Post #1531

When considering the cosmopolitan position, if we schematically imagine two peoples as A and B, then we can put forward the main provisions: 1. The imposition of people A, the values of A, to, for example, people B, as a single universal standard is false, since the origin and organic existence of a certain cultural element occurred in A, but not in B. Ultimately, this is chauvinism and deeper forms of hatred and rejection of the subjectivity of people B and other peoples who are not “A” people. People “B” become the target of division, fragmentation and total destruction. 2. In the event that the imposition of A on B occurs with the single participation of one or several representatives of B on side A, then the chauvinistic essence of the process does not change. It only adds that individual representatives of B already have a different cultural content, and are “a” - that is, an understated version of the original “A” and are its inferior and peripheral, non-subjective, non-independent inept replica exploited within “A”. Thus, the formula of Archeomodern can be deduced as: “ab” - or the presence of an element antagonistic to B, which cannot fully destroy B, but can reduce its significance. a - imperfect West inside Russia, b - imperfect and superficial bureaucratic Russia.