under the control of the consumer instinct and remains within the framework of self-awareness. The path to collective intelligence lies through the bifurcation of the collective’s self-awareness, with the emergence of reason within it. Self-awareness, as a consequence of the consumer instinct, will bifurcate with the emergence of reason, along with a new need, the need for personal development, and the transition to consumption (the use) of the curiosity instinct in the practice of cognition. This process is currently taking place under the control of the dominance instinct over the consumption instinct, under the primacy of bureaucracy over the commercial hierarchy.

The history of the communist system in its second stage of development (antagonism) involves the formation of self-awareness based on the consumer instinct, which occurs in the form of a denial of collective consciousness, but under the control of bureaucracy (under the control of the dominance instinct), which expresses collective consciousness. This process manifests a synthesis of the first (primitive communal) and second (exploitative) stages of social development. This is the essence of the third stage (communist) society and signifies the mature primacy of dominance (labor relations) over consumption (exchange relations). This synthesis must culminate in the emergence of reason from self-awareness, in the form of the mature primacy of collective consciousness over individual self-awareness. As a result of mature primacy, individualism will be transformed by collectivism in such a way that it can exercise free will in the interests of social development. Consequently, free will will be based not on the consumer instinct, but on the instinct of curiosity.

But since the instinct of curiosity in the mind, freed from the control of the consumer instinct (which is inherently characteristic of self-awareness), has come under the control of the dominance instinct, the practice of cognition still remains under the control of social practice. This signifies a developmental impasse, for society, through such cognition, cannot transcend its own limits and becomes stuck in a cycle. The problem with the dominance of labor collectives in society is that the network of labor relations generates hierarchy (bureaucracy), which consolidates society to the point that all development is halted. Collectivism always opposes development, since the majority in the collective belongs to the consumers (collectivism is based on the idea of consumption), and, accordingly, the hierarchy that grows out of the network of labor relations inevitably operates in the interests of the majority, that is, in the interests of the consumers.